Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2008

[Audrey O'Brien]

Indeed!

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Kelly Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As a new member not only to this committee but to the House as well, I'm on a bit of a steep learning curve, so I hope you'll humour me with regard to my question.

I read the briefing notes. On page 2 you indicated that there was an intention to spend the $8 million on capital expenditures, and then there was no longer a plan to spend the money. Can you tell me what these expenditures were to be and whether they fit into a longer-term capital management plan for Parliament?

[Audrey O'Brien]

This goes back to the $8,093,000. As I said, there was no plan to spend $8 million. Our capital expenditures total only about $3 million. Therefore we don't need a capital expenditure vote.

I could perhaps ask the chief financial officer, Claire Kennedy, to elaborate.

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

There is a Treasury Board reporting requirement whereby when we look at the expenditures of the House that are $50,000 or more, if they total over $5 million we must show them separately. However, in the case of the $8 million, there is only $3 million that falls under this particular category. Therefore, the House is no longer obliged to show this $8 million separately, so it's strictly an accounting entry, if you wish.

Part of the $8 million, for instance, has to do with the purchase of chairs and the replacement of furniture, equipment, and so on, which we do on a regular basis, of course. However, following the reporting requirements of Treasury Board, since we do not have $5 million of expenditures of over $50,000--it's a threshold, if you wish--we will just do a realignment. We do not spend any more or any less; it is just displayed differently in our estimates to be consistent with the rest of the departments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Have you further questions?

Monsieur Guimond.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I see that Mr. Bard may not be sworn in when he appears before the Board of Internal Economy. As a member of the Board, I swear an oath and I cannot disclose the delicate issues discussed in this forum. Earlier, in response to a question, Mr. Bard replied that some options had been discussed by the Board of Internal Economy. I don't wish to get on his case, but perhaps he should not have been so forthcoming. In any event, that is beside the point.

I have a question for you, Mr. Bard. Better-performing computers have been installed in Members' offices. However, it seems that the House systems and servers are not equipped to support this new technology. Basically, the new computers are slower than the old ones.

Have you set aside any funds in your budgets to upgrade the IT infrastructure of the House of Commons?

I also have two additional questions about the restaurant.

[Louis Bard]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Guimond, as far as all of the infrastructure is concerned, we have capital replacement plans in place. We replace approximately one third of the fleet of servers each year. It can take us anywhere from three to four years to replace a server. The program to replace the computer inventory is cyclical. We used the elections as an opportunity to upgrade the e-mail system and change the environment. They go together. If you have solid evidence that operations are slower, I would appreciate it if you could give me more details. I would really like to do some specific follow ups.

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

I would simply like to repeat what I said at the training session for new Members. Since this is a public meeting, I want to praise the professionalism of Mr. Bard and of the members of the support team who report to him. They are true professionals and they do an excellent job.

[Louis Bard]

Thank you, Mr. Guimond.

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

I would now like to talk about the restaurant.

Madam Clerk, I have a question for you, but I already know the answer to it. However, my legal background compels me to ask you anyway.

You stated that an agreement had been worked out with the casino and area restaurants to hire the laid off employees of the parliamentary restaurant. You probably do not have the figures at hand, but could you check and see how many employees were hired on?

Assuming that the restaurant, cafeteria and kitchen employees are professional enough to work at the House of Commons, in my estimation, they should be qualified enough to work at the casino or at area restaurants. I’d like to know how many of them have been hired on as a result of your agreements.

[Audrey O'Brien]

As you pointed out, I don’t have the figures with me, but I will be happy to get them to you.

Let me clarify one thing. As far as I know, the agreements were with the casino and the Château Laurier. I don’t want to imply that various area restaurants signed on. These two facilities were prepared to sign an agreement with our restaurant services because, as you stated, our workers are very professional and very well trained and people who dealt with them at the casino as well as at the Château Laurier were extremely satisfied with their work.

Let me emphasize that all management can do is open the door. If workers decide not to seek employment or not to work, then that is their choice. In any case, I will report back to you on the number of workers who were hired.

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

I believe the number is not far off from zero.

[Audrey O'Brien]

That may be so, because…

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

It’s not far off from zero. In any event, we’ll discuss this matter further another time and have you back.

[Audrey O'Brien]

During discussions between management and the union, we discussed this possibility and possible solutions to help them out. We were told that in accordance with certain specific provisions, women on maternity leave, for example, receive employment insurance, as well as an additional sum from the House of Commons. Workers wanted this kind of agreement at the time they were laid off. If they prefer to receive employment insurance benefits, then we do not have much say in the matter.

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

I believe my last question was broached either by my colleague Mr. Proulx or by Mr. Godin.

You mentioned that keeping the restaurant open as long as possible in order to welcome visitors presents some security concerns. Have you checked out how things are done at the Quebec National Assembly? Ever since the Lortie incident when gunfire erupted on the floor of the Assembly chamber, surely security at the National Assembly must be as tight as it is here in Ottawa. The situation is likely no different at other provincial legislative assemblies. However, I did visit the legislative assembly of Prince Edward Island, which is about the same size as this room and which totals 24 members. I saw how people moved about. Despite the events at the Quebec National Assembly, officials decided to make the operations of the parliamentary restaurant as cost-effective as possible. They offer regional and theme brunches as well as a lobster and oyster festival, to mention just a few events which generate revenues. The restaurant is open to the general public. They have established a solid business. Has anyone met with the chef or the women in charge of restaurant services? I believe the woman’s name is Violette. Has anyone looked at how the National Assembly’s restaurant managed to turn the situation around and become a profitable venture? You can understand that keeping the restaurant open to the public will allow our employees to work longer, even when Parliament is not in session.

[Audrey O'Brien]

You’ve raised a whole other issue here. The question is whether we should keep the restaurant open for the use of parliamentarians, as is now the case, or open it up to the general public and change its mission, in order to make operations cost effective. Access to the facility is a problem for the simple reason that the restaurant is located on the 6th floor. People must use the elevators, which provide access to all of the other floors. Over the years, a number of studies have been done on the restaurant, but never have they returned a finding that it would be a good idea to turn this facility into a commercial venture. Of course, we can always reconsider this whole issue.

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

I think it would be a good idea to reconsider this decision, at least for the weeks that the House is in recess. Many Members return to Ottawa. Perhaps we could allow some of our assistants to use the restaurant. I was deliberately thinking on a large scale when I said it should be open to the general public. I’m not an expert in elevators, but surely the elevator that is closest to the parliamentary restaurant could stop only at the ground floor and 6th floor. It’s possible to arrange for an elevator not to stop at certain floors. There are fire doors located just about everywhere. Of course, it’s possible to cite many reasons why this solution is not feasible and to make everything really complicated. Forget the idea of opening up the restaurant to the general public during break weeks. According to our calendar, Parliament shuts down for one week out of every four weeks. Would it be possible, or feasible, to keep the restaurant open during the break weeks so that our staff could use the facility in addition to Members and senators, instead of being limited to patronizing the restaurant only during the holiday season?

[Audrey O'Brien]

We could always try out your suggestion during the break weeks. Perhaps this is something that we could consider, for the simple reason that during these break weeks, assistants and parliamentary staff are here. As for the summer months, that’s another story. I will broach the subject with the Sergeant at Arms and get back to you.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I’m very concerned about the restaurant situation. Staff is also talking about the situation. You maintain that the restaurant must not operate at a deficit, but when staff is laid off, that’s a loss as well.

Many seasonal workers are being laid off in the regions. Many Canadians don’t realize that Parliament also employs seasonal workers, so to speak. It may be, as you said, that restaurant staff have no desire to work at area restaurants. Michel was pretty adamant that the number of people working at area restaurants was close to zero. You’re well acquainted with the problem: some say they want to be paid the difference between the wages paid by Parliament and the wages they would earn at another restaurant that paid minimum wage. Maybe that’s the issue, but I’m not sure. There has to be a difference somewhere.

[Audrey O'Brien]

No, the problem is not the discrepancy between the wages they would earn working at a restaurant and what they are paid at Parliament, but rather the difference between employment insurance and the wages they earn while working at the parliamentary restaurant. I’m very certain about this.