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, December 14, 1999

• 1121

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): I call the meeting to order. I see a quorum representative of both sides of the House, for purposes of hearing evidence.

Our order of the day today includes the honourable Speaker and the Clerk of the House, Mr. Robert Marleau. The subject matter is consideration of the performance report of the House of Commons administration, 1998-1999.

Welcome, Mr. Speaker. We will now proceed to review the performance report. I'm sure you have some opening comments, and the clerk may as well, so we can proceed.

Hon. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, I'll make some brief remarks on the highlights of the report. Following that, the clerk, his officials, and I will deal with any questions you may have.

[Translation]

I have the honour to present our Performance Report for the second time. Our first report, which came out last year, covered a period of 19 months, whereas this one covers a full fiscal year, from April 1998 to March 1999. This sets us on course for an annual reporting cycle, including the Report on Plans and Priorities for the upcoming fiscal year, which will be tabled in the spring, and the Performance Report for the previous fiscal year, which will be tabled in the fall.

[English]

This annual timetable will enable the House administration to measure its progress in the strategic directions adopted by the Board of Internal Economy and accurately evaluate its performance.

This year I am proud to say the employees of the House administration have once again done a great deal of very good work over this past year. Considerable initiative was shown in introducing improved measures that enabled members to obtain the information, services, resources, and advice they needed.

[Translation]

A number of key projects were initiated to respond to special situations. As you know, the House administration has put a great deal of effort into preparing a comprehensive contingency plan for the transition to the year 2000.

As well, Information Services personnel worked together with our riding offices, and I believe that over 90% of personal computers in those offices are now Y2K compatible. As for the rest, we are now working at replacing or upgrading them.

[English]

The business continuity working group, made up of staff from every service area of the House, has identified the essential services and resources required here in Ottawa to ensure we are set up to recall Parliament, should that be necessary, through the transition period to the new millennium.

• 1125

Information technology is definitely the resource that has evolved the most over the past year. The continuous upgrading and the excellent maintenance of our systems, combined with the impressive amount of timely and accurate information now accessible through our network, means we are now better equipped than ever with the information we need to do our work here and to share it with our constituents.

[Translation]

One of the greatest successes of 1998 and 1999 was the progress made in union-management relations. During the year, the House administration concluded negotiations on the five collective agreements that were still to be renewed following the six-year freeze on collective bargaining. You may remember that the sixth collective agreement had already been negotiated in the previous period.

All the agreements were successfully negotiated without the intervention of a third party. Both styles of negotiations were used, the interest-based approach and the more traditional positional style.

[English]

As a sidebar, and something I will happily report again during next year's presentation on the performance report, the House recently won a medal during the Technology in Government week's distinction awards 1999 gala. Because of our reporting timeframe, the award was not mentioned in this performance report, but it will be a highlight in next year's report.

The Integrated Resource Management Systems, which we know as IRMS, recently implemented at the House, won the bronze medal in the category “Serving Canadians better through IMIT innovations”, implementing medium to large IT projects. IRMS was also nominated in the category of “investing strategically in information management technology”.

[Translation]

I am also pleased to tell you about a work in progress, a reference tool entitled A Guide to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which will be published next year. The Bourinot project, named after Sir John Bourinot, House Clerk from 1880 to 1903, began several years ago and will thoroughly review House of Commons procedure and practice since Confederation. This reference book will be a precious work tool for members and personnel.

Another project you will no doubt be interested in is the greening of Parliament Hill. Although it is included in this year's Performance Report, it will no doubt play a greater role in next year's report. At that time, we will be in a better position to assess the progress in the implementation of a comprehensive environmental management system which will fully integrate this type of management in the planning process of House of Commons activities.

[English]

Looking ahead over the coming year, other key priorities will include succession planning, with the changing demographics of our staff, to ensure the continuity of leadership and key specialist competencies into the next Parliament. As IRMS goes live, ensuring that staff is well trained and work procedures and policies keep pace with this technological breakthrough, a new systems development project called PRISM was recently launched.

PRISM's objective is to integrate the information systems currently in use within Procedural Services in order to allow users greater access to information that is tailored to their requirements. In so doing, PRISM will carry out an in-depth review of the publishing process for parliamentary documents.

[Translation]

Lastly, we will continue to design results-based management and mechanisms. To achieve this goal, we will continue to fine-tune our performance measurement framework and to improve our corporate process even more in light of the forecast new expenditure review.

Much remains to be done, Mr. Chairman, but this year's report shows that we are on the right track to meeting the goal of results-based management as adopted by the Board of Internal Economy in 1995.

• 1130

[English]

I'll simply finish by saying I'm looking forward to entering the new millennium confident we will be able to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

On behalf of the Board of Internal Economy and the rest of our colleagues, I want to extend a sincere word of thanks to our staff who are here with us for their excellent work over the past year. I did not introduce them, but you know Mr. Marleau, of course; Audrey O'Brien, one of our chief clerks; and of course General Gus Cloutier.

With that, we can handle it any way you like, Mr. Chairman. If you have questions, we'll be happy to address ourselves to them.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Speaker. I suggest we let colleagues drive the issue, unless there's something specific any of your accompanying colleagues would like to address.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: No, I think this about covers it. Everything's in the book here, Derek, I mean, Mr. Chairman—what the hell, Derek. I'm not going to get too formal in this thing.

The Chair: Okay, well that's great. I will look to members, Ms. Parrish and then Mr. Solomon.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to compliment you and your team over the heavy voting last week. That was absolutely incredible. Nobody got short-tempered or seemed to get tired. Everybody was absolutely amazing, and we all appreciate it very much. I would also like to generally compliment you on the staff I assume falls under your purview, which is the Library of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: It does.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It is just incredibly efficient. When I need something, I get it really quickly. They're always cheerful and always want to know if I need more. Your legal department, Diane Davidson, Jamie, and all the people who work there are just incredible.

I have a question about a letter some of us received in the last week or so. Section 6 says “ensuring an effective committed workforce to serve members”. How do they bargain? The ones who are non-unionized, the people who work on the Hill and serve us so well, how are we sure they're being paid comparable wages to what they'd be getting somewhere else? It isn't Jamie who has asked.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I'm going to let Audrey jump in on this, but generally we use Treasury Board guidelines. They're guidelines for us, and not written in stone. We take it from there and try to apply them to our particular circumstances.

Before I turn it over to Audrey, may I address two things you brought up. I mentioned to the clerk and the staff that I was very pleased with the way everything unrolled in the last week, with all of the votes. The response I got from the clerk and the others was “Well, we were doing our jobs”. Yes, but they were doing their jobs very well, in my opinion. I thank you for bringing that up and putting it on the record.

The second thing is our parliamentary library staff are very highly trained and highly skilled. We're very proud of them. You are aware that next year—not this year, but the coming year—we will be closing the Library of Parliament—that is to say, the physical library. We'll still be giving all of the services the members need, only in a different milieu.

The reason we'll be doing that—I know that you've read about it in the paper—is because there will be extensive renovations to the library, so we can keep it functioning and as beautiful as it is. That will take perhaps two years—I don't have the figure. The General says it will take two to three years.

On the specific question, Audrey, do you have anything you would like to add on the means we use to negotiate?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien (Principal Clerk, Table Research Branch, House of Commons): I'd just like to say there's an annual review of the salaries of the unrepresented employees, who are almost 600 in number. What we are informed by, in terms of the review of their salaries, is what has been negotiated by the represented employees in the different bargaining units and what has been negotiated in Treasury Board settlements. So we keep our workforce basically running parallel—obviously it's separate from the public service—to what's happening in government-wide circles.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: On a more specific question, will the non-represented staff participate in all the pay equity that's currently being negotiated and all the pay equity back-pay that will be paid out to the civil servants?

• 1135

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: No, they won't be participating in that, because the Board of Internal Economy basically made a decision in the late 1980s to review classification particularly of clerical and secretarial jobs to ensure that these jobs were in fact being dealt with in an equitable fashion with regard to equity legislation. By virtue of certain differentials they found in the study that took place, the separate categories of secretarial and clerical were abolished and the ADS category, which runs from ADS-1 through to ADS-11, was created. Pretty well all the unrepresented employees are now under that particular category.

What happened then was that in order to address the differentials that were found in the case of inequity, largely to do with secretarial and clerical, on the one hand, a lump sum payment was made, which was retroactive to a year prior to the study, and there were adjustments to the salary scale itself in order to rectify the inequities that had been identified. So basically the Board of Internal Economy, by virtue of the steps it took in the late 1980s, rectified the inequities that were found, and therefore there's no need for an adjustment at this stage.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Okay, good. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Solomon.

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

Welcome. And on behalf of our party we'd like to express our gratitude for the very professional manner in which the vote was taken last week, which you and your staff and everybody else was involved with. Congratulations on that. We always enjoy working with you.

I have a number of questions. I'll start with the East Block tunnel. I don't know what the exact cost was, but I've heard quotes between $1.2 million and $3.5 million. Exactly how much did this tunnel cost?

Major-General Gus Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons): The House is not implicated in any way in that project, so we really don't know. It's purely a Public Works project, financed by Public Works, and we had no dealings at all with that project. So I'm sorry, I cannot help you out there.

Mr. John Solomon: Sorry about that. I'll proceed to the next question.

Are you involved with the Wellington Building and the health and safety aspect of that building, or is that Public Works as well?

MGen Gus Cloutier: It's a Public Works building.

We have a health and safety committee that looks at the various issues that are brought up from time to time. I know they're contemplating projects, such as an HVAC project—HVAC is heat, ventilation, air conditioning, and all that—at a cost of $2 million. This project has been in the book for realization for two years, but it's still on hold at the moment, namely because of anticipated renovations and moves in the next two years. They are also anticipating perhaps changes in the floor plate—that is, what will be on the second and third floor. Will it be offices, or more temporary committee rooms perhaps? That's the reason that project is on hold at the moment.

Mr. John Solomon: Last year the NDP raised with you, and with the Minister of Public Works as well, the issue of the “trailer park”, as we call it. That's the second floor of the Wellington Building. The offices are built like little trailers. We had an asbestos problem and had to move a couple of our colleagues out of there.

We were told a year ago that offices in the Justice Building would be available in the summer of 1999. It's now almost 2000. I wonder if somebody could advise us as to whether these staff members and members of Parliament in that trailer park area, where they still suffer all kinds of illnesses.... We lose a lot of work time because of illnesses in the air.

Personally, I don't spend a lot of time in the Wellington Building because when I go there my allergies react. There's something in that trailer park area that is not healthy. I know a number of studies have been undertaken, but I guess the question is will we be able to move these members out of there before they are hospitalized, and how soon can we do that?

• 1140

MGen Gus Cloutier: You will recall that when we appeared at your standing committee early this year, that same question was raised. My reply at that time was that it would be the summer of 2000.

As an update report now, I can tell you that we are doing the deficiency list in the building with Public Works. The next stage after that is what you call the BCC, the connectivity of the building, which means the cabling, furniture, and so on.

The contracts have not been given by Public Works on the BCC yet. I anticipate that will be done in February. You're looking at an eight-month project to complete the building, so the earliest I could see that building available for occupancy would be very late in 2000.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: John, I want to add something here. We had it written in blood that we were going to be in there in 1997. We extracted that promise. Well, I'll tell you what, there was a bloodbath, and nothing happened there.

If I were guessing, the way things have been going, if we're completely ready to move in there by the next Parliament, the next election, I think at this point I would be happy. Realistically, that's where we are.

Mr. John Solomon: So if there's an early spring election in 2000, we could move in the summer of 2000?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: The next election, whenever it comes. I don't get a chance to—

Mr. John Solomon: Whoever is around can move in. Okay, thank you.

There are a couple of other issues, one relating to the staffing questions Ms. Parrish had raised.

What percentage increases have our staff on the Hill received in the last year or two and will they receive in the next year or two? Has that been decided? I know there was a freeze for a number of years. I wouldn't mind having some information on that, if possible.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I don't know what's available.

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Could you define “our staff”? Do you mean the members' staff?

Mr. John Solomon: I mean the 600 employees of the House of Commons you're responsible for.

Mr. Robert Marleau: There are 1,400-and-some employees, of whom approximately 600 are unrepresented.

The represented employees, the five unions, of course were, as the Speaker said in his opening remarks.... We're somewhat proud that the negotiating bargaining process was successful, and every one of them signed on the dotted line with management after a long freeze. I think that's a bit of an achievement compared to other public institutions.

The actual rate of pay increase varied from union to union, but it boils down to roughly 5% as an average, 2.5% and 2.5%. Then after the collective bargaining agreements were all settled, the Board of Internal Economy extended the same pay increase to the unrepresented employees.

Mr. John Solomon: Okay, thank you.

Regarding some of the pressures that MPs, at least my office and some of my colleagues and my caucus, are now facing, we have a members' operating budget that is pretty standard, and everyone gets the same amount of money. I have found that over the last number of years, three or four years in particular, we're getting a huge increase in electronic mail. We still have our boxes of mail we get every day and paper, but the problem we have is that we don't have the staffing to handle all the e-mail. So our practice is that we basically delete most of the e-mail, because we just don't have the time. Some mornings after a weekend, we'll get to the office and there will be 300 messages, and we have only two staff here and two in my riding. I think most members are facing the same challenges.

Has the Board of Internal Economy had that raised with them before? Would there be some consideration for these new technologies, which are really good but add so much more work for a staff that's already overworked? Is there any kind of consideration for budget increases, for example, that would handle an additional staffing person?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We've had some budget increases for the different staffs already.

As to one of the things that was brought up, I'll ask you the question: If your e-mail has increased so much, has your regular mail decreased?

• 1145

Mr. John Solomon: No, it hasn't. It's about the same. We have 3,300 registered lobbyists in Ottawa. If they send a member of Parliament, and they do, two or three pieces of mail a year, that's 10,000 pieces, not to mention your constituents. We get mail from not just my riding, but parts of Saskatchewan, right across the country. We don't know where the e-mail is coming from because it doesn't have a return address.

On issues that are of a pleading nature, we try to e-mail them back and get their address. If it's not in our riding we can't help them, and we try to pass it on to other MPs. It's just the labour to deal with this new technology.... I'm a bit of naysayer on technology because it's created a hell of a lot more work and a hell of a lot more cost, in my view, than it's been productive. It's productive in some ways, but it's just all this extra work. And our staff are hired to provide not just administrative support, but research support, and that's being watered down because of the extra effort in terms of the electronic information we have to deal with.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: The old story—we devise these new machines so you will have your work “a little bit easier”, and what we do is we multiply the work so much that it expands exponentially.

I'll ask my clerk to make some comment on it.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I can sympathize with the position you have just outlined. I think we're all in that new context, that the new technologies that were supposed to give us more free time in fact have provided more access to people, to citizens, in a way they didn't have access before in a timely fashion.

Also I think we've created through these new technologies an expectation by the citizen to get a quick response. Before, you put a stamp on the envelope and you got it in the office, you had a couple of days to respond, and they'd check their mailbox four or five days down the road. Now they e-mail you at 10 a.m. and they expect a response at 4 p.m., plus they have the means to confirm that you have read the e-mail if they attach a flag to it—or that your office has read it.

It's a larger industry workplace issue, I think, which will have to be addressed through a series of techniques. There are means to sort the e-mail. We had one flooded network a day in response to a public issue, where the system went down because e-mails were coming in from all over the world, some of them addressed, some of them to all members, and we managed to reroute those if they weren't addressed specifically to a member's account.

We'll be discussing over the next year's Parliament the larger information management strategy with the whips on techniques that can be used. If it's not addressed specifically to a member, then it's general; we can treat it as something that didn't come in an envelope through the post office. If it's addressed to all members it can go into a file folder by subject category. You can get a message from the network administrator saying there is a general distribution on such an issue and it's up to you if you want to download it and check it, but not load your account with spam, as they call it in the industry. So there are techniques like that.

We're also looking at training modules for members' staff on how to manage the e-mail accounts. We have provided CD software, training software, which is available to members as well.

The larger issue, however, I don't think is about to go away. It will remain a challenge to continue managing both e-mail and snail mail.

On the question of budgets, if I may just try to answer that, there was at the beginning of the Parliament in the first round of estimates, you may recall, a one-time 10% adjustment to the members' operating budgets to catch up over the freeze period. I'm not at liberty, and neither is the Speaker, to divulge the estimates for the coming year, which won't be coming to this committee until they're tabled in the House next February. The Board of Internal Economy met last night and finalized the estimates. They will answer your question yes or no as to whether there are forecast increases for members' operating budgets.

Mr. John Solomon: One final question, if I might, Mr. Chair. You're very generous.

• 1150

The Chair: You're way over time, but you're doing such a good job, we'll let you finish.

Mr. John Solomon: My final question pertains to an issue I've raised before, and this is my party's interest, or at least my interest, in seeing the Board of Internal Economy be more open and transparent.

There are jurisdictions in other parts of the country where Board of Internal Economy meetings are open to the other members and to even the press, to the public in general, and anybody can attend, except for matters dealing with personnel and issues of a more confidential nature. The general business of the Board of Internal Economy in Saskatchewan, for example, is open. I'm wondering whether the Speaker might comment on whether or not the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy might be moving toward that more open process that other jurisdictions have adopted, I might add quite successfully.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I will make a comment on it.

You will know that over the past few years, for example, all of the minutes of the meetings are being released. When we deal with matters in the Board of Internal Economy, I would say the overwhelming majority of the issues are of a sensitive personal nature, either to individuals or—I don't know if you could have a personal nature with regard to parties. For that reason, the board seems to be functioning very well, and we feel that with the release of the minutes, which are commented on every month when we release them.... There's always an article appearing in the media of some kind, either television or otherwise. So far we have made some moves in that direction, and we would be contemplating perhaps other things, suggestions of members of Parliament like yourself.

The Board of Internal Economy has functioned well for Parliament over the years in that respect, and I for one would be loath at this time to open up the meetings, especially, as you point out, because of the personal nature of some of the things we are dealing with in there, with regard to individuals and with regard to the parties in Parliament that are involved—you know, when we deal with, for example, contracts, or if we're going to deal with renovations.

You raised the question, I believe, about the tunnel, and of course we were not directly involved in that, in terms of details of the whole thing, but we did know that kind of work was going on. So for us to make a statement on something when we're not really involved in the whole thing.... You know, this information comes to us not for a decision, but for information, and if, as you say, it were open a bit more then I'm sure the impression we would give is we make final decisions on almost everything there.

We deal with those things that affect us on the Hill, and I believe the board has been well served with the means we have used in the past. But we're always open to suggestions from our members.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Dalphond-Guiral, and then Mr. Richardson.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I would like to begin by apologizing for arriving a little late. I was keeping my eye on the committee chairman, who left the room about five minutes before I did. I'm sure everyone will understand that given the choice between being on time and heeding the call of democracy, I did not hesitate to choose the latter. Given the number of empty seats, you wonder what is happening to the state of democracy.

That being said, I have read the report you presented. There is however something I can clearly state on my behalf and on behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, and that is that we are always pleasantly surprised by the professionalism and the quality of the services we receive, be it services provided by senior officials or members' staff. I'm pleased to make this point before the committee today. I myself have been on the Hill for six years now and the quality of the services has been consistent. That's what I call class. It would be nice if such class were to be found everywhere all the time.

• 1155

Second, I completely agree with Mr. Solomon regarding the extra work and frustration resulting from E-mail. We are on the cusp of the third millennium and E-mail will become increasingly important to us. People are not calling anymore and, for whatever reason, are using E-mail. I know that I am not the member on Parliament Hill who is the most in demand by any stretch of the imagination, in fact, I'm just an average MP, but my parliamentary assistant has to check my E-mail three times a day. If he did not do so, we would end up having to sift through hundreds of messages. You can't just delete E-mail without reading it. That's a fact.

As a member, I've chosen to pay my staff a reasonable and fair salary and have hired only one person for my office on the Hill. Perhaps you could conduct a little survey to see how much time MPs spend on their E-mail. I would appreciate that.

If you're going to adopt a common technology, you have to make sure that you can meet the expectations arising from such a system. I've been assured that there is a more efficient way to manage E-mail, although I doubt you'll get more than a 50% improvement in efficiency.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I would like to briefly respond to what Mado just said and remind you that I am a veteran of the House of Commons.

Just before my time on the Hill, 25 years ago, an MP hired a secretary to work in his parliamentary office and sometimes a single secretary worked for two members of Parliament. Each member also had a secretary in his riding office. As Mr. Solomon indicated, MPs were then allowed to hire two secretaries for each of the offices. Today, members can manage their budgetary envelope differently. For instance, with the same budget, some MPs choose to hire five people, three here and two in their riding.

I think the situation has improved over time. Computers are everywhere and we all have one. But since technology is constantly evolving, it may be a good idea to study the issue more closely. If members don't raise these kinds of questions with us, they may never be addressed. Perhaps we should see whether we can provide MPs with more support, money or staff.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I would like to add a few comments.

As I said earlier, technology is constantly advancing and we now have software that sorts E-mail. Since you are the second member to raise this issue, I think our information services should be a little more proactive and consult the whips. Your E-mail is just as private as any letter delivered by Canada Post. The post office doesn't open your letters.

• 1200

There is a software package which automatically sorts messages coming from the outside that are addressed to all members. They have a code. The software puts them in another file which members and their staff can consult. Only a little flag appears on the screen indicating that a message has been sent to the file, so you can consult it if you're interested.

You can also sort messages coming from the outside that are addressed to every caucus member. These are not specific messages you are sending to other MPs in your party over the Intranet. Those messages won't be sorted, only those coming from the outside, which are not specifically sent to your E-mail address, but to all members or all members within a party.

I don't want to start a pilot project before having talked it over with whips. Perhaps the time has come to raise this matter and to find ways to better manage the system. But it is ultimately up to you whether you wish to respond to an E-mail or not.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The problem you have raised is one aspect of this issue, although you can't wait three weeks before deciding to read an E-mail.

Mr. Robert Marleau: All E-mails addressed to the Bloc Québécois could be automatically sent to your caucus research service, where someone could sort it out and decide who gets what E-mail. As you know, it is sometimes easier to send a message to all caucus members rather than to just a few. When that happens, 40 people read the same thing. So it might be useful if your research service sorted through the messages first.

If you like the idea of that type of software, we can talk to whips about it and study the possibility of installing it in the coming year.

[English]

The Chair: If I may just suggest, then, if there are no objections around the table, this committee will ask you to attempt to put together a proposal that would assist MPs in managing the volumes of e-mail. All right.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We'll take that as direction.

The Chair: Good, thank you.

Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

I don't have a lot of real concern about what's happened with the budget we've received. I found it rather.... I know this is always judgmental, but I think it's a fairly generous one. I think there's room in there sometimes to make efficiencies within your own operation and how you set up and how you handle it. And you'll take a look at where the money is going and whether it is valuable investment.

I have every half-year a meeting with all my staff—the two members here and the two members in my riding—to look at where we can cut back and see that service is continued at a good level, but at the same time we put away some savings, because at certain times there's an opportunity that certain people have moved up with the quality of their work and deserve an increase, and that comes from within-house savings. If you've maintained that kind of philosophy, that there's a fair reward for a job well done, then at some stage you can write yes, after your annual report with me...rather than saying I would like to give it to you but I don't have it.

I think when we look at the next step on where we are on cost savings within the office—and there can be great ones, like e-mail versus sending fax.... I mean, it has to be huge—the money we've saved over the past year with the fax being a long-distance telephone call, and there's no charge for e-mail. There are certain times you have to use the fax because of some of the graphics you want to put on it. But certainly that's a big money factor. Mind you, they're not all overpaid on my staff, but they're certainly not hurting, when I look around the rest of the House of Commons.

So we as so-called managers have the opportunity to bring our teams together and then let them enjoy the opportunity to make suggestions at least twice a year. It's surprising what they come up with—very sensible things that you've been overlooking for two or three years. All of a sudden there's an opportunity to save us $7,000—that's a lot of money.

• 1205

I found that instead of talking about something else, if we talk about money they're in the loop, and sometimes they're the beneficiaries of good ideas. That's the only chance I have to raise salaries and they're always onside. I put that forward as something we've been able to do to achieve some kind of incremental salary growth, by in-house savings.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Richardson.

We can go to second rounds. Your chair had a couple of quick.... Well, I'm not too sure any question is quick any more; if the question is quick, the answer might not be. But if colleagues don't mind, I'll try to hit a couple of quick ones.

Is there a mechanism existing out there now to provide for client comments on the quality of printing services? There has been more than one instance I'm aware of in the last month or two when the quality of the final product—and turnaround time seems fine—is in question. What steps, if any, are out there? What procedures are out there to monitor quality control for our House printing?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: This is the first I have heard that there is some question about the quality of the printing, myself.

The Chair: So a letter to the clerk would be one option.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Yes, a letter to me. I think that this would be a beginning. If we do hear about things like the quality of printing, we're going to look into it and we're going to get to the bottom of it.

The Chair: Mr. Speaker, the quickest solution for a member when there's a problem with the printing is simply to have the job done again and hope it's done right, but there may not be a record of the misfires. So it's a question of the efficiency of the printing operation, which I know has improved its efficiency remarkably, in any event. It simply may be that the methods they've adopted have provided such huge efficiencies that once in a while there's going to be a misfire, and that's okay, because overall the costs are less. I'm guessing, but if that's the case, you can tell me.

Mr. Robert Marleau: When the printing is done in-house, there is complete tracking of the blues and we request the blues within a certain amount of time and we get them back from the members' offices, so if there's a misfire in those kinds of cases, it's tracked. Those cases, I believe, are way down.

Where recently we've had a problem is with the printing that's been sent outside when we exceed our capacity. I received several complaints from members in the last three or four months, particularly this fall. What happened there was that when the blues went out to the member, they weren't checked for quality control coming back from the outside printer. Then we get the feedback, and some of it had been pretty poor. We have now rerouted that so that the blues come from the outside printer to our quality control in printing, and even before the member has to look at them, if the photograph is fuzzy or it was printed wrongly, it goes back at that level even before the member gets it. So we have set in a procedure to try to intercept and reduce the frustration for members in that kind of context. That doesn't mean that some don't slip by—it may happen.

Where I think we still have a problem is that the outside printers aren't quite as responsive in the timelines, and if we have to intercept and send it back, there's a further delay. We are proactively now trying to inform the member that while we promised the job within ten days, it came back and it was wrong, so we sent it back, and there might be a delay. This fall, Violaine Sauvé, who heads up the printing service, put that procedure in place to try to diminish the client frustration with the outside printing.

The Chair: Thank you. I'm not going to ask any more questions.

I think what we'll do here is stick to one question per member if we're going to do second rounds and that way we'll divide the time equitably. So I'll go to Ms. Parrish for the second round.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'm going to ask a series of questions around one issue.

My understanding, in listening to everybody about the way they treat their staffs and the way they pay their staffs, is it's a pretty individual thing as far as MPs are concerned. I know the federal government is supreme over provincial governments when it comes to how we handle staff up here. But do we try, as a rule of thumb, to follow the human rights commission findings of the various provinces, particularly Ontario, which we find ourself in, or do we consider ourselves above all that?

• 1210

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We would never consider ourselves above the law in any case, and if it deals with human rights, every consideration would be given to the individuals we have there. So in response to your question, we bend ourselves into pretzels to make sure that all of the human rights of everyone who's employed by us are adhered to.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: And as far as staffing is concerned, some people could have six or seven staff being paid very small amounts of money—there's no control over that at all.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: When you say “very small amounts of money”, they could be part-time staff, I don't know that, but the members are masters of their own budgets. I don't think it is the prerogative, for example, of the Board of Internal Economy to say you must pay x, y, or z. But surely we would all be guided or even directed by a minimum wage. If a person isn't getting a minimum wage, I personally don't think that would be fair. And if a member were doing that, I would hope that would be brought to the attention of the Board of Internal Economy, and we could give some direction on it.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Derek, since you've asked them to come up with an e-mail strategy, one of the things I want to caution everybody about is that when you send an e-mail back out someone can change it on their screen before they print it and give quite a different translation to it. So we always send hard copies back; we don't send e-mails if there's anything controversial on it. And I think everyone should be very cautious about that, because it hasn't happened to me but it's happened to others where you've sent a response by e-mail, someone changes it when they receive it on their computer, prints it up and says this came from Carolyn Parrish or whatever. So you have to be really careful when you're doing that to figure out how we can be protected.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I have a question to ask. Can I ask you a question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Mr. Speaker has a question.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: This issue interests me. Isn't e-mail a legal document?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Supposedly it is, but I don't think we have enough protections in place. It can be changed and they could say it was a glitch, it was a blip, something happened as it was coming out. It would be very hard to prove that they intentionally changed it, but one word can change the intent of an entire letter.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Make a yes into a no and there you are.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Just be careful. I'm not a paranoid; they really are out after us.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Again on that, technology is changing very, very fast. We have the same problem with Hansard up on the Internet. You can download Hansard on the Internet, make a change on it, and send it to someone else, and it would look like the real Hansard but you've made changes to it. We're currently—our IT people and Louis Bard, our CIO—looking at software that becomes an auto-signature document, which is going to become a standard in the printing industry. In other words, it is coded in such a fashion that if it is altered it is verifiable. And the same thing will apply to e-mail. Each individual account would have this auto-signature so that it is verifiable if it is altered. It's not quite a fingerprint, if you like, but that technology is within weeks of being available.

The Chair: Good.

Madam Dalphond-Guiral and then Mr. Solomon.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Following the Speaker's question, I would like to give you an example. It's the time for Christmas cards and I always choose a card made by an artist in my riding. I get a certain number of colour cards printed up by a printer in my riding, and I also get a certain number of black-and- white cards printed by the House printer. The House printer gave me some proofs, but it was difficult to assess the quality of the printing. I have to admit that I was extremely disappointed this year. I even brought the negative to the printer. So there is no excuse for a job not well done. But the print was so pale, grey and fuzzy, that the cards were almost unacceptable. What could I do? Have them reprinted? That really wasn't an option given the shortage of time. It was very frustrating, not only for myself, but also for the artist and for those who will receive the card, even though they don't know what the original, which is in my office, looks like. The printing job could have been 100 times better than it was.

• 1215

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Were the cards printed by a private company or by the House printer?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The black-and-white cards were printed here, by the House of Commons, unless the House printer was overworked and contracted the job out.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I will look into the matter and let you know what happened.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Yes, certainly.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I brought one of the cards and I will also bring an original colour copy.

Mr. Robert Marleau: If you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you gave me a copy so I can look into the matter, after which I will get back to you.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It was very frustrating.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I'd like to underscore this extra work by staff with respect to the information technologies and then ask a question on another issue.

When I was elected six years ago, one of my four staff I hired was a computer expert who had the knowledge to do the word processing and the computer information technology things that had to be done. Since that time, all of my staff now have to be computer trained, so we've had to take a lot of training—and the House of Commons provides good training for that. But in the riding offices we have problems in terms of certain programs. We have to bring in consultants. We have to pay for that out of our own budgets.

I have a very good friend who has been a friend since university days and who is a very successful business person in Winnipeg. He employs between 50 and 60 people in the computer consulting business. He makes a lot of money. I had a chat with him last year, and I said to him that all these programs we get that are supposed to be state of the art and so good never work. I said to him, “So tell me, do any programs that you know of actually work?” He said “That's why I'm rich, John—because none of them work.” He said he gets the best programs, from all over North America—the States and Canada—and the reason he makes so much money and his employees are so well paid and making so much money is that none of these things ever work. And if they do work, they always go down, so guess what? They have to call his company and he has to fix it.

So be aware of this kind of approach. This is a legitimate story that I've told you. I can give you his name later if you like and you can confirm it. This illustrates, in my view, the need for more resources for members of Parliament, because I've just had to hire somebody in my riding.... It was a program that was provided with my computer, which has been running fine but has broken down. To fix it is going to cost $500 for a two-day visit, which we're going to pay out of our budget somehow. I'm not sure how we will do that.

So I underline and underscore the need for members of Parliament to be provided with enough support in that area.

The issue I wanted to raise is with respect to the employees who are unrepresented, as you refer to them. The NDP caucus has an unofficial—or official, depending on who you talk to—collective agreement with our employees. They're called the Parliamentary Association Support Staff—PASS, for short. In this collective agreement, we provide certain basic rights and obligations of both staff and employers—those being members of Parliament.

I am wondering whether the Speaker or Mr. Marleau could comment on whether or not the unrepresented employees in the House of Commons could be provided with, if not an official involvement with the union, at least an unofficial collective agreement that would outline their obligations and outline the obligations and protections that most people are afforded through these agreements.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Even there, when we do the bargaining, when you say they're “unrepresented”, there are people we have to bargain with. There has to be somebody across the table. So to the extent that the unrepresented are surely represented by someone, then it would probably be incumbent upon them if they wanted to proceed in a such a fashion. It's something we would surely take into consideration should something like that occur in the months and years ahead.

Correct me, Bob, but I believe the overwhelming majority of our staff on the Hill are unionized, and the others are treated as if they are unionized. They have the same rights for us to deal with them. We would be very cognizant of the fact that although they are not represented by a union, they are our employees and they are our representatives. Over the years I have satisfied myself that we treat them just as well as any other employees we have—and rightly so.

• 1220

Audrey or Bob...?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I think the board, as the employer, might have quite a response from the other unions if it tried to fashion and propose some kind of association of unrepresented employees. I would expect a reaction from the other unions. But the board, as the employer for all unrepresented employees.... We used to call them “employees under the administrative jurisdiction of the Speaker”, but they all are, even—

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: They're like independent members.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The board does extend to those employees, apart from the annual increase they receive based on the average of what has been reached at the collective bargaining table, the same benefits and the same working conditions across the board for unrepresented. So the unrepresented at the House of Commons in fact benefit from the best of the collective agreement that's on the table—if it's applicable to their job. Obviously we don't extend a post office uniform to the clerk of the committee. But what is applicable to the context of another employee is extended by the board as an employer. Grievance procedures are the same. Human resources policies are all the same.

Mr. John Solomon: If a union decided—and the employees initiated it—to unionize them, would that be a problem? Is there a restriction upon that?

Mr. Robert Marleau: No. There's the—

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: You have to ask a question. In regard to those who are unionized, were they in any way impeded? The answer is no. Collectively, if they want to move in that way, that's their business.

Mr. John Solomon: That's their choice? Okay.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act provides for a process for them too.

Mr. John Solomon: Okay. Good. Thank you.

The Chair: Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but it sounds like the group that has been referred to as unrepresented is actually self-represented. They may be unrepresented by a trade union, but they're certainly represented by those among themselves who they choose to represent them at bargaining.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Yes, they are.

The Chair: Now I'm going to add another question or two.

Let's get back to the Justice Building. This building, as I understand it, is not yet within the parliamentary precincts. Has it been turned over? Is it part of our parliamentary precincts? If it is, someone has to carry the can on the renovation. If I'm counting correctly, we're two years behind completion—unless I misinterpreted. Now, if this happened anywhere else in the country, there would be a bankruptcy imminent, because you can't take on a project and be two years late unless you have a billionaire behind you throwing money into the pot.

Who's managing the project? I accept that a renovation is a whole lot tougher than a design-build. Everyone realizes that. But there's nobody in the building. It's free to be worked on. So who's the project manager and why is it over two years behind schedule?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: It is Public Works that's in charge of that, and it comes under the purview of the Minister of Public Works, who is in charge of public works.

The Chair: When do they file for bankruptcy? They have to be out of money by now.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Well, I haven't discussed that particular aspect with the minister myself, but if it were discussed by this committee with the minister perhaps you could get answers, which I would be very interested in receiving myself.

The Chair: Yes, well.... If members wish to pursue that, they will take it up themselves, but it's an unanswered question. I realize it's a Public Works—

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: But there's a place to get the answer.

The Chair: Sure there is.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: It's just not from me.

The Chair: I agree, Mr. Speaker.

The release and publication of the procedural manual for members of Parliament in the spring—the procedure and practices manual tentatively scheduled for March or April—is a wonderful landmark. It's going to give access for a whole lot of MPs to one source of information for parliamentary procedures that don't happen every day, things they want to become familiar with, so it's going to facilitate the work of all MPs. My suggestion or question is this: I hope that when we embark on this, when there is the launch, there will be adequate communication.

A voice: Partying.

The Chair: Yes, there will be some celebration, but I'm focusing on communication to go with it, so that every single member who is capable of reading in either official language will have the opportunity to realize that he or she now has access to a relatively comprehensive picture of our practice and procedures.

• 1225

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Yes, I know that you have a very great interest in this. I think all members should have, and I'll tell you why.

Bourinot came out with his rules—I guess it started in 1880—and they were printed in 1903. It's a century since we really got into the bowels of our procedures and brought them up to date. I wish I could take credit for it, but it was our clerk, Bob, in conjunction with Camille Montpetit, who went ahead with this thing, with the rewriting of the rules so that they're in language we can all understand.

If they're anywhere near as used and as “good” as Bourinot's, maybe in the next century we'll have another group taking a crack at them, because it's that extensive. I have had access to some of the work they have done, and Bob has kept me up to date on the whole thing. They will be coming out this spring. There will be information, and yes, I think in our own sense, it will be a celebration of what we have done. We have even had inquires from the Commonwealth.

I'd like to blow the horn of this staff, whom you have all complimented. We are seen as one of the foremost, most professional staffs in all of the Commonwealth, and I'm very proud of that. And I'm proud we're going to be coming out with this book.

Bob, do you want to add something to that?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Only that in terms of the timing, we're looking at having Mr. Speaker table the manual in the House the first sitting Wednesday in February. If our deadlines are all met—and mine have been met, it's now up to the publisher to meet his—it should be as early as February.

It will be very comprehensive. The big advantage, Mr. Lee.... And this is a team effort; it's not just the musings of the clerk and the former deputy clerk. It is a real team effort. So in terms of the succession planning commitments we've made, we're trying to deal with this intellectual capital in a concrete way. At the same time, we own the copyright.

The difficulty with Beauchesne's and Bourinot is that the copyrights were in private hands. The Bourinot family held the copyright, and we've never been able to update it as a consequence. Beauchesne's was held by Carswell, and there were complicated negotiations for the fifth and the sixth editions—very complicated in sixth edition. This ought to become—and I'll wait for your reviews when you see it—the manual fully in control of the House for future editions, so that it can be kept up to date in a timely fashion and not be, as the Speaker said, sixty or seventy years out of date before we get hold of it again.

The Chair: That's great.

Now, a number of members have indicated single questions. Did you still have one, Mr. Richardson?

Mr. John Richardson: It's a question and a comment. First is the comment.

I would like to thank the people who did the renovation in the Wellington Building on the offices that were released a year and a half to two years ago. I found them to be the most functional offices on the Hill. The airflow was good, the lighting was good, and there was certainly plenty of room in the area where the staff would work. I just pass that on. The colours were soft colours, and it was a pleasant environment. So you can take that for what it's worth.

The question on the staffing is that I think the involvement of Ms. Davidson, the lawyer, has been a great help for members of Parliament in resolving problems. I don't know if it comes through your office, Mr. Speaker, or Bob's office. It's a comfort level to be able to get that kind of advice. Certainly she has been very professional to a lot of us who were seeking that kind of advice.

• 1230

I have very few concerns, only the ones that always will come up. We are sort of private enterprisers, each one of us, in looking after our budgets, and sometimes we share with each other and we learn something from it, but never more than in the annual meeting that we have here, and I want to thank you for that.

The Chair: Madam Dalphond-Guiral, did you have a question?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: No.

[Translation]

The Chair: I apologize.

[English]

Ms. Parrish, and then Mr. Solomon.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I don't want to defend the Minister of Public Works, but I want to correct some impressions. He's quite capable of defending himself.

We've all talked about changes in technology and the game plan for the renovation of the Hill's buildings, which in my opinion are the most valuable buildings in Canada. When we travel to other countries, we go and look at Westminster and all these buildings that are quite beautifully maintained, so it would be a major crime if we didn't maintain the buildings here.

What is happening is that technology is getting ahead of the plans, which are sometimes four and five years old. So the minister has stopped the renovations—and there are certain reporters in the room who helped encourage him to do that by publishing figures, dates, and so forth. He formed a committee that is represented by many of the staff groups on the Hill, with a senator on it and so forth, to come up with a game plan for the next couple of years so that they can be renovated efficiently, thoroughly, and properly.

He also put a hold on things for the year 2000 celebrations, because you don't want scaffolds all over the Hill while we have thousands, probably millions, of visitors.

So, no, the Minister of Public Works is not going bankrupt. Yes, he has everything absolutely under control. And I would suggest that if the committee wants, we should invite him here to talk about this again, because it has been very well publicized that the reason everything is on hold and slowing down is because plans have changed from the time they were first developed, and he wants to be completely responsive to the needs for electronics and everything else on the Hill, including electronic voting.

As I say, I'm not here to defend him. He's doing a first-rate job. But if you would like.... I don't want to leave the impression that somehow we're going bankrupt around here, that everybody's lost the ball. You might want to invite Mr. Gagliano to come in here. I'm sure he will clarify any questions you might have much better than I have done.

The Chair: Thank you for the comment.

I don't remember if I got a clear answer to part of my question on that subject, and I'll just take the opportunity to invite the response.

Is that building now part of the parliamentary precinct?

MGen Cloutier: No, it isn't.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: Just to get back to the Board of Internal Economy for a moment, Mr. Chair, the Senate, I'm told, does have a little bit of flexibility in the board. The Senate has a lot of problems, from my perspective, but one of the things I'm told is that at the Board of Internal Economy, senators can come and go while the meetings are taking place.

So, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of Christmas, would you have the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons consider allowing members of Parliament to attend meetings, which would at least give members who aren't members of the board some insight as to how it works, and most importantly, would provide a little more transparency and accountability for those agenda items that are not confidential and personnel related?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: You are correct that all of the senators make up part of the Board of Internal Economy and they can come and go as they like. If you're asking if we would do the same thing, if I hold a meeting on Christmas Day, I will surely invite all the members.

Mr. John Solomon: And on the other 364 days of the year?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: No, you said “in the spirit of Christmas”.

Mr. John Solomon: No, in the spirit of Christmas, would you consider the board more available to members of Parliament?

Speaker Gilbert Parent: We're always open to ways in which we can make the board work more efficiently.

The Chair: In respect of relevancy, we're trying to stick to the performance report that the Speaker has tabled.

On the GENet issue, the report indicates that the Hill offices of MPs and the constituency offices are well connected and the system is up and running—

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: It's at 90%.

The Chair: Okay. That's what I'm getting to. I'm not so sure, in my own case—and I don't know about other members—whether we have a fully up and running constituency and Hill office electronic communication system. Could you indicate if there might be some problems in implementing the whole plan?

• 1235

Mr. Robert Marleau: There are still pockets of the country the GENet network has not yet reached. We're looking at alternative ways of servicing that—microwave, satellite. Those kinds of things are being evaluated now. Also, I should say that GENet is kind of a bridge for the future distribution of information to members' offices. It's the cheapest right now. It's not the fastest, but it is the cheapest in the context.

As fibre optics improve we're looking at negotiating with third party providers outside of Public Works Canada—a better system, if you like, in terms of speed. If you've used it from your riding office or in your office, you know there is a bit of a delay. It's not as fast as what other technologies can offer, but for the present time it was the fastest way to reach out to members' riding offices in 90% of the cases.

The Chair: The implementation of this is going along relatively smoothly and most members have access to it?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes.

The Chair: In terms of communication, I've been told there's some wrinkle in the e-mail communication between my constituency office and my Hill office, that my Hill office can't get into the Parliament Hill system, can't get into Intranet, I guess is what I'm saying. Am I misinformed here?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I'll have to inquire in your particular case. It should be able to get into your own file servers in a totally transparent way, access your own e-mail, your own personal folders. You can transmit that back and forth without any difficulty. You should be able to access the Intranet. I'll follow that up.

The Chair: That's fine.

Last but not least, some employees around the Hill had from time to time indicated there were notable pay differentials between what they were earning here and what comparable wage rates were in the Senate. I'm assuming that at some point there'd be a move to try to bridge any differentials that existed. Are there any obvious ones out there now that should be addressed?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: If there are, I'm sure the Senate will try to catch up with us.

The Chair: Or slow down.

Mr. Robert Marleau: From a management point of view, Mr. Chairman, we try to impress on colleagues in the Senate that they need to negotiate in good faith, as we do, but as hard as we do. We've talked about harmonizing negotiations, hiring the same negotiator. Those discussions are ongoing. We're trying to make that kind of effort, so we posture as best we can, respecting the distinctions between the institutions, but with similar proposals when we go to the table after obtaining mandates from the Board of Internal Economy or their Committee of Internal Economy.

Because of the proximity, it serves nobody's interest to have one ratcheting up the other, and we do the best we can with that. But if you look at the.... I may be getting out of my range of responses here—

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We're not going to the Senate with this.

Mr. Robert Marleau: —but if you look at the percentage increase of the estimates of the House of Commons over the last five years versus the percentage of increase of the estimates in the Senate, the story is self-evident.

The Chair: All right. That comment is worth something right there, I can tell.

Are there any other members with questions? No?

If there are no further comments from Mr. Speaker, it's been great, and thank you for discussing the performance report with us. We'll look forward to seeing you again in the spring.

Colleagues, I would ask you to remain for a moment. We'll actually suspend for one minute.

[Proceedings continue in camera]