[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 8, 1997
.1111 
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, B.Q.)): Order, please.
[English]
Today we have the dream team as witnesses: the Hon. Speaker, Mr. Parent; the Clerk of the House, Mr. Marleau; the deputy clerk, Ms Griffith; and the Sergeant-at-Arms,
[Translation]
Major General Cloutier,
[English]
who's just closing the door.
We are not in camera of course.
[Translation]
I'd like to welcome you. You may make your opening presentations and committee members will then have a chance to ask questions.
The Honourable Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank you for your invitation. I am pleased to appear before the standing committee to present the 1997-1998 Main Estimates for the House of Commons.
Once I have finished my short presentation, Mr. Marleau will be showing you some slides and then you may begin your questions.
When I last appeared to discuss the Main Estimates, I shared with you the success that the House had attained in better serving our clients, that is the members of Parliament. As you know, the House has been reexamining its service delivery for some time. Thanks to the guidance of the Board of Internal Economy, our service delivery has been defined in terms of four lines of business for members, namely in the Chamber, in caucus, in the individual constituencies and in committees.
This model has served us well, but more importantly, I believe that it has served members well. The House has responded to the needs of members in order for them to serve as duly elected representatives of the Canadian population. We have an additional responsibility and that is to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely. I believe the work which began under the Gagliano plan and which has continued since then has indeed ensured that the House's budget is spent appropriately and responsibly.
The House is continually reviewing how it supports and sustains the institution itself from Parliament to Parliament. As the end of the 35th Parliament approaches and the start of the 36th one draws near, this is becoming increasingly important.
[English]
In April 1993 the finance minister announced the long-term restraint program, and the Board of Internal Economy subsequently embarked on a reduction program for the House. In 1997-98 we will have decreased our operating budget to $213.6 million from $239.6 million in 1993-94.
You'll recall that following the approval of the 1994-95 main estimates, a package of proposals aimed at achieving additional savings was adopted under the stewardship of Alfonso Gagliano, the Minister of Labour. Savings of $5.2 million have been achieved to date in the various areas. In 1994-95, with the support of the board, the House introduced the early departure incentive program, which I will refer to as EDIP, and in 1995-96, the early retirement incentive program, ERIP. These programs have resulted in savings to date of $10.8 million.
.1115
While the House has achieved impressive savings, we have also had success with institutional renewal and initiatives, and once again - I underscore this - the continued support of the board has been a key to our success.
With regard to person-years, by the end of the 1997-98 fiscal year, the House will have achieved a reduction of 349 person-years. That's 20% of the total. In addition, management levels will have been significantly compressed through the elimination of 12 positions at the director level or above, representing about 40% of the management cadre.
Ray, I believe you were the one who asked about what we have done there. Well, the managers have been reduced by 40%, which is double what the rest of them were reduced, so we seem to be on the right track, at least from your questioning.
Streamlining services and combining roles, functions, and responsibilities in response to requests for early retirement and voluntary departure have also accounted for savings of about $340,000 in procedural services.
In the parliamentary publications area we used technology to increase access to documents while decreasing distribution costs. Consequently the House has developed a strategy to identify appropriate formats and technologies - such as print, CD-ROM, and a variety of electronic media - for the distribution of House publications to various client groups, but mainly, again, with a focus on the members.
In 1995-96 the House reduced its print volumes by some 30 million impressions. This was achieved through electronic distribution and the delivery of print copies on a demand basis, so not everyone was getting it every day, but if you needed it, it was there for you.
Last year print volumes were reduced by an additional 35 million impressions for a total of65 million since 1995-96. That's a lot of paper and that's a lot of work.
The reductions for 1996-97 include eliminating automatic delivery of Hansard, weekly journals, and status of House business to each member's office and eliminating each member's entitlement to five complimentary copies of Hansard, and this of course was with your concurrence. These proposals have resulted in additional annual savings of $1.1 million.
[Translation]
With the completion of the Oasis Network Upgrade Project (ONUP), the House has implemented a campus-wide information technology infrastructure for the Parliament of Canada. This provides members, their staff and House administration with a wide range of powerful new working tools to assist them in the delivery of their day-to-day activities. Work will continue to enhance members' abilities to serve their constituents.
A few words now about the printing services. A vision for an integrated printing information system has been developed in order to address the immediate requirement for consistent and reliable information on products and services, production costs and clients usage.
Printing services unveiled new printing stationary products for the House of Commons administration. These new products are designed to reduce the large number of different styles of personalized stationery items and promote a consistent corporate image. The introduction of the new corporate design will strengthen the House of Commons corporate identity while simplifying product lines and achieving significant savings.
The Board of Internal Economy approved a pilot project to introduce five new two-colour householder formats which were successfully launched to all members of Parliament in April 1996. These new two-colour formats will cost 30-60% less to produce than the previous householder format. Consequently a saving of $100,000 should be realized.
.1120
[English]
In the financial and the materiel management services, improvements were achieved by, first of all, implementing data for interchange with suppliers to reduce paperwork and automate accounting transactions. Credit cards were introduced to eliminate low-value purchase orders. Office supplies distribution has been streamlined and the administrative burden in inventory management has been reduced. In accounting, the same number of employees are handling 90% more volume than in 1984-85.
With regard to postal distribution and messenger services, an automated system has been upgraded for the preparation and dispatch of householders. Benefits include operational control, better service, and lower operating costs. A review by Mail Management Services, a subsidiary of Canada Post, has resulted in significant savings, and we've also established a delivery dispatch centre, which receives and tracks all requests for the deliveries of the House of Commons.
In October 1996 an improved passport service was introduced to help constituents obtain passports. This improved service speeds up processing and has reduced operating costs for both the House and the Department of Foreign Affairs, so it's a win-win situation.
[Translation]
While it is clear that the House has had great success in meeting its reduction targets set by the Board, the current parliamentary cycle will present some interesting challenges.
As we all know, federal elections are inevitable but their timing is not always predictable. What we can predict is that the next election will occur sometime in 1997 or 1998, and I believe it will be earlier rather than later, and that the House administration must be ready to respond when the election is called.
Preparing for a smooth transition from the 35th to the 36th Parliament is a major task for the House administration for the coming year. Members not running again or not returning after the next election need assistance in winding up their office operations and relocating. New members need orientation information and briefings on their roles, budgets, allowances and services, as well as their legislative responsibilities.
Adjustments in electoral boundaries and therefore allowances, further complicate the change to the 36th Parliament from an administrative perspective.
In the next general election, six more constituencies will be added to the electoral map. The House administration will support the work of the six additional members and their staff without the allocation of any additional resources. This reflects a 2% efficiency improvement in the productivity of the House administration.
Colleagues, the House of Commons realizes that its business information needs are changing rapidly and that its current information management practices and existing computer operating environments must continue to evolve accordingly. The challenge for the House is to handle not only the changing technical components but to maintain and ensure an information environment that truly reflects and supports the business information requirements of members and the institution itself.
Accordingly, the House will continue to invest funds to adjust the information technology infrastructure for the Parliamentary campus, the local area network and the desktop environments. This will allow members, their staff and House administration to continue to take full advantage of the new House technology environment.
The Internet and Intranet offer many opportunities for the House to improve the way it delivers its services both internally and externally. Electronic publishing will look at ways to further develop the Internet service in a manner that maintains a sophisticated search capability and access to documents. The House will continue its partnerships with the Senate and the Library of Parliament to offer key services and information via the Internet and Intranet.
.1125
[English]
Over the next 25 years Public Works and Government Services will be implementing a $465 million construction program. You see it around you right now. The beginnings are there. As a result the House has established the Office of Long Term Architectural Planning to collect, analyse, and recommend appropriate accommodation requirements for the House. Some of the immediate tasks include the construction of the Centre Block underground services, the CBUS, this year; the move to the Justice Building in 1999 - and that is going to be done; and the renovations of the West Block, where we're going to have the new House of Commons.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): The temporary House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker Parent: The temporary House of Commons, and then it will be the temporary Senate. But I believe I've explained all that to you and we're au courant.
Twenty years ago Broadcasting began recording hour-long videotapes of House debates, televised committee meetings, and special parliamentary events. These tapes, my colleagues, now number over 50,000. Because of corrosion that results from aging of magnetic tapes, the video record contained on them will soon have to be transferred to new tapes or to some other economical system. Planning is currently under way for this project. Broadcasting has been using traditional analog technology to record, archive, copy, and replay the debates, special events, and committee meetings. This equipment will have reached its normal life expectancy in 18 to 24 months and will gradually be replaced with digital equipment. Digital video recording systems will provide the means of migrating operations towards multimedia information systems.
So the House of Commons, I believe, is rising to the challenge of fiscal restraint. We'll continue to provide the quality of service members have come to expect while ensuring the Canadian taxpayer is receiving value for money. All members deserve credit for navigating the House through difficult waters. These have not been an easy three and a half years for any of us.
I am proud of the role the House of Commons employees play in helping members fulfil their duties in our democratic process. With the continued support of the board and the commitment of House employees, I believe we're well positioned to welcome the 301 members of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament.
That would conclude my brief remarks to you - maybe not so brief. I will ask Bob Marleau, the Clerk of the House, and actually my deputy minister, to take you through a few of the slides. Then we'll be at your disposal for any questions you have.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Mr. Marleau.
Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Parent andMr. Langlois. I'll be brief because you've already seen some of these slides as part of the presentation last fall and spring. They are updates to gave you a historical perspective on the evolution of the House of Commons' expenditures.
The first graph shows the evolution, in current dollars and inflation adjusted dollars, of the House of Commons Estimates.
[English]
You'll note that when adjusted for inflation the estimates of the House for 1997-98 are actually lower than the estimates of 1987-88, over a decade ago. This ten-year trend shows there's been considerable effort since 1994-95 to keep the estimates within the inflationary patterns. For seven of the past eight years they have been below inflationary rates and they have been in decline for the last four years.
You will remember in my presentation last fall I underlined that almost 75% of the administrative budget is salaries and that the challenge for the Board of Internal Economy and for the administrators of the House when the restraints program was launched was to deal with people.
.1130
Through the ERI and EDI programs, which began in 1994-95, there was a dramatic decrease in House resources. There was a 20% net reduction in person-years at the House, and we anticipate a further reduction of 30 person-years in the 1998-99 period before the early retirement incentive program closes on March 31, 1998. As you can see, it peaked at 1,750 PYs in 1989-90, and we're now projecting 1,378 PYs in 1998-99.
The next slide will give you a much broader perspective on person-years and on how the House has managed its human resources. In 1975-76 the person-years were around 1,389 for 264 MPs.I would say that in total fewer services were being offered to MPs back in 1974-1976. We are now projecting that in 1998-99 the figure will be below that level of person-year support. It will hover around 1,400 in the current year. This means there has been a rather constant ratio of House employees to MPs. If you count members' staff and House staff, the average is about 9.2 people per member.
The next slide is the more familiar pie chart and it shows the distribution of the $213.6 million. Again, on the members' and House officers' side you have to keep in mind that a good portion of that, $53 million, is the members' operating budget that is allocated to members, and another $32.3 million is the salary envelope for members and pension contributions. So the margins there for impact are not necessarily in the direct management or control of the board or the staff. The breakdown amongst the three major services is roughly constant from last year: administrative services, 15%; procedural services, 10.9%; and precinct services, 13.8%.
I think I'll show you one more slide and then allow you the maximum time for questions. The next slide shows you the year-by-year comparison of the reductions, beginning roughly at the beginning of this Parliament in 1994-95, and where they occurred. You can see there's a net reduction in 1995-96 and 1996-97 on the members' and House officers' side. That was due largely to the amendments to the pension plan. On the House side there has been a constant reduction against the three-year target that had been set by the board. In 1995-96 it was 9.8%. The large decrease is attributable to the early departure incentive program, and the decrease in the two subsequent years is attributable to the restraint initiatives that were supported by the board.
I could show you half a dozen other graphics, but the purpose of these three or four graphics was to give you the global picture and the historical trends.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Thank you for your presentation. We'll now start our question period, I don't think it will be quite as turbulent as this afternoon's, Mr. Parent. In keeping with tradition, we'll start with the Official Opposition. Mr. Laurin.
.1135
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, B.Q.): I think that you deserve our congratulations for your presentation. It's very well done and the content is quite understandable. Thank you.
If a general election were called this spring, let's say a month from now, would this have a significant impact on the estimates you are presenting here today? Would it mean savings or would it mean on the contrary additional expenses?
Mr. Speaker Parent: I don't think that there would be additional expenses but -
Mr. René Laurin: Would it change anything as far as the budget for members is concerned?
Mr. Speaker Parent: No, because it continues until the election and then will start up again. No, it would not have any impact on the members' budget.
Mr. René Laurin: No impact.
Mr. Marleau: The results of the election will have financial consequences and it is difficult for us to make any predictions. If a third of the members are new... The last time two-thirds of them were new, and this was quite exceptional, but if we have the historical average over the past 25 years, which is a third, there will be costs resulting from the replacement of outgoing members. This always required increased spending on the part of the House. It's quite impossible for us to predict.
Moreover, the members' operational budgets end with the recall of the House, and new budgets are recalculated on a prorated basis for the rest of the year. Therefore, there are sometimes higher amounts than the operational budgets envelope because of the overlap of two MPs following dissolution.
Mr. René Laurin: The point of my question was more about the possibility that there be many new Mps. I imagine that would have serious consequences, but you're telling us that supplementary budgets would be requested. Therefore, this is not included in the forecast you make here.
Mr. Speaker Parent: No, that's not included.
Mr. René Laurin: I now have a question concerning food services. A great deal of effort has been made to reduce deficit in food services and there's been a considerable reduction in the past four or five years. Do you intend to take any measures to reduce this deficit even further?
Mr. Speaker Parent: You're talking about the savings we achieved because of the Gagliano plan?
Mr. René Laurin: In your documents, you anticipate that in 1997-98, there will still be a deficit of some $950,000 for food services. Do you anticipate taking any action to reduce that deficit even further?
Mr. Speaker Parent: We're always looking for new measures to help us lower deficits. Perhaps you have some ideas. Once again, I will give the floor to my clerk.
Mr. Marleau: Essentially, Internal Economy had reported on budget reductions spanning five years. Ultimately, the Board's target was the deficit of approximately half a million dollars. It felt that this objective could be achieved. As you pointed out, we are anticipating losses of approximately $900,000 in 1997-98. The savings that have been achieved up until now are mainly attributable to staff reductions. In 1991-92, there were 114 person-years in food services. We've provided for50 person-years in 1997-98.
Almost all the savings have been achieved in salaries. Some investments have been made in equipment, which was to be made cost effective in two or three years, but given the operational context, it will be very difficult to achieve that $500,000 objective and to go below $500,000. As you know, the dining room is closed on Friday evenings, Saturdays and Sundays. It is not a commercial enterprise per se.
.1140
However, we continue to deploy efforts, both in terms of menu planning and use of part-time staff to reduce costs to a minimum.
Mr. René Laurin: At what stage are you in your consideration of privatizing food service operations?
Mr. Speaker Parent: We've been discussing that for the past few years. I don't anticipate that we'd be doing that right away, but of course you never say never. Perhaps it will come to that some day, but we must remember that the restaurant you're talking about, the parliamentary dining room, is for the use of members of Parliament. It's convenient for them to not have to leave Parliament Hill. It's something we need.
You spoke of privatization. That's something we're discussing. We will see in coming years. For the time being, we do not have any plans to privatize the restaurant.
Mr. René Laurin: You don't have a short or even a medium term plan?
Mr. Speaker Parent: Not for the time being.
Mr. René Laurin: All right. We see a lot of work being done on Parliament Hill. A lot of questions arise. During the winter, a very nice covered corridor was built to allow employees to do something, but what? We don't really know, because they are hidden and well covered. Couldn't substantial savings have been achieved if this work had been done at any other time of year?
Along the same lines, what are the immediate plans concerning the renovation of the West Block and repairs to the Justice building? Could you elucidate that for us?
Please don't forget my first question on the stone wall.
Major General G. Cloutier (Sergeant at Arms, House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, the same thing sprang to mind during the construction works along Wellington Street. That's a Public Works project. The purpose of these works is to redo the wall of Parliament Hill that runs along Wellington St. before the street is demolished. As you know, work began this week between the Supreme Court of Canada and the Bank of Montreal here facing us. During the summer, everything will be demolished and rebuilt. Pipes will be replaced as was done at the other end last year. Next year, the third stage will be reconstruction of the street from the Bank of Montreal up until the bridge near the Château Laurier. That will be the third stage.
What are the reasons for this construction work? I was told that it was to give the workmen more time so that they can work during the winter in order to be ready to meet up with the construction on Wellington Street.
I admit that with the money that was spent for this construction, one could build a very nice house.
Mr. René Laurin: On Wellington St. during all of last summer, from the Confederation Building to the Portage Bridge, everything was in a shambles and for the past two days, they've been preparing to do the same thing here. Streets are being closed off and backhoes are in place.
Mgen Cloutier: You're absolutely right. That's exactly what's going to happen.
Mr. René Laurin: Do they have to start all over again because they made a mistake?
Mgen Cloutier: No, no. They're starting where they finished last year and they will go up to the Bank of Montreal by the fall. Let me warn you, all summer long, there will be complete disruption here, and that will give us a lot of problems at the Bank St. entrance going toward the West Block.
Mr. René Laurin: Is it really necessary to do this in the winter time? They wanted to save time. If they hadn't saved that time, would the operation have been impossible later?
Mgen Cloutier: Yes, unfortunately, according to Public Works. With regard to the renovation of the other buildings, as you know, in 1999, we will be closing the West Block; it will be renovated from 1999 to 2002. Before June 1999, in fact on January 1st, members will have to move to the Justice Building.
.1145
At the end of the current year, people in the Justice Building will be moving across the street to the Memorial Building where the Department of Veterans' Affairs is located. We will be refurbishing the Justice Building for our needs and we should move there on January 1st, 1999. After that, the West Block will be closed from 1999 to 2002 to allow for its restoration and the construction of a new House which will accommodate us in 2005.
Mr. René Laurin: My last question will be brief. On page 6 of the budget, it says that as elected representatives, members of Parliament must report their expenses both to their director and to the Board of Internal Economy. Have you recently considered the possibility of full disclosure of members' expenses?
Mr. Speaker Parent: It's supposed to begin at the end of this year. We made the decision regarding the four major expenses that occur each month. This will be completely disclosed, but not in detail.
Mr. René Laurin: And what form will it take?
Mr. Speaker Parent: I'm sorry, but -
Mr. René Laurin: Will it be an annual report? How will this be done?
Mr. Speaker Parent: Mary Anne.
Ms Mary Anne Griffith (Deputy Clerk (Administrative Services), House of Commons): This will be divulged in a format approved by the Board of Internal Economy. We'll only see the totals in each category. This will be done at the end of the financial year, for example in June this year for last year.
Mr. René Laurin: So we'd be starting that in June 1997.
Ms Griffith: Yes.
Mr. Speaker Parent: At the end of June.
Mr. René Laurin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Thank you. Mr. Strahl, it's your turn.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Thank you.
I have a couple of questions. When we make the move to the West Block for the interim period, which is going to stretch into some years, as I understand it, we're going to kind of replicate the House of Commons the way it is now, the seating plan. Has any thought been given to looking at alternatives to that? I've been in other legislatures that have different things, such as a theatre in the round. Has any thought been given to looking at other things? There are a few things we could do. We could change the seating arrangement somewhat or go to electronic voting. We could make that the defining moment when we start to change some of those things.
Mr. Speaker Parent: With regard to the configuration of the House and the way we sit opposite one another, I have not given any consideration to that because I have not had any direction that any members of the House would want to change that. Those are our traditions.
With regard to electronic voting, for example, that's a great idea. I think we might be able to put something like that in the West Block, see how it works, and then move it all back into the permanent House of Commons. I think it's a great idea, Chuck. Are you suggesting we look into that?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: We could perhaps do something a little innovative in the West Block, whereas we couldn't get away with it quite so easily in our hallowed halls because we don't like to muck with the woodwork.
Mr. Speaker Parent: I think it's a good idea.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. That's one suggestion.
I have often wondered about this question, and since you happen to be the one who's here, I'll ask it of you. Back in December 1995 the House passed a motion that recognized Quebec as a distinct society. The motion stated that the House should undertake to be guided by that reality. I'm not sure what difference that makes. At the time it had been promised, so it was done. As the Speaker, of course, you're responsible for the House of Commons. We are to be guided by that motion that was passed in the House. You're in charge of the services, the management, and so on. I wondered if that motion had made any difference, and if so, what kind of difference did it make?
.1150
Mr. Speaker Parent: As you know, the House of Commons has always operated on the basis that we have two official languages, and that's part of the distinct society clause of Quebec. We are surely going to recognize the language and the culture in the laws. We already have the Supreme Court and special judges who deal with the civil code, and so on. But here in the House of Commons we have been dealing with the two languages and our two cultures for a number of years now, and I might say without boasting that I think we've been dealing with them quite well. All of our publications are in both languages. As we speak right now, on peut parler en français or in English, and this is available to all of our citizens.
So as far as an impact on the House is concerned, I believe the impact was felt many years ago, and we have adjusted to the realities of our nation. We are treating our nation as we always have because of the Official Languages Act. The distinct society is a continuation of what we have been doing.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: When we passed that, of course, many of us asked if it would make a difference or not, or was it just a recognition, as you say, of two official languages, which is already in place? I wonder if there had been any different directives, or if the management had been given some directive to administer something differently, or if it was just business as usual. The House undertakes to be guided by this. I'm not sure if it made an impact or not, because I haven't seen -
Mr. Speaker Parent: It doesn't have too much to do with the estimates, Chuck, but we have always recognized the two founding nations and the two languages and the two cultures. Has it had an impact on us? I would say not a measurable impact, because we've been doing this for years.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: As far as your Speaker's role goes.... For instance, today, when there were a couple of amendments tabled in the House, the distinct society clause doesn't affect how you handle those amendments or that legislative side of it. It's brought forward and it's -
Mr. Speaker Parent: It doesn't affect it in a new way. You can say it has affected us for a number of years now. We're already in the mode, in the model, and we hope this is something that will be transmitted throughout the Hill. But as to any great changes, no, we've been doing it for years.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. François Langlois): Mrs. Parrish.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your presentation. I always like charts. I'm a visual learner, and it makes it very clear. I'm also very impressed with the amount of money you've managed to save over the last couple of years. I think Liberals used to be known as a spending government, and you can see now that we're spending quite a bit less than the Tories were. Obviously with the help of the Reform Party and the Bloc we're moving in the right direction.
I have a couple of concerns, though. I have often boasted that I have 250,000 people, and we get a very small increase in our budgets to handle that many people. I've been walking around telling everybody that if I can do it, everybody else can do it.
I got a bit of a rude shock when the new returning officers were put in place. In fact, I have 363,000 people, and I've been handling that with a $198,000 budget and five full-time staff. I would like very much for the next Parliament to look seriously into stopping the expansion to 301 and beyond. I've been handling that many people, and I am exhausted and gibber as an idiot occasionally.
The budget of $198,000 will go to over $450,000, with two and a half ridings coming out of what I've been handling for three years. I think it's time all members of this government took a serious look, and with your leadership in the next Parliament we can do that; we can stop this expansion, because it's totally unnecessary.
I understand the political realities of Prince Edward Island and places like that, but I believe ifI can do 350,000 people on $198,000, with money left over every year, then everybody else can start doing the same thing. I think we're overgoverned.
That was a venting of spleen, but I also hope that at some point, with direction from the top, we start looking at that seriously. I know the Reform Party suggested it during our review of the electoral boundaries. While I agreed with them, I didn't think we had time then to do a thorough job of addressing the problems of the confederacy.
.1155
On the other problem I have, you're going to be training new MPs as they come in, and you talked about preparing them. We all remember my fussing over airline tickets. I notice now that Air Canada and Canadian Airlines are up to $500 for an economy fare from Toronto to Ottawa. I'm sorry, but I've totally given up on that. I drive. It saves you money.
But I discovered something that Cantel and Bell Canada are doing that you should look into. They're telling us when we go in to get portable phones - and cell phones seem to be the equipment of the present - that this is the Government of Canada plan. I assumed it was the best plan you could get, so I signed on. With a riding that size, I have to have one staff member with a cell phone. Between the two of us, we had bills of about $370 a month: $110 for me and around $250 for the person who works for me.
We looked at a program that Cantel has that now has us down to $100 each. There is free time after 6 p.m., and free weekends, which is when a lot of your political work is done. It's not the Government of Canada plan; it's the Cantel economy plan, because we have two phones.
I would suggest that the comptroller look into it. There must be a million cell phones on the Hill, and there must be a lot of us being told this is the Government of Canada plan, it has to be the cheapest, and we're using it. There has been no investigation into taking all those bills down.
I know they come out of our individual budgets, but with ministers having so many employees with cell phones, I'm sure that if we ever took a good look at that.... I'm not going to do it, becauseI did airlines and it did me no good. I would like the comptroller to take a serious look at what Cantel and Bell Canada are selling to us when we go in as a member of Parliament, with staff, and we're told this is the cheapest set-up you can get. With a little investigation you can save $270 a month.
So I would seriously recommend that you do a thorough investigation of that. When the new people come in, you can say this is the best plan you can get, this is what it's going to cost you, and we highly recommend you do this.
That's the end of my speech, Mr. Parent, but you did a wonderful job.
Mr. Speaker Parent: If I may, I want to address two things. First, on the work you did with regard to the airlines, I don't think you used this word but you gave the impression that it was useless. On the contrary, we save over $1 million a year because of that initiative.
If these telephones are in that same category, where all we have to do is look at a new way of doing it, then yes, we will look at that. It's a practical thing. We all use these telephone now. Our comptrollers will be looking into that, and hopefully we should be in a position to advise our new members when they come in.
But, Carolyn, don't duck away from that fact about the airline tickets. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was the committee you sat on that said we can't get at these millions - I repeat, millions - of travel points we have as members. One of the suggestions of the committee was that perhaps it was time these points were put into the hands of the members and used only for travel between your constituency or on parliamentary business.
Surely we've come to the point where we have literally millions of travel points that we don't use because...what? We don't want to put them in the hands of the members because they're going to misuse them? Well, we're all in this business, and it would seem to me that if you're travelling from your riding to here and you want to use the travel points and it's just as easy.... I'm told you pick up the phone and say you want a ticket, and they say, okay, we'll take the points off.
I wouldn't mind if it came out of this committee, maybe as a suggestion to the Board of Internal Economy, that we put these travel points back into the hands of the members for specific use for parliamentary business. That way they would be freed up and the millions we have there would not be wasted. I sure as heck would take that as an impetus for me as your Speaker to have this brought before the Board of Internal Economy if this were the decision of this committee, or committees like yours that are set up for this purpose.
Ms Carolyn Parrish: If I might comment, I think one in ten flights from wherever your riding is could be covered by points and you wouldn't have to accumulate them. One out of every ten points automatically goes on a point ticket, and the amount coming out of your budget would go way down.
.1200
I tried. But now that you're on side, I think we're going to do it.
Mr. Speaker Parent: I'm on side in the sense that if this is coming out of the committees, and if the committees are telling the Board of Internal Economy to use those points to save taxpayers dollars, what are we going to say, ``No, we don't want to save the taxpayers dollars''? That's not the way it's going to work.
If that recommendation did come out of here, yes, I for one would be very much interested in putting those points into the hands of the members so that they can use them profitably for us as parliamentarians and for all Canadians.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: In fact the two airlines have not cooperated. We've spent two years and they have not cooperated at all. This would be one way of working around them.
Thank you.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): I don't have any more names on my list. Does anyone else... Ms Catterall.
[English]
Ms Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): I wonder if you could give us a historical perspective and a forecast on the renovations on the parliament buildings. From the time the project was conceived, what was the original budget; what was it projected at; over what period of time; how much of that has actually been spent; and what are now the projections compared with what they were when the project started?
Mr. Speaker Parent: Do you want all that in one minute or less?
Ms Marlene Catterall: No.
Mr. Speaker Parent: I'll give you an overview, and then Gus will fill us in with some numbers.
Ms Marlene Catterall: You may just want to provide something further in writing. I'd be really interested in seeing that.
Mr. Speaker Parent: I'd be happy to submit a report on the chronology, a history, if you will, of when it started, why we decided we were going to have to do it, and when the decisions were taken.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will prepare a report and submit it to you so that you can all understand. From that report, if you want to you can call me to this committee. I'm at your disposal. If you want me to come back to ask me questions on this document, I'll be happy to appear before you.
Ms Marlene Catterall: One of the problems with the estimates is that they have such a short timeframe. A project like this is so massive and goes on so long that Parliament doesn't really get to see - and this applies to all departments - how well the project is being managed in terms of its projected expenses and then what actually happens over 10 or 15 years.
Mr. Speaker Parent: What we're dealing with, Marlene, if I might, is Public Works estimates. You're right; it's going to be going on until about 2014, I think.
But I remind you very gently that this room you're in, the building, was built in 1921. What we put in here in 1921.... I mean, none of us dreamed of television, and computers were someplace else. All the wiring in here is from 1921. As Chuck was saying, maybe we should be looking at electronic voting. Well, all of this forms part of the arteries, if you will, that keep this building going.
I think it's something we have to do. This building doesn't belong to us; it belongs to all of us, all Canadians. This is the single most visible and recognizable building in all of our nation. It falls upon us to make sure we pass it on to generations.
I will undertake to have a report in your hands so that the next time you want me to come, if you want, we can have a discussion on that specifically from our perspective.
Ms Marlene Catterall: I am not questioning the need for it to be done, but like any other very large project, especially one that goes over a period of time, it certainly is our responsibility, as members of Parliament, to make sure the spending is reasonably well forecast and reasonably well controlled.
Mr. Speaker Parent: I agree.
Ms Marlene Catterall: I want to ask about salaries. We are coming out of the wage freeze this year. I was interested to note that the members of Parliament allowance, which has been frozen now for five years -
Mr. Speaker Parent: Six years.
Ms Marlene Catterall: - will continue to be frozen. Our staff, who haven't had an increase in six years because of that, will therefore not have an increase. But you're projecting increases presumably as House staff come out of the wage freeze period.
I don't exactly want you to talk about the details of negotiations, or your anticipations of negotiations here, but you obviously are forecasting some increased spending.
.1205
Mr. Speaker Parent: We are looking at the issue. I guess when we have all the information and we've analysed it, we'll see what can be done.
Ms Marlene Catterall: What's the timing for the end to the wage freezes for House staff?
Mr. Marleau: As you know, there are four bargaining agents at the House. The expiry of the wage restraint falls roughly as follows: the Professional Institute of the Public Service opens up August 31, 1997. We expect to get notice of bargaining within weeks.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada, broken down into three groups, opens up April 1998 and June 1998 for the two other groups.
The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union opens up March 31, 1998, and our security association, March 31, 1998.
For the unrepresented employees, the cycle goes on the fiscal-year cycle. So the next increase the board will have to look at for unrepresented employees would coincide with April 1, 1998.
Mr. Speaker Parent: That gives you at least the time lines we're looking at.
Mr. Marleau: So it spans from August through to June 1998.
Ms Marlene Catterall: I guess I'd appreciate an explanation of why your estimates, then, provide for potential increases as a result of that for House staff but not for members' staff. I presume our budgets are approximately the same in terms of the proportion that goes to personnel costs.
Ms Griffith: Actually, we haven't put in the budget any specific amount for the collective bargaining, because we don't know what that's going to be. The only group that's coming up this year is the Professional Institute, and there are only 75 employees in that group. The freeze on the other three groups is in 1998.
First of all, we're waiting for some kind of direction from Treasury Board as to what they're going to be doing with government employees. We're normally governed...we don't want to set the levels for collective bargaining, so we want to be in sync with what the government is doing.
What we have put in the budgets is the in-range increases, because the freeze has come off those. So as employees' dates come up for an annual increase, that is now being paid to them according to the legislation.
Members, of course, have discretion to pay their employees within their existing budget. There aren't the fixed levels there are with the collective agreements. But the total has been frozen. We're assuming that one of the first things a new board in a new parliament is going to want to do is look at members' operating budgets, but we can't make provision for an adjustment, having no idea whatsoever what a new board will want to do.
So we have put nothing in, awaiting direction from Treasury Board on one side and a new Board of Internal Economy on the other.
Ms Marlene Catterall: So this chart on the increase is by activity. That grey area is just due to what would normally be -
Ms Griffith: That's right; in-range increases. We've also had increases to benefits. That was done by legislation as well. The increase from 14.5% to 17% of employees' salaries is an increase in benefits that was governed by Treasury Board - again, changes in legislation to the benefits paid to employees. We're only following suit with what the government's doing.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. François Langlois): Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Thanks.
At the beginning of this Thirty-Fifth Parliament we decided that we'd allow a certain amount of our unspent budgets to be transferred into the next year. Have we found some efficiencies from that? Does it look like a good policy? Any comments that may be relevant?
Ms Griffith: By way of a general comment, we have found it's been very efficient. A lot of members are lapsing money in their budgets in order to carry forward up to 5% of what they've lapsed. We've noticed a substantial decrease in the year-end spending that has taken place in the past. So it's worked out to be a very positive step for members and for the House budget as a whole.
Mr. Ray Speaker: Okay.
That's all, Mr. Chairman.
.1210
The Vice-Chair (Mr. François Langlois): Mr. Williams.
Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Speaker.
I have a little question about the House of Commons main estimates in line 3 on page 64. There's a line there in regard to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and those estimates include contributions of $111,720 and operational plans of $115,850, for a total of $227,570.
The IPU and I have not been getting along too well over the years I have been here. Mr. Speaker, in December 1995 I tabled a resolution that said the Canadian group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union focus on establishing a set of long-term targets and objectives to be accepted within the next three years by the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
I had some real desire for this organization to do something.
The motion continued, saying that should the Inter-Parliamentary Union fail to establish these targets and goals, the Canadian group would withdraw its membership from the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It was a positive motion, Mr. Speaker, setting out some objectives and some targets. It was a motion that said let's get going and let's have some value for the taxpayers' money that's being spent here.
I thought the IPU was a democratic organization because it's made up of members of the Canadian Parliament. The IPU blew a fuse, if I may say so, and that is putting it mildly.
They changed the constitution, Mr. Speaker, to say that all parliamentarians who wish to be members of the executive committee of the Canadian group undertake to promote the aims and objectives of the said parliamentary organization and used that clause to say that I was opposed to their aims and objectives and as such denied me a seat on the executive.
The constitution of the organization requires that all parties be represented, Mr. Speaker, and the Reform Party has put forward my name. The IPU refused to fulfil their own constitution and yet they think they're going to travel around the world, meeting with others, and saying that Canada is a wonderful democracy and we all subscribe to that. At the same time, as soon as one person like me has a different point of view from theirs - that it shouldn't just be a travel club, that it should be an organization that's out to accomplish something - they get thrown off. They change the constitution and say, ``We don't care about a constitution; you will not be around here''.
Getting back to the line on the estimates, Mr. Speaker, I think $227,570 is a waste of money.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the amount be deleted from the estimates.
Mr. Speaker Parent: I'm not your chairman.
It's whatever he wants to do. I don't want to get into this -
Mr. John Williams: I appreciate it. I should perhaps have been directing my remarks to the chair.
Mr. Speaker Parent: - but I'm really happy, John, that you've made a statement saying you believe that Reform Party members should be travelling and that they will be travelling with their colleagues around the world if only you can get onto that executive. And guess what? I'm going to the next meeting and I'm going to vote for you.
Mr. John Williams: You can't, Mr. Speaker. They said anybody but John Williams is welcome.
Mr. Speaker Parent: Is that right? I thought you were going to say anyone but Gib Parent was welcome.
Mr. John Williams: Maybe we're now in a class of two.
Mr. Speaker Parent: I hope this is worked out to your satisfaction, and I hope that you and your colleagues in the Reform Party will continue to travel as much as you have in the last three and a half years.
Mr. John Williams: We've always said, Mr. Speaker, that travel, if it has a purpose, is perhaps beneficial. Travel that has no purpose - and we just went through this yesterday, as you may recall, in Question Period with regard to the chairman of the Canadian Labour Relations Board and his $700 dinners in Paris - is not justifiable under any circumstances. Travel that has no purpose, like that of the IPU, cannot be justified, and that's why, Mr. Chairman, I move that the amount be deleted.
Mr. Speaker Parent: That's up to your chairman.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Mr. Williams, I will entertain your motion. We will undertake discussion on your motion when we're through with our witnesses.
Maybe you could make it again for our clerk to take it down. Is there anything further for our witnesses? Mr. Kilger.
.1215
[English]
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont - Dundas, Lib.): Monsieur le président and Mr. Speaker, very briefly, some of our colleagues have already touched on the issue of salary expenditures with regard to employees and members' operating budgets. I think it should be noted that this committee, the procedure and House affairs committee, is striking a subcommittee that will look at members' services. I'm sure those of us here and those who will come after us will need to continue to be vigilant with regard to the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.
On the other hand, I think we've come a long way in reducing those expenditures. Like any other structure, we come to a point where in fact we come dangerously close to cutting some of the vital lifelines of an institution, and I don't think this one is different from any of those others.
I think this subcommittee on members' services will be able to address the issues such as those raised by my colleague, Carolyn Parrish, with regard to travel. I know members like Mrs. Catterall and Monsieur Langlois and others have already demonstrated a great deal of interest and commitment to this issue, and I think it's timely to review the issues in light of how the services affect...and there's a wide range of them, whether they are in the areas of lodging or of services like meal services and so on, on the Hill, as menial as that may sound.
In this work environment, those services become essential, essential quite often more than others might realize. I think it's timely to strike this subcommittee to give us some advice, some direction, and possibly some recommendations for the next round of the Board of Internal Economy as to where those improvements could be made while continuing to be efficient in terms of expenditures here on the Hill for members, for their staff, and for all the other services related to our duties here on the Hill.
I just offer that as a comment, without any need for a reply or otherwise.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): No further questions? I kept a few for myself. I'll try to be brief because we've covered a lot of ground.
Ms Griffith, you're more particularly concerned with the comptroller's sector since last April 1. The Cartier-Macdonald airport, where I went through a rather frustrating situation this morning, asks for payment and gives us a receipt that's about as big as a King George the Fifth stamp that we'll probably lose in one of our pockets or somewhere else.
I understand this practice may apply in regional airports with privatization, but in view of the numbers of members and senators going through the capital's airport, in Ottawa, wouldn't it be possible for the comptroller's office to reach an agreement so that upon presentation of some form of ID, we wouldn't have to pay when we leave the airport and whatever documents are signed, especially parking receipts, could be sent to the comptroller's office? I sometimes manage to lose my plane tickets. Imagine what it's like with those tiny little receipts. People are inevitably going to lose some and then we'll have to sign affidavits saying that we spent $34 for parking.
I often leave from the Ottawa airport and come back through the Gatineau airport. My car is parked there for 8, 9 or 10 days. I go pick it up whenever I can. There isn't necessarily a tie-in to a flight. How much does it cost to write out and mail a cheque to repay a $50 claim? It seems to me it would be quite simple to reach an agreement with the Ottawa airport because it is the capital's airport, an agreement to the effect that the private enterprise that is now managing the airport could send the bills to the House of Commons for direct payment.
Ms Griffith: Are you making this suggestion only for the Ottawa airport?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Personally, I'm suggesting it only for Ottawa, not for an airport like Saint-Léonard, in New Brunswick. If Ms Ringuette-Maltais uses it once every two weeks, maybe she can take care of it and if I have any problems at the Quebec City airport, I can take care of that too but in Ottawa, there is a critical mass that might perhaps justify direct payment by the comptroller's office so that we don't have to go through all this sport with the coupons. The Ottawa airport is also used for international and transborder flights. We don't necessarily have tickets for repayment. Am I going to be sent a ticket if I leave for Chicago for two days? I don't have any ticket for repayment because it's not repayable but I do have to pay for parking. Am I going to ask for a cheque? How much does it cost to send out a cheque?
.1220
It would be so much easier if there was an agreement. Direct payment should be very easy in this computer age. Could it be considered?
Ms Griffith: We could see if it's possible to do something here in Ottawa. It would be very complicated to do this all around the country.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): No, I mean only here in Ottawa becauseI understand the situation.
Ms Griffith: We can try.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Thank you.
Mr. Speaker Parent: We will try.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Thank you very much, Madam, andMr. Speaker.
[English]
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, there was one question I got carried away with. My comments on the -
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Mr. Williams, I'm sorry to interrupt. I would like to finish. I had three questions and I'll give you the floor immediately after.
My other question is for Mr. Marleau. At the same time, I'll make my mea culpa because I'll have to admit my own ignorance in some areas. When I got here for this Parliament, like the other 205 or 206 rookies... What was the exact number?
Mr. Marleau: It was 204.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François-Langlois): So I was handed the 6th edition of Beauchesne and the Standing Orders of the House. I recently discovered that if I wanted to, I could get information elsewhere. I'm really interested in the Standing Orders and Beauchesne.
We have table officers and you are one of them and we have very qualified clerks of committees to inform us and we're nearing the end of a Parliament. I'll take Mr. Williams as an example. For a while now, he's developed some expertise in the area of points of order and questions of privilege. We're starting to work with that. At the beginning of Parliament, we all come to this place like it's a boarding school. It reminded me of the first day I went to boarding school, in Eléments latins. You're looking for the doors and you wonder where to go to find paper and whatever else you need. It seems to me that members should be better steered towards the services. They should be told: if you want training on procedure, we have the resources and they're available. Here's what we have to offer.
I read somewhere recently that all this had been distributed when we got here, but I wonder if there's a better way to make the new members more aware of all this. You can't force them to learn procedure. There are some who don't like it, but there are others who thrive on it.
Mr. Marleau: At the beginning of our last Parliament, Mr. Langlois, we organized a two-stage get acquainted briefing for the new members. If memory serves, about 190 of the 204 came to the preliminary briefing session on the House where we looked at procedures.
It was done in two stages. First, there was an administrative presentation, not long after the elections, that just about coincided with the first caucus meetings. At that time, the new member was confronted with all the administrative paperwork necessary to organize an office and information concerning available services. We held a second briefing two days before Parliament was called back, in January 1994, and these went on in the House and the committee rooms and lasted a whole day. The objective of that exercise was to make the new members aware of the legislator's role as well as the legislative process and parliamentary procedure.
We also offered a series of little seminars over several months after Parliament was called back including a meeting organized in April, 1994, by Queen's University on those broad questions that we, as experts in House procedure, can't touch, such as matters of general policy on the national scale and others. Only 28 members came to that meeting. It wasn't a great success. Despite the follow-up we did, we didn't manage to attract many members to the meetings that followed the first ones.
We are in the midst of preparing an orientation session for new members. We have just completed briefings on dissolution and the consequences for your office, etc. We organized caucus briefings. We are preparing the next orientation session, if I can call it that, which will take place at the start of the new Parliament.
.1225
In addition, at the start of the last Parliament, the Library of Parliament proposed a series of lectures on private members' business, for example, and on committee work for members. There was a series of lectures. I would say that they lasted until the end of June 1994, because interest waned.
I am not criticizing anyone. New members of Parliament are submerged in the requirements of their new roles. Often, the more academic sessions are a bit neglected. Members must attend committee meetings, because their whip wants them to be there instead of have a lecture on Estimates. These conflicts have an inevitable impact on the lives of the members of Parliament, and you know that as well as I do. However, we plan to use a strategy that is perhaps a little more aggressive and reorganize these training sessions at the start of the next Parliament.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Thank you very much, Mr. Marleau.
[English]
Mr. Williams.
Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A question I overlooked in my concern with the Inter-Parliamentary Union goes back to an article in The Hill Times, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that the reading room used to be a reading room and is now a committee room and the caucus room for the government. I'm looking at an article on May 5, 1994, in which the Prime Minister is quoted as saying he loved the room when it was a reading room. He says:
- I remember meeting you there many times. It was a good place to meet members in a
non-partisan way. It was an error to remove that institution. I enjoyed it for many years and it
was useful to me in my political career. I'll look into it.
Mr. Speaker Parent: I consult with the Prime Minister on a variety of issues many times during the year. I must say he has not brought this up in the last three years. I don't know if it's at the forefront of his mind. I do know we have a reading room downstairs, which at least for this time has served our purposes.
However, the possibility of returning to the ``good old days'' is something that might be in the realm of possibility. I myself happened to like the reading room of the old days. I'm sure when we get all this construction done, in about 2014, that will be one of the priorities the Speaker of the day should look at.
Mr. John Williams: We move fast.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Are there any other questions for our witnesses? If there are none, Mr. Speaker Parent, Mr. Marleau, Ms Griffith, Major General Cloutier, I thank you for your appearance, your graciousness, your consideration and the precise nature of your answers to committee members' questions. We will now move on to Mr. Williams' issue.
[English]
Mr. Williams, I understand the pith and substance of your motion -
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker Parent: Are we excused?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Yes, you are excused. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker Parent: Until next time.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. François Langlois): I receive it as is, but to secure the conformity of your motion with our precedence and rules it seems appropriate to rephrase it as being to reduce vote 5 under Parliament, House of Commons, by the amount of $209,466.
.1230
Mr. John Williams: You're reducing vote 5 from $155,817,000 by that amount.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): The clerk says we will discuss your motion at the end. If the Speaker and the House table officials do not need to come back, we can start discussing your motion immediately. Even if it means finishing up later. I do not know whether committee members want the witnesses to come back. We no longer need the witnesses. Your motion is on the records.
Ms Parrish.
[English]
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, I would like you to consider taking that as a notice of motion. We have two minutes before the end of the meeting. As a notice of motion, serve that it will come up at the next procedure and House affairs meeting, when we can have a more thorough discussion.
We have a few things that came out of this, and I don't think we should be voting on it hastily. If I vote on his motion right now, I'll vote against it. He might have some good arguments, though, and we haven't really heard any of those arguments.
I'd also like to put a notice of motion in on having the Board of Internal Economy look into using accumulated points for actual travel back and forth between ridings.
So I'd like to see those as notices of motions that will come up at the next meeting.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Is it a notice of motion, Mr. Williams, or do you put the motion on the table?
Mr. John Williams: I'll accept it as a notice of motion, Mr. Chairman, provided it comes up at the next meeting.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): We will come back to vote 5 during the next meeting with Mr. Williams' and Ms Parrish's notices of motion. We will not vote today.
That brings us to other business and the next meeting. Are there any points you want to raise? Personally, at the next meeting or at a subsequent meeting I would like us to discuss the request from the students at Harvard who are deprived of their right to vote because they are not Canadian residents. I would like us to look at that to see if something can be done.
Mr. Laurin.
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be useful for us to have the text of the notice of motions in writing when the meeting is called, so that we know exactly what we are dealing with.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Mr. Clerk, would it be possible to provide committee members with -
Mr. Strahl.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: In the same vein, something else that came up was the Speaker's willingness to discuss electronic voting and so on in the new building. I don't know if I need to make a notice of motion that we discuss it or that we urge the government to consider it, but I would like to see that this gets some further action beyond just having the Speaker admit it's a good idea. It would be great if there was a notice of that motion.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Mr. Strahl, this brings us back to the fundamental question. Do you want Mr. Parent to appear again? Once we have started the discussion on the motions relating to vote 5, that will be the end of our witnesses.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't think there's any point in discussing it with Mr. Parent unless he has something more substantive to discuss. What I think we should do as a committee is put forward a proposal, put forward something more concrete. If we then want him to come back to discuss it, that would be the time for it. There's no use springing it on him, because he won't have any details on costs, estimates, or any other thing. But I would like to make sure we deal with it in this committee. That's why I bring it forward.
Ms Marlene Catterall: It has been dealt with before in this Parliament, among the parties.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: All right.
Ms Marlene Catterall: Before this committee decides to do anything, ask anybody to do anything or spend any time on it, I think we should review what's already been done and why it wasn't proceeded with.
An hon. member: [Inaudible - Editor]
Ms Marlene Catterall: Yes, just as long as the committee has that information back before it.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. François Langlois): Indeed, but I think that we are getting into the debate. Mr. Strahl, your notice of motion is on the record. During this Parliament, there was a subcommittee on electronic voting, and Mr. White was a member of that committee.
.1235
Mr. White, Mr. Boudria and I, who presided over it, tabled a report indicating that there was no consensus. Things may have changed.
Is there anything else members would like to raise?
[English]
The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair. Merci.