Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 25th, 2010

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

While you're searching, I'm going to congratulate you with regard to a question I asked concerning succession planning two years ago. You've answered it in part.

Ms. Kennedy?

[Claire Kennedy, Chief Financial Officer, House of Commons]

Mr. Chairman, I have the breakdown of budgets for members, House officers and presiding officers. If additional information is required, I can provide it. With regard to members and House officers, the salary breakdown is approximately $240 million. That also includes social benefits, which represent 17%. That figure is imposed by the Treasury Board. The rest concerns House administration.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I understand that, but, since there is supposed to be a freeze on the salaries of members and political staff, I wonder how personnel expenditure could have increased from $310 million to $320 million. We're talking about an increase of $9,621,000 here.

[Claire Kennedy]

The explanation is that a number of collective agreements were in effect on the House administration side. So there were arrears. The House had to comply with a 1.5% retroactive increase. I have the details on the collective agreements. In some cases, we went back two years because non-wage clauses were negotiated under the collective agreements. Those increases therefore represent arrears prior to April 1, 2010. In the federal budget, for the public service, arrears may be included in the Main Estimates.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

That's what the $9 million represents?

[Claire Kennedy]

That's correct.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

All right.

Is there a hiring freeze? Do managers have directives they have to follow when replacing employees in each of their services? Are all employees who leave systematically replaced, or is there a reassessment following each departure?

[Audrey O'Brien]

There isn't an official freeze.

However, I have asked each of the service chiefs to consider departures as an opportunity to reassess their needs. In some situations, for example, it might be more advantageous to reassign an employee elsewhere, or even to another service. Once again, that would be for the purpose of meeting needs and complying with priorities that are evolving.

I don't want to see systematic hiring to replace employees who leave. It must be determined whether we still need the position in question. We may need an employee, but elsewhere and for other duties. That's why I'm reluctant to tell you that there is a freeze. However, there is definitely a careful reassessment.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I have another question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I gave you an extra couple of minutes because of the time it took to find some of those answers.

Ms. Davies.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much.

I was just looking at the two columns as well--the one that we got today from the Library of Parliament and the one that you've submitted--and I don't know whether the difference is that you've included the supplementary estimates that came out for the previous fiscal year whereas maybe the Library of Parliament wasn't including those. I don't know, but there is a difference in the totals.

The question I want to focus on is security and building management overall. In the estimates there is some reference to changes for security, but that has more to do with IT. In terms of security services overall, I wonder if you can tell the committee whether you foresee that there will be changes forthcoming at some later date in terms of either the level of security services or the way they're conducted, and whether we can anticipate anything there.

In terms of building management, ever since I've been here there has been a lot of discussion about people moving out of West Block, and I guess it is finally going to happen this year. But in terms of the precinct overall, I think it's a very important question with regard to, as you made reference, the long-term-vision plan that just goes on forever and ever. I wonder if you could give us your perspective, or the Speaker's perspective, of what needs to happen in order for us to have a long-term-vision plan that we will actually be able to adhere to, that actually does get implemented and that we don't see being put off year after year while these buildings continue to deteriorate. They are national treasures, and we have a responsibility to make sure they are kept in good order historically speaking and also in functioning order. As you've noted already, that's a big challenge. But I wonder if you have any thoughts about what we need to do to address that.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I have concerns about the administration of the buildings here, over which we have very limited control, as you know. The Board of Internal Economy is not responsible. We're technically tenants in these buildings, so our say in the way things are run is quite limited.

In my view, we ought to have a new statutory authority that would run the buildings--and I've advocated for this for quite some time, as you're aware--and that would be responsible to the two houses of Parliament. That means maintenance, operation, and all that sort of stuff, and revitalization as necessary. I think it could be done far more effectively and quickly if we had somebody who was responsible only for these buildings and for looking after them, instead of shifting us to different locations all over the place.

We need to create a Parliament Hill complex that is operated for the benefit of Parliament and that makes the place work as such, and I think it could be done much more quickly and efficiently. The ongoing maintenance, which is important in old buildings of this kind, could be done on a regular basis instead of our waiting for 20, 30, or 40 years and then, when the thing is falling down, saying that it's time to fix it.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Perhaps I can address the security issues and questions that Madam Davies raised.

I think we've made significant progress in the professionalization of the security service at the House of Commons and in the coordination of security on the Hill. The creation of the master security plan and the master security plan office has made a big difference in the dialogue among the different services--the RCMP, the City of Ottawa police, and the two forces within Parliament.

There's a subcommittee of the Board of Internal Economy, and a subcommittee of the Committee of Internal Economy at the Senate. The Senate's is looking at security and accommodation; ours at the House of Commons is looking at security. They will be meeting to look at emerging issues.

There has been some talk that if the authority for the House, for the Parliament Buildings, were to be transferred to Parliament, security might fall under that umbrella, and that would obviously make a difference.

One of the things the Sergeant-at-Arms has been looking very carefully at is that the move of parliamentary functions like committees south of Wellington means greater involvement by the Ottawa police. So we're looking at those kinds of security concerns very carefully, because there might well be an impact on members' operations.

A meeting of senior security officials was held two weeks ago, and we talked about these various issues. So we're hoping there will be further progress on it--notably, for example, the change in the vehicle inspection facility. It has been promised for a decade now, and we're still waiting. We're hoping it will be relocated and will represent a step up in the seriousness of that exercise.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Ms. Davies.

Monsieur Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you Mr. Milliken and Ms. O'Brien, for being here this morning.

Since we are here mainly to discuss the Main Estimates, I would like to know certain things.

First, concerning the evolution of the 10% outside members' constituencies, the abolition of the 10% grouped together, and other measures that the Board of Internal Economy has taken to limit collective mailings—not the parliamentary newsletters and so on, but mailings done by members in hundreds of thousands of envelopes—what savings might all that represent?

Second, with regard to all these changes that are imposed on us by Public Works and Government Services Canada—whether concerning 1 Wellington Street or the Promenade Building—what additional security costs do they represent? There are going to be security problems. So we're going to have to increase security services, not those provided by the City of Ottawa, but those provided by the House of Commons in particular.

There will be additional transportation costs. We're now leasing different coloured buses on the outside—white buses that we'll have to use for a number of years. How much will that represent per year?

In addition, how much can this anomaly in the administration of our work force by Public Works Canada represent? Here I'm talking about the new kitchen that I've had the privilege of visiting—just talking about it makes me hungry. That requires one or more refrigerated trucks. I'm told that the Public Works Canada people have imposed their choice of vehicle whereas they could have been identical vehicles to those of the House of Commons fleet. So that represents expenditures and additional suppliers.

Lastly, Mr. Milliken, I would like you to give us a quick little course on the next steps that are to be taken to privatize—let's put it that way—the Parliament buildings and bring the management of those buildings to Parliament.

We have four minutes left.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Indeed, to abide by—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's nice how you have that time.

[Audrey O'Brien]

—the remaining time, I suggest we provide you with the answers to those various questions in writing, that is the figures you are looking for and what has been saved, and so on.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

That's not a problem for me, Ms. O'Brien. However, there are some journalists here who would be very interested in hearing the answers. We will provide them to them.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Yes, that's it; that could be done. That nevertheless covers a certain—

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes, I understand.

[Audrey O'Brien]

That's, in a way, a backdrop.

As for the next steps toward privatization—let's say it that way—I believe the Speaker could address that topic since he is it's champion.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I have a lot to say on that subject.

This bill would obviously be a government bill since it would involve changing the management system for these buildings, which would no doubt require another position to be created for someone who could see to it, things like that. As you know, that kind of bill would require a royal recommendation. So it would be a government bill, or come from a member with whom the government agrees—in that case, that member could introduce it. However, it would have to be a bill coming from the government.

I know that talks are underway on the subject, particularly within this committee, but also within the Board of Internal Economy. I hope they will continue and that we will soon have a solution.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.