[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, December 5, 1996
.1110 
[English]
The Chairman: Order. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(i), we are considering the House of Commons Outlook on program priorities and expenditures for 1996-97 and 1997-98.
[English]
approved by the Board of Internal Economy.
Colleagues, on your behalf, I wish to welcome our venerable Speaker, the Hon. Gilbert Parent. I believe the Speaker is accompanied by our clerk, Mr. Marleau; our deputy clerk, Mary Anne Griffith; and our Sergeant-at-Arms, Major-General Cloutier.
Welcome. Bienvenue. I understand you have a short presentation, and then we'll throw it open to questions. Please proceed.
Hon. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons): Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I will be presenting the House of Commons outlook document, which was approved by the Board of Internal Economy at its meeting of November 5, 1996.
As you know, the outlook document provides the policy backdrop against which the main estimates and the expenditure plans are prepared. Today's presentation, which you will see in a bit, highlights our success in reducing House expenditures and outlines some of the challenges we will be facing over the next year.
[Translation]
At the beginning of the 35th Parliament, the government has made deficit reduction as one of its main priorities. The House joined in this common effort by reducing its expenditures. Under the direction of the Board of Internal Economy, the House of Commons reduced its spending by $29.6 million in the course of the 35th Parliament.
Before implementing the framework for reductions, the House undertook a rigorous restructuring process which enabled it to spend its resources as effectively and efficiently as possible. At the outset, the senior management team undertook to improve the organizational structure and make it more efficient. It would operate with less staff and at reduced cost while continuing to provide competent and professional service to members of Parliament within guidelines approved by members had accepted.
With the Board's approval, the House of Commons administration endeavoured to achieve its reduction objective in an orderly and well-managed fashion. In order to tackle renewal head on, it was agreed that the welfare of House of Common's employees would be considered the top priority in our decision-making. We had therefore made a decision to be firm in our commitment to our objective, but conciliatory towards people.
I am proud to be able to say today that our budget cuts were not done at the expense of our employees as we have had no layoffs.
[English]
I am pleased to report that this ongoing renewal process has allowed us to reduce our operating costs by $29.6 million, and we have met the target set by the board. We have successfully addressed our financial challenge without compromising the high quality of service offered to our members.
In order to shape a more streamlined organization with fewer people, the House administration has offered two workforce adjustment programs to House employees. To date, 307 employees have chosen to take part in these programs. It is anticipated that by March 31, 1998, the closing date of the government-wide employee departure incentive program, a total of 380 House employees will have left. This represents - and I want to underline this - a 22% reduction and a significantly smaller workforce.
.1115
It should also be noted - and this was asked last year when I was here - that management positions, meaning the director level and above, have been reduced not by 22% but by 40%. This was one of the questions that was put to us before. People were saying sure, you're attacking the bottom all the time, but what about the managers? There's the proof positive. We've worked very hard at both of these areas.
In addition to reducing management positions, the organization has become more streamlined by merging functions. The recent amalgamation of legislative counsel with committees and parliamentary associations is just one example of this.
The increased use of technology has enabled the House to achieve important savings while pursuing alternative forms of service delivery. PubNet and the Internet have given the House exciting new ways of presenting and delivering publications to members and to Canadians.
These technologies have resulted in dollars saved, while services to members and to the public - and I think this is the most important thing - have actually been expanded. In addition to the savings, the House has demonstrated its ongoing commitment to sound environmental practices by reducing the need for printed documents.
[Translation]
Dear colleagues, the House of Common has actively sought out partners to reduce its expenditures through cost sharing. The recent opening of the Visitors' Welcome Centre demonstrates how the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament have successfully worked together to achieve a common goal. The private sector's contribution has also been important for many other projects. The installation of plaques commemorating the service of former parliamentarians and the teachers' forum that took place here a few weeks ago are good examples of successful partnership.
[English]
As we move through the parliamentary cycle, the House administration is beginning to address the strategic issues associated with the new Parliament, issues that will put added pressures on both our human and financial resources. The addition of six new members to the 36th Parliament will mean increased costs to the House for members' operating budgets and their salaries. The House administration is committed to providing service to the expanded number of members without - I underline this - increasing its resources. This will be accomplished through improved operating efficiencies.
Over the next few years, the House will be dealing with a project of great magnitude. Many of us won't be here when it's finished. I refer to the renovations of the whole parliamentary precinct. Keeping members' needs foremost in our minds, an on-site architectural service has been retained to ensure that our client-driven approach is maintained.
So I'd like to re-emphasize our success in meeting the objective of becoming a more streamlined organization with fewer people, operating at a lower cost, while always continuing to provide members with the services they require to carry out their responsibilities. Reducing our operating costs has not been without its challenges, but with the board and House employees working together, we have successfully addressed them and have brought profound change to this institution.
What has been achieved at the House of Commons over the past years is, in my view, very impressive. In the coming years we will continue to provide proper stewardship of its resources and prepare the institution for the challenges of the next century.
I'm going to turn it over to the clerk, Bob Marleau, who will provide you with additional details from the outlook document.
Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Very briefly, I'll take you through four or five slides to try to cover in a little more detail the major points the Speaker has already covered.
[Translation]
The model you saw on the previous slide is the one that has now completely penetrated our management and organizational culture.
.1120
This model had been presented to you in the documents on the 1995 Outlook and in the first document we had submitted to you last year.
What we have achieved, I believe, is to focus House of Commons employees on the main reason why they are employed by the House of Commons: the members of Parliament and their four main areas of business, all of which rest on he foundation of the House of Commons as an institution.
The objective that the Board of International Economy had approved in 1994 did not disregard reality, since 72% of our expenditures are salary related. It had to be stated clearly and unequivocally that in order to achieve significant budget cuts, we would have to make do with less staff. Fifty-eight per cent of these resources are linked with MPs offices per se and 72% represent total salaries. In this context, a 12% reduction objective was a considerable challenge.
In order to achieve this objective, the reduction was staggered over four years. The Board of Internal Economy had approved a plan of action that was to lead us to the 36th Parliament.
[English]
We took stock of where we were at the beginning of the Parliament. A major change had occurred. There was not only a change in government but also 204 new members, almost two-thirds of the House, had turned over. Hence, we developed this model of the institution, identified the key questions, set the course in the blueprint, and we're really now just below the top of the arrow in terms of implementation and follow-up.
Fortunately, the fiscal framework didn't change too much for us in the four years. However, the removal of the freeze on salaries and in-step increments has modified that a little bit. I'll touch on that a little later on.
As the Speaker said, the 12% reduction represented a $29.6 million accumulated savings over the four years. Listed there are the general areas that have been drawn to come up to $29.6 million.
[Translation]
I must tell you that at the end of the exercise that we've presented, we will have achieved a $29.6 million objective; that is, the total reductions identified will represent the objective set by the Board.
However, as I said earlier, the financial environment has changed somewhat. In the summer, it was first announced that the salary freeze was being lifted and secondly a significant increase in employee and MP benefits representing an unforeseen increase of $3.6 million was announced, an amount that is difficult to absorb in this context.
If you look at the multi-year trend in the House of Commons' main expenditures until 1998-99, as submitted, you will note that since 1995-96, when expenditures are adjusted for inflation, the House is at a lower level than in 1987-88.
[English]
It means that ten years out, we're more than $10 million under what was spent in terms of actual dollars in 1987. However, the House has grown in its programs, and we're still meeting our commitment to quality service to the MPs with much fewer staff.
The Speaker referred to the major programs that allowed us to get there, since we're all talking about a salary base and a reduction thereof. The first early departure incentive program in 1994-95 produced the biggest drop in person years, year over year, from 1,712 to 1,457. With the continuing early retirement incentive program, which the government announced in the last budget and which we have piggy-backed on, our projections are as shown: 1,442 for 1996-97; approximately 1,440 for 1997-98.
.1125
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Where does the real cost-saving kick in within your fiscal years?
Mr. Marleau: We are now in the year where we're recovering our cost of the original decision. The taxpayer is now getting a return for their money in terms of the investment that was made in 1994-95.
Every time there was a departure the salary base in the responsibility centre or the unit was adjusted immediately so that there was no slippage at all in terms of hiring and rehiring.
Where are the savings going to come from in 1997-98? We have submitted to the board four major areas. I believe some of the human resources renewal, which is within management's power, will influence directly a saving of $1.4 million. As stated in the 1995 blueprint document, technology remains the enabler for renewal and change and enhancement and efficiency. We should be able to squeeze another $3.5 million through technology and more adjustments to our publications and information management. General re-engineering in the business process review exercises that are currently under way have netted already $1.6 million. We forecast next year it will give us another $0.5 million.
In the general account of MPs' travel, telephones, here I have to give the members credit. As we have fed you back the usage data, the costs of those programs have gone down. The passing of the information back to the MPs' offices has already returned over $1 million in savings, and we project another $1.1 million in the next year.
The next and final slide shows the progress made since 1994-95, at the beginning of this program, in terms of those elements that administration does not really control - that is, both the members' area and the House administration. You can see a steady decline from 3.2% forecasted for this year in members' offices and a zero for 1997-98. In part, that is also due to the fact that we are projecting six new MPs, and we are trying to absorb all of the costs attendant to that. As the Speaker said, that in itself represents a 2% efficiency rating if we achieve it.
The savings are reflected on the House services side. The blue box is the big year of savings because of the early departure incentive program. The targeted saving slightly exceeded 3.6% in 1996-97, and it is 3.1% for 1997-98.
Looking to the future, the outlook document is supposed to take into consideration some of the issues of 1998-99. Those of us who have been long-time servants of the House have learned not to project the election results, certainly not to project them publicly in a document such as this one. We opted for a statement that would say we'll deal with what the next Parliament brings us, but the consolidation of what has been started here will be pursued. It will be extended where we can and where the new Board of Internal Economy will direct it be extended. While we don't for a minute believe the work is finished by this Board of Internal Economy, we don't think the direction is likely to change dramatically in terms of squeezing as much efficiency out of the system as possible.
I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: So you're not predicting 204 new MPs, is that what you're suggesting?
Mr. Marleau: I'm predicting 301 MPs.
The Chairman: But not many new ones.
Thank you. We appreciate your outlook presentation.
I now invite our colleagues to begin any questions or interventions they wish. We'll begin with Mr. Langlois. Do you have something?
[Translation]
.1130
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I congratulate you on your French. An intensive stay in Bellechasse for two months running and all will go very well. Then I'll visit to your riding. If I came from Cornwall, I wouldn't have these problems, Mr. Marleau. I would have been born in the cradle of bilingualism like Mr. Kilger and the problem would be solved.
Mr. Marleau, when we look at the main estimates, the blue books, we realize that there has been an administrative restructuring in the past three years. When I arrived at the House of Commons, the clerk of the House, the administrator and the sergeant-at-arms were at an equal level under the authority of the Speaker.
Today, we see that these services are provided under your authority and that of the Speaker. What benefits have you identified following the implementation of this new administrative pyramid?
Mr. Marleau: Mr. Langlois, I would say that there were financial savings that can be attributed to a reduction in the levels of management. As announced by the Speaker, we've reduced management levels by 40% by amalgamating several of the responsibilities following the departure of individuals who retired or who left their position under the Departure Incentive Program. The other main advantage is a better coherence in the management team. Previously, we had - since I was part of it, I assume some responsibility like my colleague, the Sergeant at arms - three separate sectors at the House of Commons. It was very difficult to have any effective administrative change. Horizontal dealings were limited. You had to go up and down the ladder so to speak of each of these sectors.
What I see now, and I think that my colleagues here present will confirm this, is that we've developed a team cohesion that did not necessarily exist under the old system. The administrative structure did not lend itself to cohesion resulting is a lack of efficiency and effectiveness.
Mr. Langlois: When you talk about reducing staff, is that also reflected at the level of the Clerks at the table, the principal Clerks and the procedural Clerks? What rationalization has taken place at that level?
Mr. Marleau: In the procedure sector, the reduction in management levels started before this program was implemented. There used to be five principal Clerks, now we have only two. There were three Clerk assistants before 1990 and now there's only one.
Thus, the procedural service has undergone the same cuts as other services. We combined the Parliamentary Association Secretariat and the Committees Division; at the Protocole Directorate, we eliminated two management positions, and we recently amalgamated the Committees Division and the Legislative Council Office. There was no net reduction in person-years in that case, but it did create a better management structure.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Marleau, could any consideration be given to making better use of the staff, particularly that comes under the authority of the clerk and the two Houses? I'm thinking for example of joint committees, among other things, rooms where there are mechanical problems with the interpretation. Major General Cloutier can probably shed light on the restoration programs that will take place.
I hope we will be able to operate in a unified system without one room working on Beta and the other on VHS.
.1135
For example, have you considered that for a joint committee, we could have one clerk and one researcher, or perhaps two if the need arises? When everything is doubled, perhaps there is some overlap. I am just asking the question.
Mr. Marleau: As you know, this is nothing new. Substantial savings could be made in administrative services, by cutting publication costs, for instance. There has been a lot of progress made in that regard with our colleagues from the Senate and Mr. Desramaux, who was Head of Information and Technology Services and who has been assigned to the Senate for one year to speed up the cohesion, so to speak, between the two Houses. Perhaps some day there will be less duplication of documents.
As for the Clerks, at the office or in committee, that is a little more complicated because of the constitutional jurisdiction of each House. There used to be agreements whereby the House of Commons would send Clerks to some joint committees and the Senate would send theirs to other joint committees in the last Parliament. You see less of that now for reasons that are difficult to explain.
Let's say that there has been some regression. However, that is not the case with parliamentary associations. We signed an agreement with the Senate whereby administrative costs would be shared 50-50 by each of the Houses, regardless of whether the president of an association was a senator or a member of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker Parent: We still hope to improve the systems in both Houses, and no one would be happier than me if nearly all parliamentary duties could be shared. Year after year, we try to work with our Senate colleagues and I can assure you, dear colleague, that that will continue.
Mr. Kilger (Stormont - Dundas): Good luck. Be patient.
Mr. Marleau: Before asking your question, Mr. Langlois, I would like to add that we had a lot of success with the Library of Parliament. Programs have been integrated into the Library. In the last fiscal year, it took over parliamentary guides and the public information service. Mrs. Griffith recently negotiated an agreement concerning human resources management: the Library will be the sole provider of the services rather than offering duplicate services.
Mr. Langlois: My next question is for you, Mr. Marleau. Major General Cloutier may want to answer, because he is in charge of telecommunications, but ultimately, it is your responsibility. It's hard to avoid you in this Parliament, Mr. Marleau. But there is nothing wrong with that.
I realize that the purpose of PubNet was to reduce the paper burden, which cost money and was a waste, by putting everything on computer. Technology has evolved since, and I gather PubNet will have been a transition tool between a paper system and Internet because everything on PubNet will soon be available on the Internet, if it isn't already available.
So you can expect PubNet to go the same way as the paper system. When PubNet was implemented, did your sections know that the same services would be offered on the Internet in the short or medium term? Looking back, do you think the PubNet implementation costs were warranted?
Mr. Marleau: Yes, they were. As you say, PubNet is a transition towards something else called Intranet, that is, the extension of our network to include everything belonging to the House of Commons. With Internet, as you know, there are tremendous security problems and it will take a few years to resolve them to the satisfaction of major Internet users.
.1140
The purpose of PubNet was to provide members of Parliament with better quality source regarding hard copies.
The public at large had access to those same documents through the Internet, but not necessarily as quickly. That is why people think there is a duplication of effort: two clients are being served with two different tools. But early in the next Parliament, once the current system has been improved, it will be called Intranet, and will be much more secure and the network will contain things that cannot be offered at the moment because of PubNet's limited capacity and security problems with the Internet.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Marleau, I am pleased to see you talk to us about Intranet. Will it be a network for Parliament Hill or can ridings hook on to it? There is a serious problem right now with electronic mail and access to government publications. Ridings do not have access to them because PubNet is restricted to the Hill.
If I want to use electronic mail to send something to Ms Griffith or to Mr. McCrea, for instance, I cannot find the address in the general directory. So I have to call the Ottawa office for the address, redial and make a general file. You can't even get a complete listing of all the electronic addresses on the Hill, even though you can get them in the ridings.
Perhaps these problems seem trivial. I hope I'm using the right word in French. Banal, in French, means trivial insignificant but ``banneous'' where I come from were used on farms.
Mr. Speaker Parent: Guys in Cornwall would say that.
Mr. Langlois: I wonder if, for the next Parliament, there could be a network that would cover the ridings and the Hill, with the same services, so that there would be a single server and people could get a standardized language.
Mr. Marleau: It would be very complicated technically. I am no expert on this, but the purpose of Intranet would be to make the system user-friendly. You would use the same tool whether you're hooked up to Internet, Intranet, or electronic mail; it would be the same language, the same procedure, so that you would not have to learn three different systems to reach your riding office and vice versa. That is the purpose of Intranet.
The Chairman: Thank you, colleagues.
[English]
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to put on the table what I think is a constructive suggestion that may save us some money. It will take some administrative will to put it in place, but I think it has some possibilities. I raised this matter in the House leaders meeting the other day. It's with regard to Hill personnel who travel with committees.
First of all, we have had quality service from the people who have been with the committees in which I've been involved - the finance committee. They have done an excellent job. So I'm not here to criticize their contribution or their involvement in the process, because up to now they are required as such.
I don't know the total cost. I intended to follow up my Tuesday meeting of the House leaders with a letter to you, Mr. Speaker, but I don't have that completed yet.
I'd like to use the example that was on the table on Tuesday. This is the human rights committee. There were six MPs travelling to western Canada to four or five different locations. The number of support staff going with them was fifteen. The cost of moving them from Ottawa out to the locations was about $50,000 out of the $130,000 this tour was going to take.
I'm not critical of that. That's not my point. What I'm offering here is constructive. So I'm not criticizing. I know that's the cost of the process of doing it. If we say go ahead to the committee, that's the cost of the process.
.1145
I'd like to offer an alternative solution that would be less costly. I don't know what the amount of the reduction in cost would be, but it might be even half of what it is at the current time.
I and a friend of mine dealt with the aerospace industry. We lobbied Ottawa for a number of years to have industries across Canada do work for the defence department. The American aerospace people did small contracts with us in Edmonton, but we could never get the defence department in Canada to give us small contracts so that we could build the industry out in the regions, to have the experience and the ability to service our defence department.
The same principle applies here. I was going to suggest that we explore the possibility of developing regional capabilities to do the language translation, which is very necessary. We are bilingual in this country and each of our committees needs that facility. I think that facility does exist in Edmonton, in Regina, in Vancouver, in Winnipeg, in the Maritimes and in Ontario, and if we were able to say to them out there as a facility.... Right now they do not have the opportunity to even contract with us here on the Hill. We automatically say the staff from the Hill must go with the committee.
When I was a member of the finance committee two years ago, we raised this in the committee and said there was an option. The response came back that only Hill staff had the ability to interpret technical kinds of information and correctly put it into the documents the committee had to use. I wanted to argue the point at that time, but I didn't pursue it.
What I'm suggesting we pursue here is the building of regional capabilities through what I would call a request for proposal. It would take us two to three years to move from where we are to this new capability in Canada. We would build in the regions, in the provinces, a new industry, a new capability, and most likely at a reduced cost to the House of Commons. So we'd put out a request for proposal into Alberta, for example, and say the Hill needs this kind of facility, and ask who could respond from the private sector to meet that need. Then each year we would have to negotiate contracts with them, and say we're prepared to pay this much to work with them.
I think we could meet our objective, because the big cost - if you look at that example I gave you with the human rights committee - was moving the equipment and personnel from Ottawa to the west. It was a major cost. If they're located in Edmonton and our committee comes to Edmonton, the private sector group that does the translation, recording and meets the specification of the Hill.... Our committee has certain specifications that must be met. If they don't meet them, then we have to revert back to bringing our own people.
So I would like to explore that further. The question is how do we do it. We should follow this through to the end, and I believe there are savings there.
The Chairman: Colleague, I don't want to interrupt you, but I've just been advised that there is a vote - an unexpected vote, but a vote nonetheless - in about -
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): I've made my presentation.
The Chairman: Did you wish to comment on that, Mr. Speaker? Did you just wish to acknowledge it?
Mr. Speaker Parent: There are a few things. I believe the idea he brings up is a valid one, and it's one that should be placed here. There will be a follow-up. But you might be interested to know that we have been attempting another way of hearing witnesses, and I am referring to the teleconferencing that we have in place now.
What you were suggesting is that we start from point A. You would be point B. Point C would be perhaps the day will come in the not too distant future when we have the capability of having teleconferencing where witnesses such as myself could be up in the Yukon and in front of you. We could talk back and forth with immediate interpretation as we went along.
.1150
You have an interim solution. In no way do I denigrate what you have said. I think it's an idea that should be explored. But Bob has information for you with regard to the interpreters throughout Canada.
Mr. Marleau: I'm not familiar with the particular committee budget of human resources that you looked at recently, but 15 staff members seems rather high to me. I'll want to look into it myself.
Mr. Kilger: Could I add something to that? The numbers are correct. They were given by Mr. Speaker from Lethbridge - not to be confused with the Speaker. I looked at it more closely after the meeting at which Mr. Speaker raised those points, on which I agree to a great extent. But that particular committee, which is dealing with disabled people, access, special requirements in translation, sign language and what not, I think has a certain uniqueness to it.
I don't say that Mr. Speaker was misleading anyone, but I think that one would not be a good, solid example of what is usually the norm in terms of requirements related to committee travel. Certainly his points in terms of whether the translation services could be available through contracting out in other cities in the country from coast to coast to coast, and other areas of concern he's raised, are very valid, and merit being looked into. I only want to signal that the request from that committee at that time I think has some very unique areas.
Mr. Marleau: I thank you for that, Mr. Kilger.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): I don't want to argue the case. That wasn't my point in raising it.
Mr. Marleau: No, but fifteen is double the norm, from my experience. I was a little concerned at that. I would have looked into it more carefully, and will indeed. The average is six or seven, if you take a clerk, a couple of researchers from the library, a console operator and three interpreters. That's roughly the average. Nevertheless, your suggestion is worth pursuing.
One issue, though, in relation to translators, who are available locally, is that when the Canadian Society of Clerks at the Table met in Edmonton last summer, as will the speakers next January, they'll be provided with interpreters by the legislature, locally hired.
The House of Commons does not pay for the interpreters we get from Heritage Canada. In the legislation, interpretation and translation services are provided at no cost to Parliament.
The Chairman: I didn't know that.
Mr. Marleau: So if we take these along, we pay just their expenses, not their salaries.
We'd have to do an analysis, because it's the one taxpayer, as I've heard in the House before, who ends up paying for it. Would it be more expensive to cost in our salaries based out of Ottawa or locally, available on contract? I think we'd have to do that analysis. One of the costs that does not show up in your planning now is the cost Heritage Canada bears.
As well, we have tried, in most instances.... The electronic equipment is rented through a firm called ISTS across the country. They're one of the biggest. We have standing offers through our purchasing program here at the House of Commons with ISTS to have local equipment.
As committees travel within a province, it happens that ISTS has to move equipment from Calgary to Medicine Hat, let's say, because they may not have any locally. That's an extra cost that's imputed to us on top of the rental.
In terms of the infrastructure support, we have tried, but I think we can look at some of your suggestions in terms of how we might be able to maybe use legislatures locally who have infrastructures compatible with ours.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Colleagues, I'm going to interrupt, if the Speaker and staff would bear with us for a moment.
We have two other interventions, the last two. Before I get to those, in the off chance that this is our last meeting as procedure and house affairs, there are two motions we need to have considered. I believe they are technical. One is Mrs. Catterall's, and the other is Mrs. Parrish's, who 's not here. Mr. Kilger will speak to it. One is just to extend the report of the subcommittee on business of supply.
.1155
Ms Catterall, do you want to give us a suggestion for a date?
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): Yes. I move, Mr. Chair, that the subcommittee on the business of supply report date be extended from Friday, November 29, 1996, to Friday, March 21, 1997.
We will be finishing our recommendations this week, which will allow the researcher to prepare the report over the break, and the committee to deal with it during February and have it to this committee, I trust, early in March.
The Chairman: You've consulted with the other parties on that, Mr. Williams and Mr. Laurin?
Ms Catterall: Yes.
The Chairman: Colleagues, you've heard the motion. Is it agreed?
Motion agreed to
Ms Catterall: It will only need to be extended again if your committee wishes to spend more time on it than we expect.
The Chairman: Colleagues, the next matter is about the business of private members.
Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I think the simplest way to deal with the other matter is to pass an identical motion to that of Ms Catterall and to set March 1st as the date to table the report, because we will only start the study on Monday. So I will move the same motion as Ms Catterall, namely that the date for the subcommittee to table its report be extended to February 28.
[English]
The Chairman: I think we've agreed on March 21.
Mr. Langlois: Yes.
The Chairman: Agreed?
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: The second one, we just extend as well. Is that agreed?
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to get through those housekeeping matters.
Ms Catterall, you're next on the list, and then Mr. Laurin, please.
Ms Catterall: I thought you were about to adjourn.
The Chairman: We have a bit more time. We have about ten more minutes. I could give you four minutes and Mr. Laurin two minutes.
Ms Catterall: Let me narrow my questions, then, to the business of technology. Obviously, like every other area of either business or government, we're looking at a lot of transition to technology.
On page 8 you've referred to communicating effectively with constituents and the move to paperless offices, and how that relates to the entitlements and need for printed products.
What are we thinking of there? I'm concerned that we not start operating, in terms of members' communication, as if everybody had a computer at home, because most of my constituents don't. They're not in that income bracket. Of the ones who do, I understand only 10% are on the Internet and could receive electronic communication directly from my office.
How far are we heading down that line, since recent research on this indicates that communication is the thing constituents most value from their member of Parliament?
Mr. Speaker Parent: Are you referring to letters we send them, or your householders?
Ms Catterall: I am referring to the Speaker's outlook document, on page 7:
- In keeping with the move to electronic formats and ``paper-less'' offices, it is clear that
Members' entitlements to printed products need to be reviewed...
As well, talking to your point on the paperless office, as I had said to Mr. Langlois about Intranet, the idea there is not just to prevent or hinder communications between a member and her constituents, but if your constituency office is on the Intranet, the same way as you are on Parliament Hill, your constituency office will be able to offer better service to your constituents in communicating material data, downloading material straight to your constituency office at a local site. That's what Internet will try to achieve, rather than physically putting the piece of paper in the mail or by courier.
.1200
Your point about creating technology ghettoes out there is a very good one. However, most public libraries now have access for their members to the Internet.
Ms Catterall: I'm just entering a caution here. That requires you have a car to go to the library; that requires a certain awareness that you can do this, that you have somebody to look after the children and so on. That's not the reality for many of my constituents.
Mr. Marleau: What I say is most libraries offer Internet services to the members of the library. In that way, those people who use the public libraries have more access to parliamentary documents than they've ever had before in a much more timely fashion. They can get yesterday's Hansard, which would take weeks to get to Vancouver.
Ms Catterall: Let me clarify. On page 8, it's the specific link to householders that I am concerned about. I would ask one more general question, and I think we may need to come back to this, if not before, at the time of the estimates. You're working on a lot of technology systems, new financial information and financial services systems. I'm not sure if you are aware that Treasury Board is also looking at all the financial -
Mr. Speaker Parent: We are.
Ms Catterall: - services and if you're coordinating, but the Auditor General was quite concerned about how we manage the purchase, implementation, and planning for technology. We've had that problem for a good dozen years. We don't seem to have solved it generally in the federal government. I'd be interested in hearing at an appropriate time more about how the House is trying to avoid some of those mega-problems that waste millions of dollars.
The Chairman: Colleague, I'm going to jump in to make that your last comment.
Did you want to comment on that before we move to Mr. Laurin?
Mr. Speaker Parent: She's going to bring it back up in the estimates.
Mr. Marleau: We currently have an audit going.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, please.
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): With regard to the reduction goals that have already been reached, you say these are partly due to the Gagliano plan, and partly to the members of Parliament's pension plan. Could you tell us exactly which portion represents the members of Parliament's pension plan?
Mr. Marleau: To the best of my memory, it was approximately $4.5 million last year, and that represented cuts of 3 to 3.2% for members of Parliament.
Mr. Laurin: Now, with regard to salary increases, you say that since we are coming to the end of the six-year salary freeze, there will be increases of $600,000 in 1997-98. Do you mean automatic increases? I don't think any decision has been made to grant those increases.
Mr. Marleau: These are incremental salary increases which had also been frozen. That amount is fairly predictable for us, since we know the number of employees and where they are on the salary scale. What is not yet forecast and could not be forecast are the salary increases that will be negotiated by the Public Service in general.
Mr. Laurin: There is also no plan to increase members of Parliament's salaries. Generally, they both go hand in hand. When employee's salaries are frozen, the members of Parliament's are as well, and when they are unfrozen, the Mps' salaries are usually unfrozen as well. There are no plans to that effect. That means it might be difficult to reach the objectives if there were an increase in members of Parliament's salaries.
Mr. Marleau: We may be able to absorb the increase, depending on the level. If not, the Board will ask for additional votes, as promised.
Mr. Laurin: My last question is on the Parliament building renovations. Some repairs have been planned to meet health standards and, in the pamphlet our Chairman sent to us recently, it said the asbestos would be taken out of the Parliament buildings.
.1205
How can you justify taking the asbestos out of our buildings, when Canada is currently promoting its use in foreign countries? How can you convince the French to use it in their buildings if we take it out of ours?
[English]
The Chairman: That sounds a little bit political to me, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I understand, but I have the opportunity to talk about it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Speaker Parent: My dear colleague, I think it is more a matter of the type of asbestos. Perhaps that's what we should be talking about instead of asbestos in general, since some types of it can be used under certain conditions. We have learned that in our case, we did not use it the best way possible.
When we talk about...
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, excuse me. This might look political, but it really isn't. The government's policy is to promote the use of asbestos, and it would seem that that policy is not being followed by the Speaker in his plans to renovate the Parliament buildings.
Mr. Speaker Parent: We are not saying we will never use asbestos in our buildings. We are saying that...
Mr. Laurin: That means it will be replaced.
Mr. Speaker Parent: The decision has not yet been made, but we are looking into it. Perhaps something else could be used. I would think the Minister of Public Works and Government Services could provide you with more information than I can.
[English]
The Chairman: I'm going to jump in, colleagues, because we don't want to compromise our Speaker on an issue of such importance. On your behalf I want to thank the Speaker and apologize again for some of the disruptions, but he better than anyone is used to these disruptions. We regret that we were unable to see him the last time because of a call from the chair.
We do want to thank you, Mr. Marleau, Ms Griffith and Major-General Cloutier.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, if you are able to achieve any efficiencies with the other house you might get elected Speaker for life.
Mr. Speaker Parent: In this house or the other one?
The Chairman: Everybody's house.
On that note, colleagues, we'll adjourn. On behalf of everyone I want to wish you all a very merry Christmas and happy New Year with continued prosperity.
[Translation]
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
[English]
The meeting is adjourned.