HAFF Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

1110

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

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon--Souris, PC)

The Chair

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

1115

1120

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

1125

Mr. Luc Desroches (Director General, Financial and Human Resources Directorate, House of Commons)

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

Ms. Audrey O'Brien (Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons)

The Chair

1130

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

The Chair

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

The Chair

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

1135

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

1140

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

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

1145

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. William Corbett

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Yvon Godin

1150

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Milliken

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Milliken

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

Mr. Godin

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds--Grenville, Lib.)

1155

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

The Chair

Mr. Borotsik

1200

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Michel Thivierge (Director of Security Services, House of Commons)

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. William Corbett

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

1205

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches--East York, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken

1210

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 061

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 30, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1110)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, perhaps we could begin. The order of reference is from the House of Commons of Tuesday, February 28, 2002, main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003--vote 5 under Parliament, House of Commons.

Our guests today are the Honourable Peter Milliken, Speaker, and Bill Corbett, Clerk. With them are a number of members of the House of Commons staff. I see Michel Thivierge, who spends all his time with our committee, Luc Desroches, Elaine Diguer, and Audrey O'Brien.

Mr. Speaker, would you mind if we do some business before we get to you ?

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon--Souris, PC): On a point of order, which one's Milliken and which one's Corbett? I keep getting them confused.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Colleagues, before we begin our business, I would remind you about our next meeting, on Thursday. It will be the round table on private members' business. The invitations we approved have gone out and include a draft agenda.

The draft agenda, as you know, includes certain themes and it also includes encouragement to members who come that they will deal this time with the matter of private members' business in a fairly broad way. It will be an extended meeting, so we can get on the record some of the experience with different approaches to private members' business, some of the current experience with private members' business and so on.

I know there'll be good attendance from members of this committee. I suspect there will be very reasonable attendance from other members of the House. I have gone to some trouble to approach members of the House who I know have spoken about private members' business--this is in all parties--in the last year or so, to encourage them to come and to try and convey to them that this is not the occasion for long diatribes. It might be an occasion for short diatribes, and I'm only saying this to you all so that yours are fairly short on each topic. As I said last time, I'd like you to give me as much assistance as possible so that this extended meeting ends up as a very good foundation for us to continue our work on private members' business.

I hope all of you, in particular the whips who are here, will try to convey the sense of this meeting to your members so we can do something worthwhile and end up improving private members' business, not making it worse. I'd be grateful for your support on that.

Mr. Speaker, you are most welcome here. I will begin by thanking you for referring to us things like private members' business and similar topics. I hope one day we will be able to do the same for you.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Welcome. I understand you have a statement today. We'd be grateful if you would begin.

Hon. Peter Milliken (Speaker of the House of Commons): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to say what a pleasure it is to be here.

I'm surprised you'd have diatribes at a meeting of this committee. We don't have any in the House, of course, so I don't know why you'd have any in the committee, but there it is.

We've come to your committee today, Mr. Chairman, to discuss the report on plans and priorities and the main estimates for the year 2002-2003. The report outlines the House of Commons administration's commitment to the continual improvement of services offered to all members of the House of Commons for this fiscal year. The administration has set out a series of objectives for the year that have been approved by the Board of Internal Economy, and I am pleased to present them to you today.

[Translation]

With the Chair's permission, I will begin by providing an overview of the six priorities outlined in the Report on plans and priorities.

The plans for the year 2002-2003 set out several new projects as well as improvements and developments regarding many long-term initiatives here at the House of Commons.

[English]

The House administration remains committed to six priorities for the year 2002-2003. These are as follows: first, improving information resources for members; moving ahead with renovations; providing appropriate security; investir dans les ressources humaines; improving communication; and reviewing and reporting on performance. These priorities are varied, yet all move toward one common goal; that is, improved support of members and their duties in their constituencies and committees, in the chamber, and in caucus.

I turn first to improving information resources for members. As members, we can expect some exciting new technology coming our way in the next year. This year will bring better access to procedural information through the already successful PRISM program, live video broadcast of House proceedings on the parliamentary websites, as well as a brand-new printing website that will give members access to printing services from their desktops. These are but a few of the many technological innovations the House administration has in store for us.

Á (1115)

[Translation]

In addition, the Election Preparedness Program will continue to improve the administrative, financial and procedural information and services needed prior to, during and after the dissolution of Parliament. Legal and Legislative Counsel Services will put in place better tools to capture and analyze data on past workload. These improvements will allow the team of lawyers to better meet members' needs by anticipating volume with greater precision.

The Integrated Resource Management Program will be upgraded this year in order to provide members and House managers with tools for improving their capacity to plan, monitor and report on performance and resource utilization.

At the same time, the electronic forms and on-line financial information will be improved and enhanced to better serve the needs of members and managers.

[English]

Second is moving ahead with renovations. This year we will witness the beginning of the planning process for a major long-term renovation of the Parliament Buildings that will preserve the heritage of the existing buildings, modernize parliamentarians' work environment through the construction of a new building, and ensure that the buildings are secure and functioning well.

A cornerstone of the plan is the new Bank Street building, otherwise known as the committee building, which will house 12 much-needed committee rooms, office space for services linked to committee activities, offices for parliamentarians, and underground parking spaces.

This year the House administration will assist in the development of a detailed functional program and the necessary design concepts for this project. The selected design will be chosen with the specific logistical and technological needs of parliamentary committees in mind.

I'll move now to security, which remains a top priority for the House of Commons administration. Since September 11, additional security measures have been put in place to ensure that members, staff, and visitors are secure. The House of Commons integrated security combines electronic surveillance and access control measures of the precinct into one central system, including access control, ID passes, alarms, and closed-circuit television monitoring.

In addition, a more comprehensive model will be developed to ensure the secure handling of material and packages on the Hill. I should say that I read in The Hill TImes of the work this committee is doing on this subject, and I look forward to further reports from the committee.

[Translation]

The House of Commons' most valuable asset is its people. The House Administration will take all necessary measures to ensure that the organization remains a workplace of choice. Career management, classification renewal, human resources management strategies, procedural professional development and competency profiles and training are a few of the people-centred initiatives that will promote a competent and committed workforce in the years to come.

In addition, the House Administration will build on its commitment to a healthy and safe work environment by revising and modernizing the Occupational Health and Safety Policy and enhancing the Office Ergonomics Program.

Á (1120)

[English]

Finally, communication is vital to any organization, and this year several initiatives are underway to improve communication between members' Hill and constituency offices, and in committee rooms, as well as provide better support to members through more effective internal communication.

A major project is in the works to provide constituency offices with a direct connection to the parliamentary precinct, including access to such services as Internet, currently available within the precinct. More video projection equipment and televisions will be purchased to enhance presentation and communication capacity for parliamentary committees.

Finally, in reviewing performance in 2002-2003, work will continue on improving processes that will help the administration progress toward results-based management. At the same time, the management of risks and the assessment of the achievement of results will continue to be priorities for the House administration.

Reviews of major projects such as PRISM will ensure the continual renewal of management practices and business processes that are vital to the success of our organization.

[Translation]

The Report on plans and priorities 2002-2003 is filled with initiatives that support our work as members of Parliament. Some projects are in the initial phases. Other efforts upon which we have relied for many years are in a continuous cycle of improvement.

[English]

I'd like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to thank the officials who oversee the activities of the House administration. I'd ask each of them to extend my gratitude as well as that of all honourable members to their employees, who will turn these plans into reality.

Now I, with the assistance of House administration officials who are here with me, am prepared to answer any questions members of the committee may have.

The Chair: Mr. Speaker, we thank you very much for that very clear statement.

Dale Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Mr. Speaker and staff.

Looking over your document here, I notice that the program expenditures for the House have risen dramatically, from $182.8 million in 2001-2002 to $194.9 million in 2002-2003. Can you explain the increase, please?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes. There's a whole host of different things that involve the increase there. Obviously, the biggest ones are members' salaries and the changes that came as a result of Bill C-28. You'll recall--

Mr. Dale Johnston: I'm talking about program expenditures here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: I'm sorry. I thought when you gave those figures you were talking about the total budget.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I'm talking about page 21 of this brief.

Actually, you could work both of them into your answer, because the entire House budget five years ago was $231 million and it's now $312 million, which is an increase of $81 million in five years' time. But my original question was about program expenditures only.

The Chair: This is off the report on plans and priorities, 2002-2003.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Monsieur Desroches, if you could, please answer the question.

Á (1125)

Mr. Luc Desroches (Director General, Financial and Human Resources Directorate, House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, the budget for the House of Commons has gone up 13.6 pourcent year over year, 2002-2003 versus 2001-2002, for an increase of almost $37.5 million.

As to the major increases making up the full budget of the House, as the Speaker was saying, $12 million is for the salaries and indemnities related to Bill C-28. Another $8.7 million is for the pensions of members of Parliament. Salary increases for the House administration are $3.8 million. The integrated resource management system--that's the financial system, the HR system we have at the House that we have to upgrade--is $2.8 million.

The decision by the Board of Internal Economy with respect to high-speed access communication network cost almost $2 million. Employee benefit plans, which are a percentage of salary to pay for the benefits of the House administration and also the benefits of all the members' staff, went up by $2,643,000.

A decision by the board for security measures cost $1,450,000. Elector supplements for members and their members' operating budgets...since the last election several members have now qualified for elector supplements; also, several members qualified for a higher level of elector supplements, and that cost $906,000. A classification renewal program for the House administration was $600,000.

I could go on and on. The 3 pourcent increase to members' office budgets that was approved by the Board of Internal Economy was $2,039,000, and there was also an increase of 3 percent for the House officers, $363,000.

Those are the major elements that make up the increase.

The Chair: You have about a minute left.

Mr. Dale Johnston: In the public accounts committee, there was no record of their meeting. I'm wondering if the problem that caused that had anything to do with the new PRISM system and whether that problem has been rectified.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Ms. O'Brien will answer that question.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien (Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I would feel much more relieved if we could simply point to technological difficulties, but in fact it was compounded human error that led to the difficulty with the public accounts committee, along with the fact that we're in a situation where committee rooms must be used for a multitude of purposes.

The committee room had been set up for a confidential in-camera situation that involved video teleconferencing, and in so doing various steps had been taken to ensure that confidentiality, including the unplugging of various components. Unfortunately, when the next team came in to set up the room, they didn't plug the whole thing back in. That error wasn't noticed in the various fail-safe--I say that with a certain irony, needless to say--mechanisms we have in place.

Officials have appeared before the public accounts committee to explain and apologize for this error, and we have taken immediate remedial steps to retrain people and, shall we say, to renew our fail-safe efforts so that they might live up to their name.

The Chair: Thank you, Dale.

Just so you know, the order of questioners is the chair, Michel Guimond, Tony Tirabassi, Yvon Godin, Jacques Saada, Maria Minna, and Rick Borotsik.

Mr. Speaker, are the entire additional costs due to security included in the estimates, or do you anticipate there might be supplementary estimates?

Á (1130)

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: I think they're included. The board approved an additional amount of $1.4 million for this at a fairly recent meeting, and that is therefore in the estimates. Obviously, if this committee made other recommendations on which the board acted, there might be supplementary estimates or changes as a result. But that is now in.

The Chair: Thank you for that.

As you mentioned, we've had three meetings and a field trip on security on the Hill. The committee has changed quite a bit since you were the chair. We do travel quite a bit.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes, I read that you went on a green bus.

The Chair: That's correct.

One thing we didn't ask about when we were discussing the plans and priorities is the matter of how the House might operate in the event of an extreme emergency. I notice that Congress is considering ways in which the Senate and the House can continue business in an extreme emergency--for example, electronically from remote locations. They noted that communication essentially stopped after September 11. Obviously, it was particularly severe in Washington. The members of Congress and their staff couldn't get in to obtain information. The staff, senators, and members of Congress have all been issued wireless BlackBerries. I wonder if you've given any thought to, first of all, the remote operation of the two Houses in the event of an extreme emergency, and secondly, the issue of communication during an extreme emergency.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Chairman, the House administration has been working on plans to allow for the House to meet in...I don't know if I'd call it an extreme emergency, but certainly under difficult circumstances. That work has been ongoing with the Department of Public Works. I believe that some things have been negotiated. I don't know all the details, but I understand that some arrangements have been made in that regard.

With regard to issuing BlackBerries to members or making arrangements for electronic meetings, I'm not sure we've planned for that. There has been some reluctance, I think, to get into electronic meetings. I know you're dealing with electronic voting and things like that. I don't believe any steps have been taken to arrange for us to meet electronically.

Certainly we're looking forward to your report on the subject of security, and I'm sure the board will take under advisement any recommendations you might have as a result of the field trips.

The Chair: Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

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

Mr. Milliken, I'm going to repeat what I said to Major General Cloutier and to Mr. Thivierge, who was also present.

We members of Parliament and the members of our staff are in a position to appreciate the professionalism and the service-minded approach displayed by our security officers on the Hill. Even when we have no basis for comparison, we appreciate their qualities. Perhaps we have inherited a group of RCMP officers from elsewhere who seem to be afraid that their faces will break if they crack a smile. When we deal with other people, we are in a position to appreciate how competent our security staff is. We appreciate this enormously. I think we don't say so often enough, and that is why I am taking this opportunity to say so expressly.

I know that you read the “blues” because you harbour a fanatical interest for everything that is said in committee. You must read night and day to keep up with the “blues” of the 22 committees. Thus, I am convinced that you have already read these words, but I wanted you to hear them.

I will quickly make two comments because the chair of our committee always interrupts us, in a manner somewhat akin to yours in the House. My two comments concern health and safety in the workplace.

I would like to make a constructive suggestion, which would be to inform, firstly, the members and staff of the House of the fact that the health services office has moved. I don't remember seeing any publicity about that. I read practically everything we receive, whether by electronic means or on paper, and I don't remember having read anything about that.

Firstly, the decision to move this service here, to the basement, was a good one. The new location of the service is much more practical, it seems to me, than the previous one.

Mr. Corbett, is this news to you? No? You seem surprised to hear me say that. If a notice was already sent out, a reminder might be in order.

Secondly, some of my colleagues asked me to describe the services provided by our health services unit. Is it simply a place where one can obtain a couple of aspirin or Tylenol? Can our nurse do blood tests, for instance, or is this simply a service that refers us to other health services off the Hill? That is my first question.

I will now proceed to the second one. I could also have put it to Mr. Thivierge and Mr. Cloutier, but I did not think of it. I will quickly relate a brief anecdote before I ask my question.

Last week, I attended a cocktail party with a minister of the Quebec government. At one point, one of the guests began choking on a canapé that went down the wrong way. The minister's bodyguard administered the proper treatment to dislodge the bit of food the person was choking on. He did massage his back, but he grabbed him from behind and lifted him twice to clear his airway. I can tell you that I was impressed. It caused me to wonder; I would like to know what the percentage is of...

The Chair: Michel, you have four minutes left.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You should not make appointments at 12 or 12:15 when we are sitting in committee until one o'clock, Mr. Chairman. If we sat till one, you could give us more time.

What percentage of our personnel have taken CPR classes? How often do they take refresher courses? If a person took the course seven or eight years ago and has not had the opportunity to put what he or she learned into practice, a refresher is advisable.

I was present in the House when our colleague Shaughnessy Cohen collapsed. I don't mean to imply that the CPR techniques were ineffective, but we always have to be ready when something like that happens, because such things can happen anytime, anywhere.

Á (1135)

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Guimond, to answer your first question, I will say that I have prepared a memo for members concerning the health services offered by the House. I can describe in detail the services that are offered, but I don't know where they are located. I have never visited their offices. I prepared something for you in this regard and this will be distributed to all members in the near future. That was an excellent suggestion.

Secondly, I am in a position to tell you that all security staff at the House have received training on how to perform the Heimlich manoeuvre, which you described, as well as cardiopulmonary resuscitation. I don't know if other courses of this nature are offered often, but I believe that they're offered to all employees of the security service on the Hill so that they may be able to help someone who is experiencing a problem such as the one you described. This training is also offered to other House employees and to the staff that work in members' offices.

Thank you for your comments on our security officers. I agree with you. I have received letters from visitors to the Hill commenting on the courtesy and politeness of the officers they met in the corridors. Such comments are always appreciated. There are almost never any complaints concerning these people. The letters of appreciation are excellent. From time to time, I have the pleasure of congratulating the security services on their performance.

Á (1140)

[English]

The Chair: All right.

Tony Tirabassi, Yvon Godin, Joe Jordan, and Rick Borotsik.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too would like to thank the Speaker, as well as his officials, for taking the time to be before the committee for this presentation.

I'd like to turn to point 5 of your written statement or submission, “Improving communication”. When I came here and as we moved ahead in my constituency office to improve our electronic communication system, I was very surprised to find--and I'm sure there was a reason--how limited is the access to different types of information your constituency can access here as compared to your Hill office. Without going into detail, there are times when I'm sure you would agree that it would be much more convenient and efficient to have both offices able to access a similar amount of information.

Could you expand as to what is involved in this major project that is going to work to provide constituency offices with a direct connection to the parliamentary precinct and what the timeline is on that? And after it's implemented, will there still be categories of information that will not be able to be accessed from the constituency office? I'd like a little orientation around the whole issue, and then a timeline for putting this in place and what we could expect afterwards.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: The board had a presentation on this just the other night. I'll ask the clerk to fill you in as best we can on our plans in this area.

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

Indeed, the board agreed in the estimates for this fiscal year, Mr. Tirabassi, to an amount in the neighbourhood of close to $2 million for a project to put into place an improved communication strategy between constituency offices and the Parliament Hill network.

The reason for the limited service that you get currently in your constituency offices is based on the degree of security that a network such as the network used on Parliament Hill requires. When the first elements of constituency communication were put into place, what was required was a secondary network with a limited number of servers providing a limited amount of service because there was a fear of penetration from the Internet or from outside, a fear that using outside suppliers to connect between constituency offices and the Hill might make the network on the Hill susceptible to attack by viruses, hackers, etc. So what was created was a secondary network outside the main Hill network, with a limited number of services that we could adequately protect to the same level the network on the Hill is protected.

What the project, which information services is to undertake this year, is trying to achieve is to set up an independent connection from each of the 301 constituency offices straight around and to the network, such that you can be provided with a level of service equivalent to the level of service you get in your office here on the Hill, without the threats that are inherent in the use of the GNet service or the Internet providing that connection.

The board was briefed the other night on two pilot projects that will be undertaken in the next few months, one of them satellite-based--in other words, to create a satellite pilot project to test the satellite connection of constituency offices to the Hill network--and the other a land-based pilot project. The plan is to compare and contrast and come back to the board in the fall with a strategy based on the results of the two pilots.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Tony.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: If the pilots prove to be successful and a choice is made, one versus the other, satellite or land-based, or even to mix both possibly--

Mr. William Corbett: We may possibly mix both, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Maybe this is a little premature, but can you see this being expanded or implemented within a year?

The Chair: Very briefly, please.

Mr. William Corbett: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I think the intention is that if the pilots are successful it might be one way or the other or a mix of both, but the hope was to be able to implement within the fiscal year.

The Chair: Yvon Godin, Joe Jordan, and Rick Borotsik.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to continue along the same lines as Mr. Tirabassi. If you take the riding rather than the Hill office, have you considered, in this program...? I know that I will also be having meetings with the communications people this week and that a group is being struck with representatives from all parties to discuss this, so that we may express our opinion, but has mobility also been taken into consideration, so that a member who has a portable computer and is stuck in an airport for several hours could hook up with the system and be able to work and have access to the Hill?

Mr. William Corbett: That is much more complicated, Mr. Chairman. If I'm not mistaken, the very nature of such a mobile communication...

Mr. Yvon Godin: It could be done by satellite.

Mr. William Corbett: There would have to be at least one connection per satellite telephone. I don't think that this has been included in the first phase of the project. What was approved by the board aimed only to improve the service provided to all of the MP's riding offices.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Has that aspect been considered? For instance, has a study been done in order to see whether this is feasible, and what the costs would be?

Á (1150)

Mr. William Corbett: According to one of my advisers, it is always possible today to have mobile access through the GNET network.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, but we are talking about improving access in our ridings. As for GNET, whether we are in our riding or in the Montreal airport, we have the same access. If we want to improve the situation in our ridings, could the same thing be done with regard to...?

Mr. William Corbett: All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that I will enquire and provide a written report to the committee.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have another question concerning the East and West blocks. There are rumours that some members' offices in the East Block could be relocated elsewhere. I would like to know whether this is true or whether it is just a rumour. Have there been any discussions about this?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: It is just a rumour; I have not heard that. People certainly want to see changes made to the West Block, but this will probably not happen until the construction of the new building is complete.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Concerning security... These are rumours once again, but you are here to answer questions, to quell rumours or to tell us things we don't know.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: I have no problem with the rumours; there are so many.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That is why we call it the Hill. We are on the Hill.

Mr. Chairman, still on the topic of security, there is a rumour that plainclothes security officers may be required to wear bulletproof vests. I have already filed a complaint because I did not understand why, when we took the little green bus to do our long trip to the corner of Bank Street—I believe it was one of our first trips of that nature since we began sitting on this committee—when we arrived there, the RCMP officers had bulletproof vests but our officers did not. I was told, among other things, that bulletproof vests were given only to armed officers. Now, I have always believed that the purpose of these vests is to prevent you from being killed if someone shoots at you, and not necessarily to adorn those who have a gun and who may use it. So, if both groups were there at the same time, why were some wearing a vest while our officers were not?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: The matter was in fact raised at the Board of Internal Economy, Mr. Godin. The Board made a decision on this issue, after lengthy discussions. Perhaps I could encourage you to speak to your representative at the Board of Internal Economy. If he wishes, he could raise the question again, but a decision was made in that regard. I believe there are no facilities for this type of thing as of yet, but a decision was taken for certain officers, and work is ongoing on that.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Are you saying that there are certain officers who...

The Chair: Yvon, 30 seconds.

Mr. Yvon Godin: So, this means that certain officers may have them and others not.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes, that could be the case, but the decision was made by the members of the Board of Internal Economy after a debate on the topic. As always, this was a compromise, and I believe there was a consensus among the members of the Board.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It is a compromise on security.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Everything that concerns security is a compromise. There has to be a certain level of security, and certain things are not acceptable. If there is a perfect system, we can implement it, but certain difficult choices have to be made. In my opinion, we have an acceptable level of security for the members and that is the opinion of the members of the Board, but you saw changes recently, for instance at the Hill entrance. Those changes are often made pursuant to recommendations by the RCMP or other forces who work on the Hill. The Board had a voice in the decisions that were made on these matters, but it does not decide everything. On this matter, a decision was made. As I said, if you have a problem with their decision, I suggest that you raise the issue with your presentative on the Board of Internal Economy, Mr. Blaikie.

[English]

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds--Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to pick up on Tony's point, and I guess Yvon talked about it as well, on the issue of the information system requirements of MPs.

One of the things I've experienced when we look at the development of information systems--and I think the government's forays into this have been less than successful at times--is that technology is evolving. Sometimes there's a certain amount of money investment and time and expertise that's dedicated to a certain way of doing things, and that tends to drive future decisions.

I hope when we look at connecting the constituency offices it might be a very good time to put everything on the table. When I hear talk about the need for high security in terms of the use of the Internet, I don't think with what I do that there's a need for any more security than anyone else who's in business. I don't want somebody being able to read my e-mails. In terms of accessing Hansard, that can be done over the Internet now.

Let's start with what the needs are, and then the needs will drive what technology is appropriate. I don't think we want to overreact to this. I think that every organization is struggling with the security versus flexibility issues of these new technologies. I don't think we're in a particularly unique situation.

It's like an onion: we keep layering systems on top of systems, and we're front-ending stuff. The root cause might be that the source code or the original logic of the design may need a re-look, because you can sometimes make bad decisions because you're locked into that technology. That's an editorial comment, by the way.

I want to ask a question on the renovations. We're talking about 12 much-needed committee rooms. Are we going to repatriate committee rooms back on the precinct? If I look at this and ask whether we need 12 more committee meetings simultaneously, I don't think we do. We're stretched thinly right now. Are we looking at centralizing the committee process?

Á (1155)

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Mr. Jordan, on your first question, on security, I would only have a word of caution. I agree that for most of the things you look at on the parliamentary intranet, you wouldn't be the least concerned. However, you can do travel claims on there. You can access and get updates on your budget on there. I have a feeling you wouldn't want other people looking at that. Security is a concern that we take very seriously. That's why we're moving with all deliberate speed on this.

I've made similar complaints to you over the years. I think there is good reason for there being security on a good part of this program. It's the important parts we have to look after.

With respect to the 12 committee rooms in this new building, the reason we're putting so many in the one place is that part of the plan is that once this building is constructed and operational, the West Block is going to be gutted. All of the committee rooms in the West Block, where most of them are located from the point of view of the House, are going to be unavailable. We're also moving all committee rooms to the north side of Wellington Street as a result of this. So there will be none available on the south side.

While the West Block is closed and renovated and the new Commons chamber is built there, we anticipate that these committee rooms will be necessary because of the closure of the whole West Block. Part of what would become committee rooms will be used as a chamber for a number of years while this building is then renovated. So that's the plan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: My only concern was that...they're additional rooms--

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: It's intended as replacement. But we also would anticipate that it will be used extensively for committee meetings even after the West Block renovations are complete, for the very good reason that most members' offices are in the Justice and Confederation Buildings. So part of the intention is to have underground access from those buildings to this new building, and we anticipate that most members will prefer to meet there rather than come all the way back up here, or to West Block even, for a committee meeting. Obviously, there'll be compromises.

The Chair: Rick Borotsik, Dale Johnston, and Maria Minna.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two themes of question. One is with respect to security, which we've dealt with quite substantially, and the other one is on investing in people.

On the first one, the chairman indicated that down in the United States they're looking at situations of extreme...running the business from remote locations, things of that nature. Do we have an emergency preparedness plan here? In extreme circumstances, do we have a plan to continue operation of both houses, perhaps at remote locations or something of that nature? You said we do have some plans in place. Can you tell us what they may be?

Â (1200)

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Well, I can tell you, Mr. Borotsik, that we do have emergency plans. I remember once, years ago, being shepherded out of this place because of an emergency that arose on the front lawn. We were cleared out, and the House didn't continue sitting that day. We abandoned things. But I think it was a Friday, if I'm not mistaken, so nobody felt terribly disappointed about it.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: What would happen if we couldn't sit for months?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Well, I'll let the clerk answer that question.

Mr. William Corbett: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Borotsik, dating back to 2000, the House administration, as did many others, put into place what is called a business resumption plan. At that time it was based on the possibility that there would be massive network failures based on Y2K, on the software.

We have kept that business resumption plan current. It lays out the minimum services that would be required for the House to function under its own rules and under constitutional propriety. We have, in the last few months, been working closely--post-September 11--with our landlord, which is Public Works. The House administration controls only that part that has to do with the four walls and in, but we are working with Public Works--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm going to cut you off, Mr. Corbett, because I have one other thing I'd like to go on to, and I know I'm going to get cut off.

By the way, maybe Canadians might be better served by not having those plans in place, but I won't head there either.

I'm interested in the people issue. First of all, can you tell me how many full-time equivalents--FTEs--you have in the administration? Are you having difficulty--and I see a lot of changes within security, particularly--recruiting people within your department, and are we having difficulty retaining those people? Could you answer those questions, please--how many, and are we having some difficulties? It has happened in the civil service.

Mr. William Corbett: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Borotsik, we have approximately 1,400 full-time equivalents--FTEs--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's now, in 2002-2003. Is that an increase over last year?

Mr. William Corbett: Not really...15 or 16...there was additional recruiting this year based on our security requirements.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's why I asked, because security sometimes tells us there's an awful lot of overtime being paid, and there are a lot of vacancies that haven't been filled. Are you having difficulty with recruiting and retention?

Mr. William Corbett: The board authorized an increase in full-time equivalents of 17 in the security service, and I don't think there's been any difficulty in recruiting them.

Mr. Michel Thivierge (Director of Security Services, House of Commons): We just had a class graduate with 15 people.

Mr. William Corbett: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So we've increased by 17 FTEs in security, but we've only had 15 FTEs from last year to this year? That doesn't make sense.

Mr. William Corbett: Well, this is the security. It's part of a--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's part of your organization.

Mr. William Corbett: --graduating class--

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Security is part of your overall function.

So we had an increase of 17 FTEs this year, but we've had an increase of only 15 FTEs since last year? So all the FTEs have gone to security? There's been no other FTE...?

Mr. William Corbett: Yes, there may be seven other positions. So we're now up to 24 in the entire organization.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Fair ball. I just asked a simple question: what was the increase? But now we've gone from 15 to 24.

Mr. William Corbett: Okay. You were asking about problems of retention. We do not have a problem of retention. What we have identified is a problem of succession and knowledge transfer. A lot of the personnel have been identified as being in the age group of 50 to 55. All of the various services of the House are coming up with contingency plans against the loss of those personnel--a fairly significant number--who may be entitled to take retirement in the next few years.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's an issue, by the way, in all industries at the present time. I'm happy to hear that you have some contingency plans, because it's going to be very difficult, I think, to retain those.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Well, another example are the table officers we hired last year or the year before--a number of extra younger people--for the sole purpose of making sure we had some continuity in that area.

Â (1205)

The Chair: Dale Johnston and Maria Minna.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Each year the House prepares two reports. One of them is this report on plans and priorities, and later they have a performance report. Of course, the performance report is at the end of the year. Can you explain how these two documents relate to one another? Could you also provide some specific examples as to how this reporting procedure has been useful or effective in reducing expenditures?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Certainly the two relate to one another in the sense that they're what other government departments are expected to do. It was a Treasury Board decision to go through this dual reporting thing, at the request, I believe, of the public accounts committee and this committee. So we've adopted the same practice of government departments in order to keep members fully informed as to the way the House is spending its money and dealing with personnel, and these other related issues, which I brought up in my opening remarks.

How closely the two tie in with one another is a matter for the committee to decide, having heard the evidence. I had the privilege of appearing before the committee, both on the plans and priorities report and on the other report. At least I did so last year. I assume the chairman will likely want me back with these officials to answer questions of members. So members are able to look at one document and the other and compare the two. If they've got complaints about certain things not being reported, they can ask those questions and get those reports in the course of our presence here.

Of course the two reports do go to the Board of Internal Economy and are approved there before they're made public. So board members who follow these things with great interest--and you, Mr. Johnston, are now happily in that group--will find these fascinating and very helpful.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Fascinating. I don't know if it's a fair question to ask Mr. Speaker, but does he have any recommendations as to how to improve efficiencies?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Well, if I did, I think I'd leave them with the board, Mr. Johnston, if you don't mind.

Of course, we look forward to the reports of this committee. As members of the board, we find the reports very helpful and often full of good suggestions that the board is able to either implement or ask questions about.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I'm pleased to hear that if Mr. Speaker does have some ways of improving efficiency he'd be pleased to share them with us.

The Chair: Dale, I think there's a strategy in the Speaker's office to keep referring so much to us that we can't really put our time to some of these things.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Oh, you seem to take up very much on your own, Mr. Chair. Don't blame me for everything!

The Chair: Maria Minna.

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches--East York, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two very quick questions. First, I want to congratulate you on wanting to enhance and improve occupational health and safety policies, especially enhancing the ergonomics program, which is very important.

Will that be available to MPs' staff, for them to have safer ergonomic workplaces as well? I have some background in that myself, and I know the importance of prevention, as opposed to having to pay for it afterwards.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: The answer to that is yes.

Ms. Maria Minna: Great.

My other question is pretty selfish, actually, having just moved into the West Block. What's your timeline on getting the new building?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: We anticipate a four-year lease.

Ms. Maria Minna: Should I unpack or not?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Yes, unpack. It will be four years before the new building is complete. We will not abandon the West Block until it's complete. We're hoping to get the design phase done this summer. Construction may begin next year, and last three years. So don't hold your breath.

Ms. Maria Minna: Okay.

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: Unpack your bags and enjoy it for the time being.

Ms. Maria Minna: My only other question is what will happen to the West Block after this building has been refitted and the House moves back into the chambers here?

Mr. Speaker Peter Milliken: It will be restored to its former grandeur, except it will have a House of Commons chamber located in it, which I anticipate will be used for other purposes. I think the plan is to make it divisible into committee rooms, so we could have a bigger or a smaller one, as the case required--maybe four, I'm not sure. But something along those lines is being looked at.

Ms. Maria Minna: Okay. Thank you.

Â (1210)

The Chair: Would someone care to move the motion before us?

Mr. Joe Jordan: I move that vote 5 under Parliament carry.

PARLIAMENT

House of Commons

Vote 5--Program expenditures..........$182,882,000

(Vote 5 agreed to)

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

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you and your colleagues for a most informative session. We appreciate your being here. As you've indicated, you'll be hearing from us on various points.

Colleagues, I'm going to adjourn the meeting. You will recall that our next meeting is to be televised. It's in Room 253-D. It is the round table on private members' business. Again, I would be grateful if you'd talk to your colleagues about it and encourage them to come, in the spirit in which we have designed the round table.

The meeting is adjourned.