Publication Search

Mr. Speaker and Madam Brosseau, we are aware of the case.

One incident happened with the interpreters department of PSPC. We are taking this issue very seriously, and we've been working with the department very closely. We've done an assessment of the equipment, and we've assessed equipment that could replace the equipment we have, based on international standards, to ensure that this does not happen. We are proceeding this summer with replacement of the stations for the interpreters in this facility to ensure that any potential issues in the future would be remediated by ensuring that the equipment we have meets the international standards that the interpreters are looking for to deal with this.

No, just the stations.... In the interpretation booth, there's a station. Right now we've added a device to ensure this does not happen, and we're looking at replacing the interpretation stations in the interpretation booths. All the audio systems will remain the same.

Yes, it's built in, versus adding the new device.

Absolutely.

Well, the mechanism that we have, sir, is to ensure that there isn't any major high-pitched noise to their ears.

We weren't able to identify what created the issue—

Exactly.

Mr. Speaker, members of the board, this presentation today is a follow-up to the presentation we did in the spring.

In the spring, we proposed to the Board to launch a pilot with 60 to 70 members' offices to strengthen the IT security posture in the constituency offices and also to ensure parity between what's offered as a service between the Hill and the constituency offices. We also wanted to standardize the service delivery in the constituency offices and provide more simplicity in purchasing equipment for the members and their constituency offices.

We're back here today after the pilot, during which more than 70% of the offices were set up. We've received great feedback. The outcome of the pilot is that we're seeking support from the board to offer a managed set of computers for the constituency offices. We're proposing that every constituency office have centrally funded computers.

It can be up to a maximum of five computers.

We're also proposing that constituency offices could buy an additional five computers through their MOBs, if required by the members. We're also proposing that any computers purchased for the constituency offices leverage a supply chain that will be set up from the House for security reasons.

In addition to that, based on the feedback we received during the pilot, members are also requesting that we provide compatible printing solutions in the constituency offices.

We're also proposing that the existing model of funding for the network connectivity between the constituency offices and the Hill be reviewed to be centrally funded, versus the MOB.

This is the proposal we're making here, sir. As I outlined, it's very important for us that we move forward, as we're making this recommendation for security reasons. Security in our constituency offices is the highest vector of attack when it comes to security at the Hill. We want to leverage this initiative, and also improve the services to members, by putting forward this proposal.

I am open to questions, sir.

Thank you, sir.

In the past, there used to be a limit on the number of employees. This would limit the number of computers they could purchase. This proposal will be determined by the member, so the member will actually be able to receive up to five computers from the central fund.

The average throughout the pilot has been around 4.2. Depending on different members, we've seen on average around 4.2 computers per area. That's for the first question.

For the printing issues, we're not proposing a particular solution. We're proposing to work with your office to understand the needs and then to propose a solution that could come forward. If someone wants the photocopier-type printing that we have here on the Hill, from a party perspective, we could offer that. If they also want a lower-end solution from our vendors, leveraging our supply chain, we'll be able to provide that and customize that by working with your office specifically.

Yes.

For computers, we're proposing that all computers be purchased through the House. It would take away the opportunity for buying through local suppliers. For security reasons, we want to ensure that we have the same image on these computers as the ones on the Hill.

For printing solutions, we're also proposing that we leverage the vehicles we have at the House. We will offer a variety, but they will be specific brands that we have certified and integrated into the computing solutions.

Let me answer your second question first, because that will help answer your first question, sir.

Anything that would be required to be connected to the infrastructure we would want to be a House machine, because of the standards.

Recognizing that some constituency offices have computers that have been bought in the last few years, we're not planning to replace them until they reach the end of their life cycle, so we would be working with each of the offices to determine the appropriate scenario. When moving forward, when we do the life cycle of this equipment, we would then move to leveraging the ones that we have.

Now, recognizing that, there will always be the option for the computers that are bought, leveraging our standing offers, to have them or not have them on the network if there are specialized tools that would require that, sir.

Mr. Speaker, we're not planning to do that. If someone came with a device that was required, it would be managed on an exception-by-exception basis. We will allow it. For example, we do allow, in certain cases, Macintosh devices or Apple devices for particular graphic solutions that cannot be performed in the environment that we have, and we do accept these solutions; we just don't attach them to our network. This will be allowed moving forward.

For the software aspect, for example, if you're looking for a piece of software that we do not want on our infrastructure, what we are proposing as a first step is to work with you to see if you can run that on our PCs—maybe not on our network, but we can have it on a stand-alone in your office, because we can still manage it through the Internet.

Then if that doesn't work, we'll find another exception and work with you to make that happen.

This is why we're proposing a series of machines that are funded centrally and a series of machines that are funded through the MOB, the members' office budget, sir. We're just trying to standardize the machines so that we don't end up with a large variety of assets that we can't really recycle after an election.

Mr. Speaker, I can attest that all we're asking is that the machine that would be running that software is not attached to the network, but you can use it—

We give you an image that you can work with. All we want to do is standardize the machines there, sir.