Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 26, 1995

.1106

[Translation]

The Chairman: Order please. We can begin now.

I would like to inform the committee that I received an important letter. Given the importance of the issue, it is my duty to read it to the committee today. The letter and the translation will be sent to each committee member tomorrow.

The letter which was addressed to me reads as follows:

The letter is signed by Senator Gérald-A. Beaudoin.

[English]

In light of its importance, I simply wanted to inform members that this had arrived. With whatever regrets we may have, I think we could pass on to the business before the committee today.

Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): As I understand it, the indication here is to respond in fifteen days. Perhaps we could accept that at face value.

The Chairman: I don't know what else we can do, but we can discuss it on Tuesday.

Our witness today is the distinguished Speaker of the House of Commons. With him are various officers of the House. We welcome you all today and look forward to your presentation.

Without delaying further, Mr. Speaker, I turn it over to you, sir.

[Translation]

The Honourable Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, colleagues.

[English]

I am always pleased to be here with you. It sort of puts me back in the action again.

We're here to discuss a document entitled: Outlook on Program Priorities and Expenditures for 1995-96 to 1997-98, which has been submitted to you by the Board of Internal Economy.

.1110

I'm aware of the heavy workload your committee faces and I do appreciate being with you today.

We're in the midst of preparing the main estimates for 1996-97 and I hope that our discussion here today will be a valuable contribution to that exercise.

As you're all aware, a government-wide program review is under way. As part of this review, government departments and agencies are examining their activities and preparing outlook documents for the parliamentary committees that study their main estimates. These documents provide a longer-term perspective than ever before on activities and on the direction in which departments and agencies are moving.

[Translation]

The document before you is the outlook on the House of Commons recently approved by the Board of Internal Economy. Its purpose is straightforward: to show the reduction target which the Board has set for the House over the life of this Parliament.

You may recall that when I appeared before you to discuss the 1995-96 Main Estimates, I made certain commitments. I said that it would be my priority during this Parliament to ensure that members are provided with professional services of the highest quality. I also promised that we would continue to seek ways of reducing our expenditures, as Canadians expect. These commitments remain our priority.

Even before the 35th Parliament was summoned, a new Board of Internal Economy began to set standards for a new approach to economy and efficiency at the House. The Board, chaired by the outgoing Speaker but lead by the former Chief Government Whip established the 1994-95 Main Estimates.

The Gagliano Plan, as the approach came to be known, called for bold reductions in spending. In preparing for the coming years, the Board plans to build on the success of that ambitious undertaking. The Gagliano Plan resulted in cost-cutting measures totalling 1.2 million dollars in 1994-95.

In 1995-96, the House will further reduce expenditures by 14.4 million dollars. This means that for the second year of the 35th Parliament, the House of Commons will have succeeded in reducing expenditures by a total of 15.6 million dollars. I think you will agree that this shows how serious we are in our commitment to restraint. But if much has been accomplished, much remains to be done.

The Board has set at 29.6 million dollars the House's total target reductions for this Parliament. In a moment, I will ask the Clerk to provide the details of those target reductions as they are outlined on pages 14 and 15 of the «Outlook Document».

But before I do that, let me make a few comments about the assumptions underlying the Board's targets.

[English]

My colleagues, you'll remember that when I appeared before this committee last April, I spoke of the metamorphosis that the House is undergoing. Today, I can tell you that the metamorphosis continues.

The new organizational structure is working well. Under the leadership of the Clerk, the three service heads - the Deputy Clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Clerk Assistant - together with the senior management team are engaged in a profound renewal of the institution. May I underline that: it's a profound renewal of this institution that we're going to be facing.

.1115

Many further changes have come about since the March 1994 reorganization, and many more are still to come. However, reorganizing is not enough. To be able to achieve our objectives it is essential that we rethink the way we do business as an organization.

We want to re-emphasize working from a client-based perspective. This perspective will focus sharply on the members of Parliament and their specific needs first as representatives of individual constituencies, in the chamber, in committee and in caucus.

The outlook identifies four broad themes of change for the organization. The first is the renewal of human resources. Second is the streamlining of decision-making and delivery processes. Third is the impact of information technology. The fourth is a results-based management where performance and effectiveness are continually monitored and measured.

I don't propose to discuss all of these themes at length, but I would like to say a few words about the renewal of our human resources here at the House. Organizations must be responsive to the needs of their staff if they are to be successful, and in this period of transition we must pay particular attention to the human element. However vigorous our quest for greater efficiency and effectiveness, we must remain vigilant in ensuring the fair and equitable treatment of our people.

EDIP, the early departure incentive program, resulted in a 15% decrease in our workforce. The early retirement incentive program is expected to yield further significant reductions.

My colleagues, we must do our utmost to address the natural concerns of staff in the face of such major change. That is why we have followed a policy of employment security, not job security, for members of our staff.

We will continue to invest in the training and development of our employees to create a workforce flexible enough to serve the changing needs of the members of Parliament.

At the same time we must remain focused on our objective. Seventy-two percent of financial resources at the House are dedicated to salaries and benefits. We can't ignore those areas if we are serious about expenditure reduction. I remain confident that we can reach our objectives by working together towards our goal.

The gains we have made so far are in large part due to the partnership we have built with the management and the staff. In a word, they trust us. And well they should. We have worked hard to create a climate of mutual trust and to foster open channels of communication. This partnership will continue to be instrumental as we continue the renewal process. The results we have achieved have not come easily and the targets we have set will be equally difficult to realize, if not more.

That being said, I think we can take comfort in the strong sense of community and tradition that unites the diverse workforce on Parliament Hill. The hallmark of Hill staff has always been their pride in a job well done, whatever the job might entail. I know we can count on them to help achieve our goals in the very challenging months and years ahead.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Clerk going to make a presentation as well?

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Yes, Mr. Chairman. I will make a very brief presentation. I would like to take you through the package of slides that has been circulated to you. I will try to be brief.

.1120

As the Speaker just said, reorganization per se is not necessarily a plan for renewal. So after the reorganization of March 1994 the senior management team agreed to an objective that would take us to the 36th Parliament, and that's to restructure the existing organization to become a streamlined and effective one, with fewer people and lower cost, while continuing to deliver a competent, professional service to members within guidelines approved by members.

The key phrase there is ``fewer people at lower cost''. We have been open about this objective, discussed it with the unions, and are constantly trying to disclose our plans, as we are able, as approved by the Board of Internal Economy, to our employees, because as the Speaker said, nearly 75% of the House budget is salaries. Fewer people has to be the centrepoint of any such objective.

[Translation]

As the speaker mentioned, the launching of the early departure incentives program last year was quite successful. The program was entirely voluntary and resulted in a 15% reduction in our staff, which means a 6% decrease in our budget for 1995-96.

To give you an idea of the context within which the House of Commons' budget has evolved, you have two lines in this graph showing how the main estimates approved by the House of Commons have evolved over the years from 1987-88 to 1997-98.

[English]

As you see, in current dollars the main estimates of the House, once adjusted for inflation, have been on a downward swing since 1991-92, and it's anticipated, as I will discuss later, that the almost $30 million objective of reductions will take us to $210 million in 1997-98, adjusted for inflation at $156 million.

The impact on our human resources has been dramatic since 1994-95. The House had a little more than 1,750 person-years and through the early departure incentive program launched by the Board of Internal Economy about this time last year, the number of employees was reduced to 1,457. This represents that 15% figure that I spoke about earlier.

It's anticipated, through the early retirement incentive program, which is the one that was launched by Treasury Board last spring onto which the Board of Internal Economy had decided to piggyback, that we will have a continuing decline of resources over the next two years. There are approximately 350 employees eligible for this program and, while the board still maintains a no-lay-off policy, we're actively promoting the program for those who are interested in the benefits of that program.

To represent graphically what you find on pages 14 and 15 of the outlook document, the multi-year reduction targets are just under $30 million. The $1.2 million was achieved in 1994-95 under the Gagliano plan. The largest one in the current fiscal year, the reduction of $14.4 million and the two remaining targets over the next two fiscal years of $7 million per year, is what the board has basically set.

Perhaps I can speak to those for a moment. The 1995-96 reductions - more than half was due to the early departure program of $8.9 million, further savings on year two of the Gagliano plan of almost $4 million. We backed out on the one-time costs for the general election from the estimates, the $1 million, and we achieved some operating efficiencies to the tune of about $600,000.

.1125

[Translation]

However, the next two years will nevertheless be quite difficult in terms of our budget. With respect to the estimates for 1996-97, 4 million of the 7 million dollars that are to be cut from our budget will come from amendments to members' pension plan.

The streamlining of operation, which is on-going under our renewal plan, should result, as the Speaker mentioned, in savings amounting to some 1.5 million dollars. As you will recall, when we appeared before you last spring on the main estimates for the current year, there was an amount of 2.5 million dollars for upgrading the Oasis network. As this project is now well under way, almost completed in fact, we anticipate a reduction in estimates for the coming year of 1.2 million dollars, and the remainder for the following year.

[English]

The target for 1997-98, however, will represent probably the biggest challenge for the senior management team. It is in that year, two years out, that we must achieve all of the transformations within the organization to deliver the $7 million anticipated savings. We hope that through renewing the human resources we can save a further $1.2 million. We are looking to technology and the management of information as an enabler as well in there, and we should be able to find economies close to $3 million. How we deliver services...we believe that another $1.8 million is achievable. Due to the efforts of this committee and the subcommittee, headed by Mrs. Parrish, we expect another $1 million to be economized in the travel and telephone envelope for members.

As Speaker Parent said, we have to start rethinking how we do business at the House of Commons. For the approach to the 1996-97 estimates, the transition team that's been put together to align all of the re-engineering and renewal efforts in conjunction with the senior management team has developed this model. It's not scientific. It appears simplistic. But for the first time, the entire House of Commons management staff is thinking about the lines of business that members of Parliament are in, as compared to services that serve the administration, the human resources department or procedural service. It is imperative, in our view, that everyone start thinking about what the needs of the clients are, and basically they fall into the four categories the Speaker described.

Individual constituencies operate very much on a small-business-type model. You have a budget. You have an office. You have a satellite office in the constituency. You serve clients. The chamber has a pre-determined calendar. There's only so much that can go through the factory, and we have to look at what the needs of the clients are for activities in chamber.

Committees, however, are probably our biggest challenge because their business is on the rise. Year over year in the last two years, members devoted a tremendous amount of resources and energy to committees. If we use 1992-93 as a baseline - 1993-94 being an election year - at the tail-end of the last Parliament there were 2,012 committee meetings. At the end of the 1994-95 fiscal year we had 3,396 committee meetings, up by one-third in terms of committee activity.

.1130

The caucuses also consume a large amount of resources, mostly financial, but with the modernization of the OASIS network and the Internet coming onstream in the House, caucuses will also be defining new methods of operations and will have to satisfy the client needs there.

At the centre of the screen is the institution. There are certain activities in the House of Commons to which resources are not necessarily assigned. For example, the parliamentary guides serve the public far more than they serve members, although a portion of that resource is used by members.

As the Speaker said by way of closing, there are countervailing pressures, however, against this outlook. We face our biggest challenge in the human resources area, in training a multi-disciplinary staff to encourage more mobility amongst the staff. The concept of a career beginning and ending at the House of Commons is fading in most organizations. We have to be vigilant in managing our vacancies and our terms and deploy as much energy as possible in the retraining and redeployment of surplus staff. Technology and information enhancements will likely take us a good way there, but we can't necessarily rely only on technology.

Finally, there's the fiscal framework of the nation, which may change. There are unknowns out there even for the finance minister, I presume, and all of this is predicated on the numbers staying roughly the same.

We are exploring partnerships. We have made some gains with the Library of Parliament. As of last month the Library of Parliament has now taken over the public information responsibility for the House of Commons, so we are a client of theirs. On the computer side, they have turned over the maintenance of their system and the development and planning of informatics, so they are a client of ours.

We're pursuing similar projects with the Senate and hope to find partnerships outside the House that will extract efficiencies. I've had some discussions with the Privy Council Office on tracking of legislation, for instance, and drafting of legislation between Justice and us. There are potential savings and certainly some efficiencies that could be achieved there.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

I'm calling Mr. Frazer first because he has to leave shortly. If members will grant that indulgence, I will continue around. Thank you.

Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of questions.

With regard to the 1996-97 graph you used, is the decision of the Reform members of Parliament to opt out of the pension plan incorporated in the $4.3 million reduction you have there, or does that add to the reduction?

Mr. Marleau: That is the figure given to us by Treasury Board in terms of the actuarial commitment that will not be required from the House of Commons as a result of the review of the legislation and all of the members who have opted out of the program.

Mr. Frazer: So that is incorporated.

Mr. Marleau: Yes, sir.

Mr. Frazer: With regard to streamlining of operations, the example you use in the brochure is food services. Could you give me some sort of reading on just what we're talking about with food services?

Mr. Marleau: This was covered with you when we appeared in the spring. The Board of Internal Economy has approved a business plan for food services for last year, this year and the next year. It targets reducing the deficit in food services from $2.3 million down to $600,000 over that business plan period.

Mr. Frazer: Is there an intention to eventually balance that budget and make food services a self-supporting operation?

Mr. Marleau: It's certainly an intention. As to whether it becomes an objective will be up to the board. There are overhead costs to running food services on Parliament Hill that make it very difficult to have a pay-as-you-go or self-financing result, because of the hours, the location and the limited clientele. But we are looking at the possibility of getting it below $600,000.

.1135

The business plan was developed with professionals from Price Waterhouse in the food business consulting field, and they felt that $600,000 was definitely achievable.

Mr. Frazer: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Proud.

Mr. Proud (Hillsborough): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to commend the people involved in this program, but I also want to caution you that when you are doing these things, these reductions especially, you should not forget the role of the MP in all of this. We seem to have been the ones who have been hit over the last couple of years in a lot of these reductions. In a lot of them I can agree with it, but there are many areas -

You mentioned the role of committees. In my opinion, the committees have to play a more major role than they are at the present time; a lot of commitment has to be made. I think some changes or some observations I have vis-à-vis staff on committees and areas like this have to be taken into consideration.

This also brings me to the point of MP staffing arrangements. I think down the road - and I know this ca not be done at the present time because no one dares ever ask anybody to increase anything - that is where we are going to be. With the demands of the public upon the MP, the MPs are going to have to look at increasing the size of staff or the availability of that for them. So I just caution you on that.

I see many things around the Hill that I believe could be changed, where I think money is wasted. I will give you one example, and it is in the exercise room on the eighth floor of the Confederation Building. I use that all the time. We are charged $100. Nobody has anything negative to say about that, but I will assure you it costs $35,000 to put two doors on there so nobody can get in. I think there are many areas we can continue to look at and change.

A lot of people work just in that specific area. I do not think we need five or six people to look after one specific area, whether they pick up the towels or whatever they do. I think you can look at all these things, and as a result of this your charts will continue to improve as you go down the road.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin.

Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult, without the benefit of hindsight, to measure the success of programs you have introduced or goals you have set.

But with the experience you have, Mr. Chairman, could you tell us what margin you manage to maintain between budgets and actual expenditures at the end of the fiscal year?

Mr. Speaker Parent: It has happened on occasion that we have not met our goals.

But we must emphasize that we will be reducing our expenditures by approximately 30 million dollars compared to the amount we spent at the beginning of the 35th session of Parliament.

That is an objective we think we can meet. We have already met the objectives for the first and the second years and believe we will be able to do so again for the third and fourth years.

I hope that answers your question.

Mr. Laurin: I would like you to be a little more specific. When there is an unforeseen expense or event which, in the opinion of the officials, means using funds, what are your criteria for accepting this expenditure, even if it was not budgeted for?

Mr. Speaker Parent: We can provide you with details on that topic.

Mr. Marleau: We do not have any contingency fund. We try to be as accurate as possible in our annual estimates and there is some leeway for the needs of the House. We report four times a year to the Board of Internal Economy concerning our financial results.

.1140

To answer your question more specifically, as to the gap between estimates and actual expenses, I can tell you that it's quite rare that the House asks for additional funds. There is always some very special circumstance that has lead to it. For example, last year, almost 16 million dollars of additional appropriations requested were earmarked for the early departure program. It was an Internal Economy decision, in the fall, in the current fiscal year, and that measure included a provision to recover those 16 million dollars over two years through wage cuts.

Over the last 15 years, the House has requested additional funds seven or eight times. They were mainly for budgets for special committees. The Board of Internal Economy can't foresee 18 months in advance a sometimes unanimous and essentially political decision by the House to strike a special committee that may spend 2.5 or 3 million dollars.

In 1988-89, for instance, three special committees were struck, one towards the end of the Parliament and the other, at the beginning. Nine million dollars in additional funds were allocated.

In 1993-94 - this is another example - after the general election, 5 million dollars of costs pertaining to MPs departures were met through supplementary appropriations. It was the greatest renewal of MPs in the history of the House of Commons.

There is a always a very good reason for this kind of expenditure. Other than that, we've always lived within the limits of our budgets.

Mr. Laurin: Yes, but you mention that you requested supplementary funds several times. Obviously, when 100 new MPs come in after a general election, you have no control over that. Neither does Treasury Board or the Prime Minister. It's entirely dependent on the will of the people.

Mr. Marleau: There were 204 new MPs.

Mr. Laurin: Yes, but what I want to emphasize on is that for the last ten years, every time governments have tabled estimates, they have always spent more than they forecast. They've never complied with estimates.

My question, basically, was whether your results in this area were comparable to the government's, or whether you were more successful in your administration than government overall.

Mr. Speaker Parent: I'd say we were a little more successful than the government as a whole, because we dealt with our problems seriously. When you cut spending by 14.4 million dollars in a year, that means that you are cutting pretty deeply.

So yes, we've been very successful and we hope to improve on our performance. If you want to compare us to the rest of the government, I'd say we're doing very well.

Mr. Laurin: That will do for now.

[English]

The Chairman: Perhaps I could throw in a question of my own. The last time I inquired, which was some time ago, the House was still paying a government printing bureau for printing members' householders. The House was unable to accommodate the demand and do all the printing itself. Is that still the case?

Mr. Marleau: Mary Anne may wish to add something to this, but my understanding is that only the householders that are in booklet form are done outside the House. We are doing the rest of that production entirely inside.

The Chairman: So that's why the pressure is on to switch from book format to the other?

Mr. Marleau: The board currently has a briefing note before the subcommittee on restraint, looking at the issue of format and cost reductions related thereto.

The Chairman: For the members who weren't here, in the last national referendum campaign members were allowed to print a householder in the constituency.

.1145

I wonder if that has been looked at as a means of avoiding cutting this booklet format. At the time, there were guidelines for the size, the quality of the material and the price. Members were invited to tender the printing in their constituencies, and as long as the price was below the figure in the guidelines, members were allowed to print there.

Mr. McWhinney: Who paid? Did the House?

The Chairman: Absolutely. It was paid by the House. The bill was submitted to the House and paid in the usual way. In fact, I found that the guideline price was very high, and I had no trouble at all getting well under the guideline for the printing cost by printing in the constituency.

The other saving for me was in the shipping cost from the printer to the local post office, instead of Ottawa to Kingston and then distribution, which must cost us a lot of money when you're sending a huge box of 45,000 householders. No matter what size they are, that big bundle has to go from Ottawa to the post offices in the ridings.

For a rural riding, it might make sense because the distribution is so wide. But in any urban riding, where the householders go to one central post office and then are distributed, I think printing and distributing locally might make sense, particularly if we're going to pay the government printing bureau to do it.

Their prices must be astronomical if that's what the printing cost is based on for this item that we've received. This is my only glimpse at it, but it's very high. If that's the case, I don't know why the board wouldn't look at that as a possibility and allow members to tender the work in the constituency, subject to guidelines, so that the shipping cost is gone, which maybe the House isn't picking up - that might be Canada Post, but it's still a government expense - and we'd pass savings on to some other body.

Mr. Marleau: I can quickly reply to that. That does form part of the current briefing note that is before the restraint subcommittee of the board. Indeed, we did take the analysis of the 1992 referendum experiment into that context. I suspect that the figure adopted in 1992 as a ceiling - because we had no prior experience with it - might have been a little high in terms of the actual amount spent.

The other dimension to printing locally in the constituency is that there are 295 ridings. That is part of the analysis as well. For some of the urban ridings it's not a problem, but for some of the more rural ridings it's a different dynamic. The board is looking at all of those things. It may be that the board will end up considering a pilot project - that's part of the briefing note - where we could have 10 ridings identified and experiment with them over a year.

As well, it could be that there'd be a double standard over time - so long as it can save money and be more efficient - giving the members the option.

Yes, sir, all of that is being looked at right now.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): Let me continue with that for a moment. I would be more than delighted to have my constituency be an experimental area, because I'm renowned as a cheapskate.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Parrish: I'm sure I could run those large format ones in two colours for less than what it's costing around here. I run 87,000. I use all four of mine every year. I'd love to be the one you test that on because I'm sure I could do it.

First of all, I'd like to compliment the Speaker and the whole organization on this. I remember looking at the estimates a couple of months ago. When Mulroney's gang came back in, many of them were repeats and they spent over $1 million to clean and paint their offices and otherwise waste taxpayers' dollars, while you kept us down to something ridiculous like $73,000 for 200 new people. I didn't even paint my walls or wash them or anything, and I'm quite happy in my office, thank you very much.

So where it's doable, you've done an amazing job, and I really appreciate it because it's in areas that don't hurt people.

The real favourite of mine is travel. I notice on page 15 that you talked about savings of $1 million. We've done that already this year. We have a letter to that effect. We're at a bit of a stalemate because so far it has been a voluntary exercise. I think my committee is going to be re-formed very shortly, when our surveys are back in from the members. We have some hard things to force down people's throats now, because the volunteer part is over.

There are a couple of things, such as the Vancouver trips. You can take them from $2,100 down to $529 a trip with a certain change in rules. I'm looking to you for some help because when this report comes back.... We're looking at anything that's above an economy class to come out of the office budget rather than be automatically paid by the House. That would encourage people, even on long distances, to go to economy and learn how to do the V-class, instead of spending $2,100 for the flight from Vancouver.

.1150

Once you break through that barrier down to economy, there are wonderful ways of saving money. I've found every single one of them.

I guarantee you we could take another $3 million off next year, but I'm going to need some cooperation from the committee and from the MPs. I'm going to need some cooperation from the Board of Internal Economy. So far I've done the best I can on a volunteer basis. But I have some neat little rules that would help you pick up $3 million. That's encouraging you to help me.

The other thing I noticed through reading this is that the care and feeding of one MP costs $400,000. I find that fairly amazing too, because I have almost one-tenth of the population of this country and I stay within budget. I think there's obviously some room for everybody else to cut back a little too.

I think you're doing a wonderful job, and I'm here to help you.

Mr. Speaker Parent: I know you're supposed to be doing the questioning, but what does ``care and feeding'' mean?

Mrs. Parrish: I just looked at all the costs. You said it's going to cost another $2.4 million to add six MPs, so I did some quick division. I figure the care, feeding and everything else for an MP is $400,000. I assume I'm spending $400,000 with 250,000 people, so those with 32,000 people should be able to reduce it proportionately.

Mr. Marleau: We assumed frugal MPs.

Mr. Speaker Parent: It should not go unsaid, Carolyn, that I salute your initiative and your committee on this travel issue.

One thing we've never been able to solve at our level - and I don't know if it can be solved - as a very general suggestion is how to get at the points of the members. That's because we haven't given the points to the members. We've always been rather shy of going that way because we were afraid somebody would misuse them.

I happen to maintain you have to give an individual the responsibility, even if he or she has to show on the travel sheets that the ticket was purchased with points. Do you know what I mean? It doesn't show up as money. That's not in our purview. That has to come from the committee the members sit on. I would encourage you to try to find a way to use these literally millions of points.

Mrs. Parrish: We have.

Mr. Speaker Parent: People may say they can't get the right flight, but I think if you look at it you might be able to come up with something.

I would wager that when you started out with this savings of $1 million, enough of us said we couldn't do that. But just by shifting from buying a ticket, I believe you said, from a Friday to a Monday instead of from a Monday to a Friday - that was in one of the letters you sent out. Why not?

We keep saying to stay away from the points because members can't be trusted. We have pretty big budgets. I happen to believe members can not only be trusted, but they should be encouraged to use what is available to them. Perhaps you can consider a discussion of that in your committee.

Mrs. Parrish: There is one problem we have. As we investigated closely, the original tendering contract - and I'm not crucifying Rider - we put out leaves us very little room to manoeuvre. I have suggestions on how to revamp that contract the next time it goes to tender, because we spend $209 million a year on all travel for the government. If we can save one-tenth on MPs' travel, and one-tenth there, or three-tenths there, we can save the whole country a lot of money.

I have a lot of suggestions, but we're going to go after the points again. We've tried once, but we'll do it again.

Mr. Speaker Parent: Good luck.

Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): I think we all take pride in the fact that you've been able to cut that 12% you've gone after. That's good. You're really headed in the right direction.

I just wonder if I could get even more pride out of it, if I could compare what we're doing here - if there's a comparison to be made - with the Commons in the U.K., or the House of Representatives in the States. Have we ever looked at what their budgets are, divided by the number of members being served?

.1155

Mr. Marleau: From time to time we have compared certain services from one parliament to another. There are great differences in political culture and constitutions and services offered to various members from one parliament to the next. It is difficult to come up with comparisons that stand up. It's easier - and this is the thrust of what we've done with our renewal plan - to pick similar services against the marketplace or another parliament than maybe doing, for instance, printing, or how they handle their documents or their informatics. It's easier to do so in that sense. But to make global comparisons for a 650-member parliament like Westminister, which doesn't offer 25% of the services we offer our MPs - Some of them don't even have offices. They don't have a large staff. They don't have members' operating budgets. They get money to draft bills because there is nobody in parliament to draft bills for them.

Australia has a full-fledged gym, an indoor pool and tennis courts to maintain. As you go around the Commonwealth, it's very hard to get good comparatives.

By way of comparison within Canada, the set of estimates that was tabled this year was down 6% overall, but almost 16% in terms of the administration. That was the best performance, bar none, in the Canadian government. We were a full year ahead in this downsizing exercise with our early departure incentive program and, hence, we're still a full year ahead in our target-setting and achievements. While it's difficult to have outside comparatives, in terms of overall performance we're slightly ahead of the general Canadian public service.

Mr. Speaker Parent: You might be interested to know, Bob, that a majority of the Canadian legislatures - I can't give you an exact number, but many - are looking to our team as to how we did this. They're coming to us now asking, what did you do here? You seem to have accomplished what you set out to do, always keeping in mind that we're dealing with our people and we wanted to be as gentle as we could with them and to maintain the trust they had in us. We believe we can be helpful to the other legislatures in Canada in this particular respect.

Mr. Ringma: Thank you for a comprehensive answer. I'd hate to task you more, but if you could get part of that message out, the comparison between Westminster and what they do or do not offer there, it would be very instructive for us to know, if there is some simple way of getting it to us.

Mr. Marleau: We can get you some data without too much research. The Inter-Parliamentary Union publishes some comparative data. It's just that the numbers are hard to reconcile with -

Mr. Ringma: Just the sort of thing you mentioned in your answer would be fine.

Mr. Marleau: We can provide that. It's not a task that would be too difficult.

Mr. Ringma: Thank you.

Mr. Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo): A couple of things, just to lift the fog around a beginner.

When you say caucuses is $14.5 million, could you give a brief description of the term ``caucuses'' and how those costs are applied? Some of us wouldn't know what that meant at all.

Mr. Marleau: Yes, Mr. Richardson, and by way of a side comment, maybe to respond to the comment made by Mr. Proud as well, I take Mr. Proud's suggestions seriously.

The whole concept and new approach of how we want management and indeed every single employee from messenger on up, or maintenance or committee clerks, is that they are serving the member of Parliament, that they are serving a line of business that the member of Parliament is in.

Over time, I would like to put to rest what from time to time surfaces as a ``them versus us'' attitude when it comes down to cost control and reductions.

This model simply says it doesn't matter where the Board of Internal Economy decides to cut further, or it doesn't matter where the committee recommends there be increases; it's a line of business that will be affected.

.1200

In other words, if you cut another two percentage points, it's either just redistributed across the lines of business or, if you increase one, funds will have to be found from one to shift to the other.

Caucuses, more specifically, were identified as being the recognized parties in the House. They meet on a regular basis and have needs that the House serves.

It includes the research service that is provided to you. There's space, for instance, in terms of the government and the official opposition, in the Wellington Building, which is assigned to that function. There's all of the informatics, including their linkages to OASIS and the file service you have, which is autonomous and secure within your own caucus research activity.

That represents the $14.5 million. As for some of the resources and staff, we pay for that as well.

Mr. Richardson: I had a suspicion that it was all of those support services that support a member of Parliament.

Mr. Marleau: That's right.

Mr. Richardson: Thank you.

The Chairman: I have a couple of questions.

I'm going to your slide on this one. In 1996-97, your total targeted reductions are $7 million. You have the savings on MPs' pensions.

Then you have two other things: streamlining of operations, reduction of overhead. What cuts do we have to look forward to in services with respect to this streamlining of operations and that $1.5 million figure?

Mr. Marleau: The main one, Mr. Chairman, is the reduction in costs in the food services area. About $1 million has been forecasted in that area, as well as what we anticipate to be the take-up rate on the early retirement incentive program, which was launched last spring by Treasury Board and which we announced in July as well.

We expect that in the 1996-97 fiscal year, approximately 30 employees will avail themselves of that program, thereby reducing our salary envelope accordingly.

That's a conservative estimate, I should say. It's not an undershot figure. But because early retirement is a very personal decision in terms of how many years of service you have, how old you are, and what your financial commitments are, it's difficult for us to get a more accurate figure.

As well, we're trying very hard, both with our unions and our employees, not to be out there twisting arms for people to go. It's a voluntary program. We don't want to push people out. We certainly are making all of the information available to them and offering counselling so they can make the decision according to their own personal situation.

That's essentially where that money will come from: the early retirement incentive program and food services. There are smaller re-engineering projects going on as well.

The Chairman: As for the OASIS network upgrade project, you're projecting $1.2 million in savings. Is that by deferring the upgrade?

Mr. Marleau: No. The upgrade is going ahead. It's well in hand.

This is reducing last year's estimates by $1.2 million. There was $2.5 million in the estimates for that program. In other words, that money has been spent. We're up and running, but we can back away by $1.2 million for the next fiscal year.

The Chairman: What will that mean? Fewer computers in members' offices?

Mr. Marleau: No. The plan is still the same. The upgrade has not been affected.

As you can see, in 1997-98, if you look at page 15 under ``Technology and Information Management'', the first item is ONUP, which is the OASIS network upgrade program. The final portion of the pay-back comes in that year. So it's staged as a call-back, if you like, over two fiscal years.

The Chairman: While we're on the subject of food services - we just left it and came back to it - you indicated that you had expected savings there. I presume this means staff. Are the new price arrangements, and so on, in the parliamentary restaurant affecting savings? Has business declined there as a result? Do you have any reading on that?

Mr. Marleau: Did you want to speak to that?

.1205

Ms Mary Anne Griffith (Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons): I think, Mr. Chairman, there has been a total change in the way the dining room has been operating. There have been cost savings in some of the methods of producing food.

There are cost savings in the dining room based on doing away with the menu of the buffet every day of the week, which was a major cost loss for the food services, and reducing the number of staff who are employed there.

Yes, there has been a slight decline in the number of people, but it's more than augmented by the savings that have been incurred in the additional prices and the reduction in the food produced. They've balanced out so that we're actually saving money in the reductions that have been made.

The proposal for the reduction in food services right across the board is a package deal. There are savings in the cafeterias. An example is closing the East Block, which was a major loss for the food services operation. Closing that earlier than originally anticipated has resulted in an additional saving there.

Our major cost in food services, as you have said, is staff. We're attempting to reduce the number of employees in the food services area, but with a no-lay-off policy, it's been necessary to find other employment in the House for these people and retrain them or persuade them to take early retirement. Both of those plans have been a little slower than we had originally anticipated, so we were a little behind in that area but we are ahead in other areas. We're on target in the reduction plan that's been approved by the board and we anticipate being on target for the next two years.

The Chairman: Does the Senate contribute to the operation of the restaurant? It used to be a joint parliamentary restaurant. I gather it is not any longer.

Mr. McWhinney: Senators eat there.

The Chairman: Yes, they do.

Ms Griffith: It is a joint service in that we're expected to provide service to the House and the Senate, but there is no cost recovery from the Senate whatsoever, other than what senators pay for their meals.

The Chairman: Maybe we should re-establish the joint parliamentary restaurant committee and ask the Senate to contribute some money. They seem to have lots of it.

Mr. McWhinney: Or we could close the doors to the senators. That might remind them of democracy.

The Chairman: Maybe they'd pass more of our bills.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to call him out of order.

The Chairman: You're out of luck on that one here, sir.

Mrs. Ur, please.

Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just along the same line as John Richardson's question as to committees, we have several committees set up. I wonder if there's a breakdown of the number of committees and the dollars used by the several committees, proportionate to representation from people coming forth to the committees and the dollars spent on people coming and leaving the same day.

On the health committee we had a really substantial review of aboriginal wellness and we heard a lot of the same stories from many different individuals. I just wonder if there's any way of tracking down the figures on the dollars spent on representation from places throughout Canada and if there are ways of saving dollars in that fashion.

Mr. Marleau: I didn't bring those figures with me. They are in the report that is filed with the House every June - that is, in the first quarter of the new fiscal year - of the previous fiscal year. I can provide those for you; they're quite specific in terms of how much has been spent on professional services, travel for witnesses, and travel by members. Those are available and I can make them available to the committee.

I'll just use Mrs. Ur's question to correct an error I made earlier in quoting you the number of meetings in 1992-93 and 1994-95. I quoted you the dollar amounts, which were $2,000,012 in 1992-93 and $3,000,003 in 1994-95. But the number of meetings was 774 and 1,235. That's still a very large increase in the number of meetings.

.1210

We have explored video conferencing as an option. There's been a few experiments. We've acquired the equipment. There hasn't been much use of it of late in terms of committees themselves. There's equipment available in the Promenade Building at 151 Sparks for video conferencing for committees.

Sometime in the 36th Parliament, if I may plant an idea with you, this committee has to review the whole concept of committee business, and it's something we will work on as well. It seems to me somewhat passé in modern parliaments to have twenty members of Parliament and one witness gather round a table for an hour and a half and then print it.

Committees will have to look at how they do business and at the kind of data they need to gather and the planning that is done in and around committee business, in what I admit is a very complex political environment in terms of having plans that are adhered to. But there has to be a better way.

First, the human resources of the House are the members of Parliament, and when I look at those numbers of meetings and I know what your daily agenda looks like around a committee commitment, I think better tools and better research have to be made available to members as they do their work.

Those will be the challenges of the next Parliament that we need to start working on now in order to ensure that line of business is well looked after. It will require funds if you're going to do polling, have focus groups or discussion groups, send out staff to do work for you and bring it back or send out smaller groups of members to do a specific task related to committee activity. It should come from within the envelope. It would mean necessarily a shift from one line of business to another.

I think we have a structural problem. There are only 295 members in the House, there are only so many hours in a week, and there are only so many places you can be at the same time. Once you eliminate cabinet, a certain amount of chair occupants, whips and House officers, you bring that number down pretty close to 200 in order to do all of the committee business of Parliament. I don't think the present system can be sustained much beyond the next Parliament.

Mrs. Ur: Thank you.

Mr. McWhinney: I have two questions.

One relates to travel. I notice for the code of conduct committee this item is listed, but in relation to informal associations, can you give us any information on the parliamentary associations' budgets? I have had some discreet comments by foreign diplomats in relation to the quality, I suppose, or dedication of some of the visits. Is there any sort of cost-benefit analysis of travel here?

It came up in connection with this informal visit to Cuba by an informal group, but in relation to the regular-line parliamentary associations, the figure is $3 million plus a year, isn't it?

Mr. Marleau: The total in the 1995-96 main estimates for parliamentary associations, that is, both the grants and the operational plants, is $1.4 million.

Mr. McWhinney: Has Mrs. Parrish's committee examined that?

Mrs. Parrish: No.

Mr. McWhinney: All right.

The second question relates to the principle of differentiation of constituencies in terms of special needs. I know of modest adjustments made for people with 250,000 constituents and also for geography, but has any more thought been given to this?

As a city member, I find the drop-in numbers in a city are enormous. I also find I get mail from all over the province and the nation, and I think that comes from the extra media exposure. It would obviously be difficult to apply on an objective basis, but has any more thought been given to this?

Mr. Marleau: As part of the estimates process last year and at the beginning of the Parliament, the board did review all of the supplements provided for special constituencies with large numbers. Indeed there have been several appeals by members to some of those decisions and the board has held fast to its initial decisions. It's also a question of net cost and of what the level of the cut-off is in terms of numbers of electors and numbers of constituents.

.1215

You hinted at the complexity in your question, Mr. McWhinney. You get one member who says he has a small constituency of only 75,000 electors but has five part-time constituency offices across the province, versus the urban member who has one downtown office with a metro station next to it. That complexity makes it difficult for the board to determine where the cut-off level is.

Mr. McWhinney: Have you considered transitional arrangements in the event that the Senate does not cooperate on one of the bills before us? Some members' seats are being divided in two. Obviously, the members are considered responsible until the next election in their old constituencies and they may have to pay off the new one.

Has any consideration been given to that? I believe 75 members have filed appeals in relation to the latest distributions. I think the normal average is six.

Has any thought been given to this? It might become a problem.

Mr. Marleau: Other then forecasting what the extra costs would be for the extra MPs, no.

Mr. McWhinney: Anyway, you don't have the cash to make any special arrangements.

Mr. Marleau: At this time, no.

Mr. McWhinney: Thank you.

Mr. Proud: When you were in the restaurant on the 6th floor, I wanted to ask - I've been around here only seven years, but there have been several changes to the menu and the prices. Looking at it as an outsider - I have not done any research - it seems that fewer and fewer people are using it. What do you people see as its future over the next couple if years? Will it be there or will it close?

Mr. Speaker Parent: I'll direct that to Mr. Ringma.

Mr. Ringma: I promise to use it twice more next year.

Mr. Speaker Parent: We hope the parliamentary restaurant will be available to members of Parliament for some time to come. We think it's a good thing to have the parliamentary restaurant available to our parliamentarians. If we didn't have that restaurant, our members would have to go off the Hill.

We're talking about time. When the clerk mentioned the number of committee meetings - I'm one of you and I know what these committee meetings entail in terms of research, time in the committee and travel. If we can make MPs' lives a little easier and help you better organize your time by having this parliamentary restaurant - that's one thing we'll look at long and hard before making any drastic changes.

Mr. Proud: Thank you.

The Chairman: If I can make a suggestion, I had lunch at the restaurant recently and it was excellent. It was very good but very expensive. If the offerings were plainer - -

Mr. McWhinney: Caviar?

The Chairman: If it was chicken or something plain and without a lot of fancy preparation - for example, roast chicken, roast beef or a nice sandwich. You may not want a sandwich in the parliamentary restaurant, but if the food were plainer and less expensive I think it would be more attractive. I recognize that the restaurant is trying to look like a very nice dining place, and it is, but I think the preparation costs for the food being served must be substantial, and the prices sure reflect it. It makes it very expensive for me to go there and entertain. I think more of us end up eating at McDonald's.

Mr. Speaker Parent: We're looking at all possibilities.

The Chairman: But with guests you're stuck.

I think that concludes the questions, unless....

.1220

[Translation]

Do any other members have further questions?

Mr. Speaker, thank you for coming today. It is always a pleasure to have you at our committee.

[English]

I declare the meeting adjourned.

;