[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 30, 1996
.1103 
[English]
The Chairman: Good morning, colleagues, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The order of business for today is the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997. It's vote 5 under Parliament.
I'm very pleased to welcome our venerable Speaker on your behalf. I understand he has with him Major-General Cloutier, Madame Griffith, and Mr. Marleau.
Welcome, colleagues. On behalf of the committee we look forward to a presentation and hopefully a vote in your favour.
Hon. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons): I hope so too.
The Chairman: Please begin.
Mr. Speaker Parent: Mr. Chairman, in my statement I'm going to be referring to some slides. You also have copies in front of you, so you can refer to either the ones that will be up here or the ones you'll have in front of you, whichever you are more comfortable with.
I thank you for inviting me down to give you some information that will hopefully be useful to you.
.1105
For the past several years the House of Commons has operated in an atmosphere of fiscal restraint, and this has meant a fundamental review of how we operate in order to use our diminished resources to best serve our clients. As you know, my colleagues, our clients are the members of Parliament and in a larger sense, through them, all Canadians.
As part of this review we have developed a model against which our resources and services can be measured. This is slide one, which I hope you can see on one of the two screens or in your book in front of you. This model recognizes four lines of business in which members operate, namely the chamber, caucus, their constituencies, and committees. This model has helped us undertake a planned, managed evaluation of how we spend our resources.
With the approval of the Board of Internal Economy, the clerk and his senior management team have made a commitment to restructuring the whole organization. The House is becoming more streamlined and effective, operating with fewer people and at a lower cost, while continuing to provide professional services of the highest quality.
[Translation]
In addition to serving the Members, the House administration is continually reviewing how it supports the institution itself, from Parliament to Parliament.
Making the House a more streamlined, efficient organization is a considerable challenge. Meeting this challenge depends on the driving force behind our organization: people. This is precisely where the House administration is focusing its priorities. Since we require greater commitment from each staff member, it is, in my view, imperative to reciprocate.
We have made a commitment to House employees to a policy of no layoffs. This has meant that we have had to be creative in our human resources management, in order to ensure that employees receive appropriate training and support if they are changing jobs or making alternative career choices. With the continued support of the Board of Internal Economy and the commitment of our employees, we are meeting this challenge with very positive results.
[English]
The 1994-95 main estimates, which should be on slide two, showed the first reduction in budgetary submissions in 20 years. The 1996-97 estimates represent the third consecutive year in which our requirements have actually dropped. Our multi-year plan called for a 6% cut in 1995-96, a 3% cut in 1996-97, and an additional 3% reduction in 1997-98. I'm happy to tell you that we're on target and meeting our forecasts.
The 1996-97 main estimates for the House of Commons are $216.5 million, which represents a year-over-year net decrease of $7.6 million, or 3.4%. In fact, adjusted for inflation, the 1996-97 estimates are actually $16.2 million less than those of 10 years ago, and we now serve 295 members as opposed to 282 in 1987. So in a very real way, we are doing more with less.
Last April, when I presented the 1995-96 main estimates, I told you of the savings realized through the Gagliano plan, the early departure incentive plan, which is on slide three, and the early retirement incentive, which we offered to employees. These initiatives have met with tangible results. Our person-year levels have decreased from 1,712 in 1994-95 to 1,429 in 1996-97. That's a 17% reduction in staff. We're also expecting another 4% reduction in staff for 1997-98, or approximately 60 additional employees.
.1110
[Translation]
The House has undertaken additional measures in order to continue to reduce operating costs. The increased use of technology has been one of the most fruitful sources of savings.
There is no need to remind those in this room of the vast amount of paper involved in running the House. With the increased use of technology, however, we have been able to make this documentation available to both internal and external clients in a faster, more efficient manner, while saving money at the same time.
[English]
In 1995 we introduced two new services to take advantage of the technological innovations in the publishing and distribution of parliamentary publications. These services were made possible with the completion of the OASIS network upgrade project, PubNet, and the parliamentary Internet service.
We introduced PubNet in February of last year. As you know, this service provides members and staff with electronic access to parliamentary and other publications. From their PCs, as I show you here on slide four, users can consult documents in a manner that allows them to search and extract information and to print excerpts from their own local printers, if they so desire.
In June 1995 the Board of Internal Economy authorized the use of the Internet for the delivery of information services, and in particular for the electronic publishing of all official House of Commons publications.
The transcripts of the proceedings of the committees of the House, known as committee evidence, became available on the Internet World Wide Web service as of June 1995. Hansard became available in September and the remainder will be available by the end of this year.
The reduction of approximately 30 million impressions will mean savings of $1 million in our printing costs, as well as more timely service and a more environmentally friendly approach.
[Translation]
Where the Postal Services are concerned, our automated system will be upgraded in order to prepare and distribute Householder mailings. A review of the mail management process should result in annual savings of approximately $40,000 in the first year and $100,000 in subsequent years.
[English]
In this coming fiscal year the House will continue its ongoing comprehensive House-wide evaluation and review plan. Complementing the evaluations and the ongoing restructuring process is a comprehensive services and products review. This review will examine all House functions over a period of time to identify possible gains in economy, efficiency and effectiveness. All activities will be studied to determine their value to members and to assess alternative approaches. We have also set up a task force to introduce results-based management practices.
Over the past year the House has been working with the Library of Parliament to reduce duplication of services. The recent transfer of the Public Information Office and the guide program to the Library of Parliament, for example, has centralized this common service.
The House of Commons is meeting the challenges of fiscal restraint head-on, as I show you here on slide five, and our main estimates have been reduced to $216.5 million. We are continuing to work hard at reducing our expenditures while providing the quality of service members have come to expect. Our proactive approach has resulted in considerable success, in which I believe we can all take pride.
I want to reiterate our deep appreciation to the House of Commons employees for the continued support they have given this renewal process. I know from experience that they are dedicated and take great pride in their work. Their commitment, along with the continued support of members, will allow us to continue ensuring the proper stewardship of the funds with which we have been entrusted by Canadians. It will enable the House of Commons to successfully meet the challenges that lie ahead.
That, Mr. Chairman, is my brief statement. We would entertain any questions on the estimates that any of our colleagues have.
.1115
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
We'll start with the Bloc, if you have any questions for the Speaker on estimates.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Good morning, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Marleau and Ms Griffith.
I feel quite concerned this morning, not specifically because of your presentation, but rather because of an issue which affects us personally as parliamentarians, that is the status of our legislative counsels. At present our legislative counsels come under the authority of the Clerk of the House and, ultimately, of the House itself.
There are strong rumours on the Hill about plans to relocate the Legislative Counsel Office with the Library of Parliament, merging it into another service and thus doing away with this autonomous service of the House. About three people would be affected. Approximately 265 parliamentarians, who are not members of the Executive, would be deprived of an indispensable resource as well as the control, freedom and confidence they enjoy in their working relationship with the people concerned.
When considering certain bills, such as Bill C-68, we noted that there were not enough legislative counsels for the work involved. Since consideration of that bill, we see fewer of them or even none at all when carrying out our clause-by-clause consideration of bills.
Mr. Speaker, since in the final analysis you are the person responsible for safeguarding the privileges of parliamentarians, I would ask you if there is any basis to these rumours, and if not I would ask you to assure me that the Legislative Counsel Office will not be transferred to anybody outside the immediate authority of the House, something to which the official opposition is opposed, and that the present system will be maintained. What is the position of the Speaker in this regard?
Speaker Parent: A subcommittee of the Board of Internal Economy will present a report to us on this question next Tuesday. It is very likely that we will act then. I think my Clerk has more information on this issue and I would ask him to explain further.
Mr. Robert marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Mr. Langlois, the rumour to which you referred is more than a rumour. The subcommittee of the Board has examined this question following a request by the third party in the House, when a scheduling conflict arose in their capacity to support members drafting amendments at the report stage of Bill C-68 while at the same time helping with the drafting of private members' bills, which is quite a different matter, but a service provided by the same office.
A number of options were submitted for consideration by the subcommittee, one of which was to have legislative drafting services provided by our research services, with funding being made available to enable them to hire or contract resources for the drafting of legal instruments.
Another option, which is the one you raised, was to transfer these resources to the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament, which already has consultants whom committees consult in their clause-by-clause consideration of bills. They are very familiar with the substance of bills and could interact with legislative counsels in drafting amendments at the committee stage, and subsequently at the report stage.
.1120
Another option would simply be to provide funding within the operating budget of each member, who could then purchase the services he or she might require.
Next week, the Board will receive and consider a recommendation from the subcommittee for a pilot project to be carried out in cooperation with the Library over the next parliamentary year, from September 1996 to June 1997.
[English]
The Chairman: I'm sorry, we're running into some background interference.
A voice: Probably there must be a vehicle outside with some sort of two-way radio that's interfering with our translation system.
The Chairman: Anyway, keep going. We'll persevere. Carry on.
[Translation]
Mr. Marleau: During the pilot project, which will go from September 1996 to June 1997, the three people responsible for legislative drafting will come under the Library of Parliament and work with researchers assigned to committees. We hope that as a result the service will be faster, more efficient and less costly.
Furthermore, the Library will be able to use these resources for other purposes, such as drafting summaries of legislative instruments, which the Library already does, when Parliament does not require the services for the drafting of amendments at report stage. It would be logical for a legislative summary to be prepared by the person who will subsequently draft amendments to the same bill; thus, the individual assigned to advise the committee will acquire expertise in the area.
Private members' bills will continue to be drafted by the Legislative Counsel Office, which during busy periods hire people on contract for drafting legislation. Priority will be given to any member requesting assistance with a bill the drafting of which would require less than 16 hours, while those requiring more than 16 hours would drop to the bottom of the list of priorities. This is the proposal before the Board at present.
Mr. Langlois: I was not mistaken when I stated or suggested that you would no longer have immediate authority over our legislative counsels, that they would no longer report to you.
Mr. Marleau: During the period of the pilot project, they would report jointly to me and to the Parliamentary Librarian. If the Board were to decide in the future to make this pilot project permanent, they would report to the Library. The services will still be available to the chairpersons of parliamentary committees just as they are at present; that would continue to be the case through the Research Branch of the Library rather than through the Clerk.
Mr. Langlois: I simply want to...
Speaker Parent: The service would still remain under my authority as Speaker of the House; that would not change. That was part of your question.
Mr. Langlois: Yes.
Speaker Parent: Whether the service comes under the Clerk or the Library of Parliament, it will still be under the authority of your Speaker.
Mr. Langlois: I will do my utmost to convince the people responsible within my party not to support this proposal, it seems to me to be a retrograde measure in terms of the system of checks and balances between our executive and legislative branches, which should exist within our system.
I consider that this is a major step backwards. There are already not enough parliamentary legislative counsels; we should assign a group, a legislative office or a legal office to the House that is the legislative branch, which needs to be strengthened. For the executive branch the sky is the limit. We know what our limits are. We are asking for assistance in drafting bills and amendments. We appreciate that the legislative counsels are already somewhat overloaded with work.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Marleau, for your explanation. I am strongly opposed to that change and wish to say so openly. I will not be working behind anyone's backs. I will try to convince my colleagues, Mr. Laurin, Ms Dalphon-Guiral and Mr. Duceppe to vigorously oppose this change.
.1125
Our office must be more independent and improved. The member for Kingston and the Islands would agree with me if he were still in opposition.
[English]
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question? We're on this topic -
The Chairman: I don't have a problem. It's up to your colleague. Can we move on?
Mr. Speaker, you're next on the list then.
Mr. Speaker: Could you give us just a little more background as to the reason for the move? Is it dollar-saving? Is it just an administrative difficulty the way it is? What seems to be the basic problem we're having out there? I know that at times there were very heavy demands and you were trying to deal with it. You cited the one situation where we got into a bit of difficulty. Is it an administrative -
Mr. Marleau: It's not a new problem. It's an issue that's been with us for some considerable amount of time, probably since report stage was introduced in 1968. We've always managed, or muddled, and members I must say have been very cooperative over the years when we've reached those peaks that we just can't manage.
There are no great dollar savings in this move. It represents three salaries shifting to the library. What we see, though, and what the librarian has seen as the advantage to it, is that there could be more efficiency, better service to the members and committee members, since there's a continuum in the analysis of bills and in the drafting of amendments thereto.
What you have now, if you allow me just a moment, is a researcher assigned to a particular committee. He or she may be in that room for several weeks along with you, knows exactly where Mr. Speaker is coming from in terms of his criticism of that legislation, and that individual can better interact back in the library with the legislative counsel.
It is absolutely impossible, under the present restraint circumstances, to have a legislative draftsperson in every committee that is studying bills through the process. We can't even meet some of the clause-by-clause analysis, although we try in those kinds of situations.
So the idea is to try to have, within the research branch of the library, those services available faster and more efficiently to the committee, and better tailored to the individuals around the committee table, rather than all of a sudden, after you've been six weeks into a committee, go to a legislative counsel who's been drafting private members' bills while you were busy doing your committee work, plunking the bill on his desk and saying you want these 16 amendments.
The turnaround time for that individual to read the bill and analysis and read some of your evidence could be done in a continuum in the library, whereas now it's done on the spot when you make your request, and sometimes with not all of the knowledgeable background.
Just by way of final comment, there is no shift in this from the legislative to the executive. I don't want to quibble with Mr. Langlois, but there is no shift from the legislative to the executive. I certainly understand his feeling that members and backbenchers and members in opposition require independent, autonomous service. The library is under the control of the two speakers and functions in the same non-partisan, executive removed manner.
Mr. Speaker: In terms of the legislative draftsmen who are on contract, would they move to the library as well, and be contracted through the library?
Mr. Marleau: No. The individual who is the legislative counsel, Robert Walsh, will stay under my jurisdiction. He is a table officer available to members at this time for specific inquiries and will continue to supervise the drafting of private members' bills, whether they're government members or opposition members. We've shifted over the last few years to a couple of outside contracts. There are resources out there. It's more efficient to use them on a contract basis than have them in the down periods when there's not much demand for private members' bills.
Mr. Speaker: One of the requests that has come to me as House leader over the last couple of years is to have at some time a legislative counsel at the committee table to give us some advice as we've been going along. That hasn't been possible. In this new arrangement, can you see more flexibility to do that kind of thing?
Mr. Marleau: I think there would be more flexibility because of the coordination that could be made within the library as the total resources in support of particular committee work progresses, if you like. We've tried in the past, but with three people available it's been very difficult to accommodate that.
.1130
The other thing is, I think as a manager I have to ask at which point do you need the trained legal person to draft your amendments in committee? I don't think you need them there while you're hearing evidence and witnesses; you have a substantive researcher there to capture the issues and liaise with that individual. When you get to clause-by-clause, or specific aspects, then legislative counsel might be required in attendance, particularly if you're looking at various options and interpretations if it's drafted this way or that way. But it usually comes in the final phase of your study, and I think it represents not an efficient use of resources to have them at the table at every meeting.
Mr. Speaker: Another question I was going to ask was with regard to the outlook document and page 9 and page 12 of the actual estimates. The expenditure targets are the same in these two documents, but in the outlook document the reduction in the number of staff is held stable. Whereas in your presentation today, and also here in the estimates, there is a reduction of staff noted, it isn't noted in here. But because there has been a change of observation in that there can be a reduction in staff of just about 300, and it doesn't reflect a reduction in expenditure in the estimate pattern, I was wondering if you could comment on that. Is it because the reduction in staff is not having effect in terms of the expenditure pattern in this 1996-97 estimate pattern, or is there some other reason? Is there a shift in funding?
Mr. Marleau: My reply, sir, is that the outlook document is really a planning document. It is in large part a statement of our goals and objectives approved by the board, and in it the early retirement incentive program dimension is probably our only real tool in an employment security policy context for staff reductions. We anticipated in the outlook that the take-up rate might be a little more generous.
For the estimates purposes, in terms of the actual person-years, at the end of 1995-96 we're looking at 1457 in that chart, at page 13 of the estimates, while we had projected roughly that for 1996-97. Looking into the next two years at page 9 of the outlook, you'll see they were looking at 1442, 1417. Our present projection is that we think another 60 employees will probably take up the early retirement.
Mr. Speaker: When will the real effect of that staff reduction take place in terms of potential staff, or expenditure reduction or reallocation of funds I would think from one area to another, the two routes you can go?
Mr. Marleau: In terms of staff departure, there have been no reallocations; they've been net cuts to the budget. The 257 employees who availed themselves of the early departure incentive program in 1994 represent an $8.7 million salary saving net. That is cut from this year's budget, and it's ongoing for every year henceforth, so long as we don't increase our resources or the House doesn't direct us to increase new programming that requires resources. So over ten years it's an$80 million saving.
In terms of the balance, we really won't know in any absolute way until March 31, 1998, when the current Treasury Board program terminates, exactly what the numbers are. Our ballpark is 300. We expect 60 under this new program; it could be a little less, it could be a little more. But we are bending ourselves as managers into pretzels to accommodate every request for ERI, and our objective is to cut. We have some ERIs, are early departure incentive requests, where we will have to replace individuals, not necessarily at the same level. Here there can be some savings.
.1135
The Chairman: Thank you.
Can I jump in here and pass the torch along to Mr. Milliken, please?
Mr. Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last year, during your appearance before the committee, Mr. Speaker, you indicated that a new system had been put in place whereby members could carry forward an unspent portion of their budget not to exceed 5% into the following fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker Parent: That's right.
Mr. Milliken: You've now had a year with that experience in place. Did it result in any savings, in your view? Can you make any comment on its effectiveness?
Mr. Speaker Parent: We have the specifics on that, haven't we, Mary Anne?
Ms Mary Anne Griffith (Deputy Clerk, (Administrative Services), House of Commons): If I could just comment on that, Mr. Milliken, the end of the fiscal year has just been completed and we're still collecting the data. We should have it available in the next week or two to get out to members.
The early indications show that most members are lapsing enough money to have a reasonable carry-forward to next year, and the 5% carry-forward is going to increase members' budget flexibility for the coming year. It's an exercise that seems to be working extremely well and it's also cut down the year-end spending that has been a problem in the past in some members' offices. It's a very effective new management practice.
Mr. Marleau: I can give you a tentative figure that has been passed on to me. We expect it will produce somewhere just above a $5 million saving, pending the figures that will be coming forward. The total carry-over is a little over $8 million, and 5% of that will probably translate pretty closely into $5 million in savings.
Mr. Speaker Parent: We don't have the type of gorging, if I can use the word, in the sense that all of us try to spend our budgets to get the things we need toward the end. Because this is carry-over, you have the chance of recouping some of the money and you can spread that out over a larger period.
From the preliminary figures that were shown to me, we're going to be looking at between$4 million and $5 million. That's a lot of money. That's what we hoped to save in one year and it's coming out even in this one exercise.
Mr. Milliken: In the work of the Board of Internal Economy, at various times it has been suggested that more expenses of members would be publicly disclosed. Is any consideration being given to expanding the list of items that need to be disclosed by the board at this time that you can report on to us?
Mr. Speaker Parent: It's on the agenda and it's coming up for discussion again. We have been discussing it. It's been ongoing for a little while now. We had to get agreement from all the parties and I think we've now come up with a formula that will be acceptable. I am hopeful it's acceptable. It's coming up Tuesday again. We will have a report on that within the next few weeks, I would say.
Mr. Milliken: In the area of expenditure by committees, as I see from the tables and charts you've given us, committees are estimated at about 10% of the cost. Is that down from last year?
Mr. Speaker Parent: What page is that on?
Mr. Milliken: It's on your first sheet here with these main estimates, ``New Model - Resource Determination by Lines of Business''. It shows committee expenditure as 10% of the total at$20.6 million.
Mr. Marleau: Yes, it is down, mostly in the printing section.
Mr. Milliken: Can you tell me the approximate decrease?
Mr. Marleau: On the printing side?
Mr. Milliken: No, please tell me the total decrease and then the decrease on the printing side, if you wouldn't mind.
Mr. Marleau: Actually, on the committee side, it's about $300,000. I'm looking for the actual savings on printing. Perhaps Mary Anne can...
Mr. Milliken: That's printing committee transcripts and so on. We saved by putting them on the Internet.
Mr. Marleau: That's right, and we saved by renegotiating some of the printing contracts, the actual cost.
Mr. Milliken: Was this renegotiated with the Queen's Printer?
Mr. Marleau: We no longer have a relationship with the Queen's Printer, sir. We've gone to an outside contract after a tender that was won by an outside firm.
Mr. Milliken: So have you severed all dealings with the Queen's Printer?
.1140
Ms Griffith: We went to tender this year and the Queen's Printer was one of the firms that bid on the contract, but we awarded it to a private printing firm that came in with a much more economical bid.
On the printing costs, I could be corrected, but we're saving roughly $500,000 compared to what we spent in printing last year with the firm that was doing the printing for us.
Mr. Milliken: So we've saved about $500,000 over the Queen's Printer's price, and that's allowing for the same amount of printing.
Ms Griffith: There is less printing.
Mr. Milliken: So there's a reduction in printing as well as a reduction in cost. Those two combine to make the $500,000.
Ms Griffith: Yes.
Mr. Milliken: Okay.
Mr. Speaker Parent: Of course that's the Queen's Printer, not the Queen's University printer.
Mr. Milliken: No, unfortunately. I'm sure it has a print shop in Kingston that would be delighted to do this work, but I doubt it was bidding on it.
Mr. Marleau: The total is about $500,000.
Mr. Milliken: That's the reduction in committee expenditure.
Mr. Marleau: That's right.
Mr. Milliken: Are you saying that all of the $500,000 saving was in printing and none of it was in travel? I thought there was some suggestion that committees hadn't travelled as much in the last years.
Mr. Marleau: We don't have that data yet. As you know, the Standing Orders require that report to be tabled in the House in June. That's being compiled. I did ask if it would be ready for this meeting but the figures were still rolling in.
Mr. Milliken: They were rolling in for these trips.
Mr. Marleau: I can't say off the top of my head whether there will be savings or not.
Mr. Speaker Parent: That's a legitimate question.
Mr. Marleau: We'll get back to the committee on it.
Mr. Milliken: I'm just concerned if the committee's budget is down by half a million, is it all because of savings in printing or has there been a reduction in budgeted costs for travel?
Mr. Speaker Parent: That's a legitimate question. We'll get an answer for you.
Mr. Milliken: I'd like to turn to members' travel. I noticed my colleague who normally is particularly interested in this subject isn't here. I wouldn't want to anticipate her questions.
You've presented figures to us on the costs for communicating with constituents, which include the travel and telecommunications. It doesn't include the printing of householders. On your chart on resource allocations by activity there's a $16 million budget for communicating with constituents. It is listed as telecommunications, which I guess is telephone and fax services, and travel, which is64 travel points. It doesn't include constituency travel or householders. What is that figure in relation to years past? Has it been reduced?
Ms Griffith: I can't lay my hands on the exact numbers, but the travel costs for the last two years have been down from what they were the year previous to that. The end of the fiscal year is just behind us and we're still calculating the final numbers here, but we're anticipating that it's between $500,000 and $1 million less than it was two years ago.
Members are consistently still booking more economical trips and booking further in advance. Of course, for those members who book through Rider Travel, we get a rebate from the travel agency and that's going to be approximately $300,000 this year on revenue we've spent.
I don't have the total number in front of me, but it's going to be somewhere between $500,000 and $1 million less.
Mr. Milliken: On our other telephone bills, has the board given consideration to looking into some of these discount deals offered by non-Bell companies? Bell may be offering one too. I don't pretend to follow all of these things because there's no particular reason for members to get into this when the House pays the bills.
Should members be looking at this as a means of saving the House money, or should the House be looking into it with a view to offering members an opportunity to economize on long distance charges by some other method? I refer to the charges we incur in the constituency offices, most of which are charged to the constituency operating budgets, and also for members' cellular telephones.
.1145
Major-General M.G. Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons): Yes, we are looking at the various companies comparatively. They are now coming out with all kinds of plans just like any advertising firm, and we are actively looking at them. Our costs are down now by $400,000, but we're looking for deals now too. We're not stuck to one company; we'll go to the others as well.
Mr. Milliken: You'll report to us if there are savings you feel we should make, and make recommendations.
MGen Cloutier: Absolutely.
Mr. Milliken: Okay. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Milliken.
Mr. Fewchuk, Mr. Boudria is next. Is your question on one point that just came out ofMr. Milliken's question?
Mr. Fewchuk (Selkirk - Red River): Yes, and it's very small.
The Chairman: Okay, I'll allow it.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): We have a caucus at noon.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Fewchuk: I have a concern about the printing question. You said you farmed it out to private enterprise. What is the quality? I haven't heard anybody say that the quality is the same.
Mr. Speaker Parent: It's not an inferior quality. At least we haven't heard anything from anyone about that. Mary Anne can give you -
Mr. Fewchuk: Yes, I'm just curious.
Ms Griffith: I would just like to clarify for the record that the printing that is now going out to a private contractor is the printing of House documents - Hansard, Votes and Proceedings, committee evidence - that we're still printing for distribution. Householders and documents we print for members are still being done in-house with our own printing staff. There's no change in the documents you're getting printed. You wouldn't notice any change at all. We've had no comments at all on the outside printing either. No one has noticed a difference at all.
Mr. Fewchuk: My next question is to the members. What is your intent with regards to the members' householders? Will you cut the paper size to the size shown here and get rid of our large copy? Is that the intent to save money?
Mr. Speaker Parent: That will be a decision for the members who sit on the Board of Internal Economy.
We have had about four or five options put in front of us and we're coming closer to a decision. We want to give the members as much flexibility as we possibly can, but you realize that there would be savings to be made if it were uniform. To get members to have a uniform format isn't always in the cards. We're trying to boil it down from say twenty formats to three or four, and that would help us a great deal.
Mr. Fewchuk: I'm just curious, because we could save so much and start hurting the system.
What you did with the plaques yesterday was a great thing. Maybe we are cutting too far. Maybe there should be some funds for such things. What we did yesterday was an historical thing. We must be very careful what we do.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fewchuk.
I have Mr. Laurin and Mr. Strahl and a request for two other short supplementaries. I don't know if I'll get to those. We are cutting off 11:59. Mr. Laurin.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): My first question is a general one. I would like to know if the work we are doing at present with respect to the 1996-1997 Main Estimates will change anything at all. Are we simply seeking to understand decisions which have already been made or can we influence the course of events?
Speaker Parent: You can always influence us. Of course we make decisions, but we must explain the reasons for the Estimates submitted to you and answer your questions. To some degree, we are presenting to you our plan, which is not cast in stone. If you have better ideas, we will consider them and try to include them in our plans for the current year. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Laurin: Not exactly. In his discussion with you, my colleague explained that the members required certain things in order to perform their basic responsibilities. We are here to make laws and examine the administration of the government; to do so, we need support and staff, just as a carpenter needs his tool box. Take his hammer and saw away, and the carpenter simply cannot work. Even though he has lots of ideas, he doesn't have the tools to implement them.
.1150
We are looking today at the 1996-1997 Main Estimates, which were implemented on April 1, 1996. We are almost in the month of June; a few months have already gone by. How can we influence you so as to obtain the resources we need, particularly at a time of economic and management restraint when spending has to be kept to a minimum?
If we are deprived of the tools we need to assess our work, we will not be able to continue to administer as we would wish to. We will be less able than in the past to find out what's happening in the country and assess our administration.
I would like to ask a number of more specific questions on other items, but you limit our ability to do so.
Since these Estimates have already been tabled in the House, how can we change what you are presenting to us here?
Mr. Marleau: The cuts stated in the 1996-1997 Main Estimates amount to $7 million, or 3% which was the figure set for this year. They cover three major areas.
An amount of $4.7 million results from changes to the members' pension plan. We no longer have to pay that amount into the plan.
An amount of $1.5 million comes from services provided to you, streamlining and reducing overheads. I would describe the pilot project concerning legislative counsels as being a case of streamlining rather than a cut, since the same quantity of resources will remain available.
Thirdly, there is an amount of $1.2 million which represents a partial reimbursement of the one-time investment the House made to establish the technological network, or information system, which is available to members.
These cuts of $7 million do not therefore represent a drop in the level of support services provided to members.
Management and the Board will face considerable challenges when we present to you next year the 1997-1998 Estimates, since at that time we will have to review certain services now available to members. We will have to determine whether they are intrinsic to the institution or to your role.
That is why we designed this model of the four lines of business, representing the bulk of the work done by a member of the House of Commons. During the next fiscal year we will have to find another $7 million, and it is then that we will face considerable challenges and may have to impact more directly on members themselves.
How can you influence the process? All parties are represented on the Board of Internal Economy and their caucuses regularly discuss important questions directly impacting on members. They hold consultations and report to the Board the feedback received from members.
It is over the coming year that the die will be cast for the following year and you may have to be more vigilant.
Mr. Laurin: There is a rumour that the House may sit less than five days a week during the coming year.
Have any calculations been made of possible savings resulting from the House sitting four days a week instead of five, as is rumoured?
Speaker Parent: I am not saying that it is not a good idea to sit four days.
Mr. Laurin: I didn't say it was a bad idea; it is a good idea, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker Parent: These are just rumours. We do not usually conduct research just on the basis of rumours.
.1155
If the whips or party leaders thought it would be preferable to sit four days a week, we would try to obtain more information.
Mr. Laurin: For the moment, no study has been carried out?
Speaker Parent: No.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Strahl, please.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for coming.
I have a couple of questions on the bills we rack up for parliamentary associations. On page 36 of your estimates is the issue of support for committees and for parliamentary associations. Could you just tell me what the breakdown is between the support for committees and for parliamentary associations? The total is $4.2 million. How much of that is for standing committees and how much is for parliamentary associations?
Mr. Marleau: Page 36 shows you the breakdown between standing committees and parliamentary associations. For 1996-97 standing committees have a voted allotment by the board of $2 million, and the contribution and the operational plans of parliamentary associations represent $1.3 million.
Mr. Strahl: Then what role does the next line down have, the ``Committees and Parliamentary Associations Support''?
Mr. Marleau: That's the entire support to the system of the committees branch, which brings in committee clerks.
Mr. Strahl: So the parliamentary associations are also supported through that same system.
Mr. Marleau: Yes. The Parliamentary Associations Secretariat, which was a separate entity, was abolished a year ago and enfolded into the associations, with about a $500,000 saving.
Mr. Strahl: I noticed in the more detailed breakdown on page 57 that the revenue for membership fees for members is falling right away. It's now zero. If I'm reading that correctly, it says your main estimates less the revenue from membership fees or members' contributions is zero. Is there no member's contribution to be involved in the parliamentary associations? I'm just wondering what that column is about.
Mr. Marleau: In every association I think there is a standard fee of membership, which I'm told by our comptroller's office is $15. At the time of submission of this document, that money had not rolled in yet. It's not accounted for, but it will be accounted in the next exercise.
Mr. Strahl: With interest.
Mr. Marleau: We don't invest it, sir; we return it to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Mr. Speaker Parent: I don't know if the right verb is rolled or extracted.
Mr. Strahl: I just wanted that. Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Speaker and staff, I appreciate your interest in being with us today. Thank you very much for your informative presentation. Keep up the good work.
Mr. Speaker Parent: Mr. Chairman, I know you're rushing off to another meeting, but I want to direct a statement to Mrs. Parrish. Her idea has come to fruition quite a bit.
I had some figures in front of me that show that in cases where you get the utilization of business class, we've had a drop-off from 41% to 36%. In the utilization of full fare, there's been a drop from 43% to 34%, I think directly because of Mrs. Parrish and her committee. It was her idea and it was expanded from there. The utilization of discount fares has gone from 16% to 30%, which is a doubling.
The Chairman: Good job.
Mr. Speaker Parent: Yes, it's a damn good job. Here at this committee I want to compliment you. I think it was a great idea and it has helped us a great deal, especially with travel expenses, so I say to you bravo.
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): Thank you very much. My secret weapon is that when I get on a plane and I see my colleagues in business class, I usually point it out in a loud voice.
The Chairman: Colleagues, shall vote 5 under Parliament carry?
Mr. Milliken: No. I'd like to have it back so we can ask more questions, Mr. Chairman. We've only had an hour and the meeting has been cut short.
The Chairman: No, we've been through one hour.
Mr. Milliken: I would like the chance to ask more questions. We could do another day on this.
The Chairman: As you wish. I'm just your chairman.
Mr. Speaker?
.1200
Mr. Speaker Parent: I'm at the disposal of your committee.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker Parent: If you want me back, I'll come back whenever you...
The Chairman: Whenever we can arrange it that's convenient for your schedule.
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): Were that the ministers were so accommodating.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Our next meeting will be on Tuesday, June 4, at 11 a.m. The clerk will advise you when. It will be resuming the Jacob issue.
The meeting is adjourned.