Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 25th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Order. This is meeting 16 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

We are looking at the main estimates for 2010-11, vote 5, House of Commons, under Parliament. Our witnesses to that effect are Speaker Milliken and our clerk, Madam O'Brien.

I take it you have a bit of an opening statement for us, Mr. Speaker?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Speaker of the House of Commons]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm here to present the House of Commons main estimates for 2010-11.

As you will remember, I was here on March 18 to present the House of Commons Supplementary Estimates (C) for fiscal year 2009-2010.

Since that time, notable changes have occurred. Central to today's discussion are the Board of Internal Economy's decisions of March 22 to freeze office budgets for members, House officers, and presiding officers at the 2009-10 levels. Members' sessional allowances and House officers' and presiding officers' salaries have also been frozen at the 2009-10 levels, in accordance with the 2010 federal budget. Furthermore, the board decided to fund any House administration 2010-11 salary increases within existing resources. These measures are in addition to the stringent review of requirements that had already been conducted in preparation for these main estimates.

The revised 2010-11 main estimates, based on the Board of Internal Economy's March 22 decisions, total $436,054,801--I'm not sure how many cents, we haven't put that in--which represents an increase of 2.2%, or $9.5 million, over fiscal year 2009-10.

As you would expect, all items included in the main estimates have been presented to and approved by the Board of Internal Economy.

For reference purposes, you have received the document outlining the year-over-year changes from 2009-2010 to 2010-2011. You will note that the reductions are also highlighted in this document.

I will provide an overview of the budget increases and reductions along four major themes: budgets for members, House officers and presiding officers; security; services to members; and salaries.

I'd first like to start by providing an overview of the adjustments to the budgets for members, House officers, and presiding officers.

In November 2009 the board approved permanent funding of $2.7 million for the travel points system. I should say this is additional funding for the travel points system. Travel under the travel points system is a non-discretionary statutory expense, as per the Parliament of Canada Act. As you know, this system ensures that all members have access to the same transportation resources, regardless of where their constituency is located.

Whereas the budget had remained unchanged since 2005-2006, travel expenditures charged to the travel points system have increased in recent years, reaching a point at which the current budget is insufficient to meet resource requirements. These increases are due to rising prices in the travel industry, which can be explained in part by a capacity constraint among airlines, surtaxes on airline charges, and increases in ground transportation costs.

Next, you will note the $1.4 million reduction as a result of the board decision to freeze members' office budgets at 2009-2010 levels. Similarly, the main estimates reflect cost reductions of $292,000 and $18,000 further to the decisions to freeze House officers' and presiding officers' budgets, respectively.

Furthermore, the board has approved an amount of $452,000 to cover the revised elector supplement allocations that are based on the final number of electors published by the Chief Electoral Officer. Following the October 2008 general election, the official electoral list showed that 74 ridings are eligible for either a new or a revised elector supplement. Members who represent densely populated constituencies receive an elector supplement that is added to the basic budget when there are 70,000 or more electors on the constituency's final list of electors.

Additionally, the main estimates allocate $117,000 extra for an economic increase of 1.5% to the members' travel status expenses account. Similar to travel under the travel points system, the members' travel status expenses account is a non-discretionary statutory expense, as per the Parliament of Canada Act. The board approved this increase effective April 1, 2010, and it is in line with the Expenditure Restraint Act. It represents an increase of $382 per member, bringing the account total to $25,850. As you're well aware, members on travel status may charge their travel-related accommodation, meals, and incidental expenses to this account.

Moving now to the funding that is allocated to security requirements in the main estimates, essential funding of $277,000 for the establishment of a dedicated IT security unit and expanded IT security throughout the parliamentary precinct was approved by the board in December 2008, and the funding was confirmed by the board at its March 22 meeting of this year.

I'd like to provide you with some background information on these initiatives.

In 2009-10, the newly formed IT security team was influential in driving security requirements into projects to enhance solutions through threat risk assessments. To reduce threats, existing tools were enabled and optimized to determine network anomalies, reducing the impact on the organization and loss of information. Additional funding is required to continue this essential work and support the security framework developed to protect the House of Commons IT infrastructure.

Information Services provides ongoing maintenance and support of security services in buildings and facilities throughout the Parliamentary Precinct and in other locations. Additional funding is required for the IT infrastructure to support security services in new buildings outside of the Parliamentary Precinct, including the Promenade Building, the Printing and Mailing Services facility and the Food Production facility.

The board is committed to continuing to provide the required funding to protect our IT infrastructure—given the essential work that it enables.

Let us now turn to the funding that the main estimates allocate to services to members.

In November the board approved a permanent funding increase of $860,000 for the provision of high-speed constituency communication network services. The contract for this service was renewed in June 2007, and presented an opportunity to review requirements based on members' feedback.

The additional funding will allow for the delivery of enhanced services to members in their constituency offices and will enable access to members' Ottawa office data from constituency offices. Enhanced services will also include a higher level of security, uniform services for all members, and shorter timeframes for network installations.

As with the Travel Points System and the Members' Travel Point System and the Members' Travel Status Expenses Account, the Constituency Communication Network is non-discretionary item as per the Parliament of Canada Act.

Additionally, the main estimates reflect a net increase of $11,000 in funding for the integrated procurement and contract management system. This project was initiated as planned; however, difficulties in obtaining qualified professional resources resulted in delays in the project. As a result, some of the work that had been planned for 2009-10 will be completed this year. Therefore, there was a reduction in funding of $104,000 for the fiscal year 2009-10 and a re-profiling of $115,000 from fiscal year 2009-10 to fiscal year 2010-11, resulting in the net increase of $11,000.

Let us turn to the salary adjustments that are included in the main estimates. First you'll note that further to the board's March 22 meeting there is a revised funding increase of $2.5 million for House administration employees, as opposed to the previously approved $5 million. This funding will be used for the retroactive 1.5% salary increases prior to April 1, 2010, in accordance with the Expenditure Restraint Act.

Further to the board's decision, the remaining 1.5% salary increase for 2010-11 will be funded from the House administration's existing budgetary allocations. This board decision is consistent with the 2010 federal budget, which stipulates that Government of Canada departments must fund the 1.5% salary increases for their employees internally.

Next, the main estimates allocate an increase in funding of $836,000 for salary adjustments for members, House officers, and presiding officers. This funding specifically pertains to increases prior to April 1, 2010 that are not affected by the 2010 federal budget. As I mentioned, members, House officers, and presiding officers' salaries have been frozen at the 2009-10 levels as of April 1, 2010.

You will also see that the main estimates allocate $600,000 for a pension adjustment to the members of Parliament retirement compensation arrangements account. The cost to the House of Commons for contributions to members' pension plans is determined and managed by Treasury Board based on actuarial calculations. Treasury Board has estimated a $3.2 million deficit in the retirement compensation arrangements account as of March 31, 2009.

Pursuant to the related legislation, the president of the Treasury Board has determined that the deficit should be amortized with interest in six installments over a seven-year period, beginning with the 2008-09 fiscal year. An annual amount of $600,000 is therefore required until the 2013-14 fiscal year.

Finally, the main estimates provide $1.2 million for employee benefit plans. This is a non-discretionary statutory expenditure that is based on the contribution rate set by the Treasury Board Secretariat. The rate of 17% that became effective on April 1, 2010, is consistent with the rate set for 2009-10. Employee benefit plan contributions cover costs to the employer for the public service superannuation plan, the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan, death benefits, and the employment insurance account.

This concludes the overview of the House of Commons Main Estimates for fiscal year 2010-2011. I am confident that you will agree that these Main Estimates aptly represent the House of Commons' commitment to sound resource management.

The clerk and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

I recognize that you've brought your fantastic support staff with you today, and some of them may be asked to come forward and give us some answers too.

Since we're doing one hour, and then an hour with the Chief Electoral Officer, we'll do only five minutes each, if we can.

Madam Jennings, you're first.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Speaker, for your presence here today and the presentation you have just made.

I have several questions. The first question is with regard to the main estimates and whether or not the resources that are provided in the main estimates allow the House of Commons to attain its strategic goals to provide optimal services, etc. Are they sufficient? That's the first question.

The second question is are there any significant changes in terms of projects that were planned and did not move forward, or projects that were planned that have moved forward very well?

The third question has to do with West Block. We know that the members whose offices are located in West Block are expected to be moved out to other premises sometime over the summer months. We are now experiencing something of a heat wave, and I can tell you that there is absolutely no ventilation in my offices. We did some investigation. There appears to be some in the main corridors and on the ground floor, but not in the meeting rooms, not in many of the members' offices. This morning my office called Public Works three times to attempt to get some portable fans and were told that they would see what they could do. I then called before coming over here. The temperature had gotten up to 90 degrees in my office. I'm now at the point of considering sending my staff home because it is simply intolerable.

While I understand that services may have been cut because there are plans to move members, I believe that as long as people are working there, resources have to be sufficient to ensure that the working conditions are acceptable.

That's my last question. What the heck is happening there, and why can't we get a response and get some portable fans for our offices?

[Audrey O'Brien, Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons]

Mr. Chairman, the Speaker suggests that I address the question of whether the main estimates are sufficient to see that the House of Commons meets its strategic objectives. I think they are. There is no question that we made a very serious effort as an administration. My senior management team made a very serious effort to come into line with the economic climate that everybody is facing, and we have been very rigorous in looking at our priorities.

We are most concerned with the continuation of excellent service to members. That is always our first priority. We are also experiencing, on the administration front, the question of the demographics of retirement, so succession planning on the administration front is something we obviously are planning for and are experiencing as time goes on. I would say this is leaving us in a good position.

We are going to continue to monitor very closely, and of course we are assisted in this by the fact that, as the Speaker's opening remarks made clear, many of the entitlements of members, for instance, for travel and for communications are statutory and therefore there are provisions for those to be increased as the need arises. We were very proud of the fact that we were able to manage the travel budget with 2005 resources up until now, but we couldn't go any further, so we've had to go ahead with the $2.7 million increase there.

With regard to significant changes in our plans, I wouldn't say that has actually occurred. There might have been, again, a reordering of the plans so that we continue to put emphasis on member services, and there may be things that have slipped into a nice-to-do column from a we'll-get-right-on-it column, but that happens in any kind of time of economic downturn, such as the one we're facing.

With regard to the West Block and the long-term vision and plan, if I may say, the long term seems to be getting to the point of being the eternal-term vision and plan. We are proceeding with the plan to vacate the West Block.

There is, as far as I can tell, no excuse for the kind of situation you are living through now. I'll talk to the Sergeant-at-Arms. One of the things that sometimes happens with landlords generally and with Public Works in particular is they get ahead of themselves, and if we are supposed to vacate by the end of summer or early fall, they say we don't need to touch it now, while your people are slowly basting.

It has to be said that this heat wave took everybody by surprise, but we'll address that immediately.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Imagine, hot and humid in Ottawa in the spring.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Go figure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, you're next.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Speaker Milliken and Ms. O'Brien, for being here.

To follow up on what Marlene was saying, I also had questions about West Block over the course of the ten years. I empathize with what Marlene was saying, because as members of Parliament we have a bit of a reprieve. We can always go down to the chamber, to the House of Commons, where it's air-conditioned. Our staff cannot. I know even in Centre Block, where we have portable air-conditioning units, it gets pretty oppressive. To be sitting in an area that has absolutely no ventilation, I agree with Marlene, if it were me, I'd be sending my staff home.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

They don't want to go.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

A good staffer is hard to come by.

Are there any contingency funding allocations for something like that? This is an extreme situation. It's a convergence of events that were unanticipated. Is there a supplementary or any kind of contingency budget that would allow us to get some portable machines of some sort in there as quickly as possible in cases like this?

I appreciate what you're saying, Audrey, that you're going to talk to the Sergeant-at-Arms and all that, but it has to be done quickly, obviously. These people are under a great deal of duress.

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

If we were doing this ourselves, I think we would probably have that, but of course Public Works manages the building. We don't have a budget in our budget for reconstruction and all that sort of stuff. It's really a matter for the Department of Public Works to provide the space. That's the difficulty we face. As you know, I've expressed views on this before.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Yes. I appreciate that. However, I certainly support Marlene's point—

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

So do I.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

—that whatever can be done should be done quickly. I don't know how many offices there are now in West Block, but if they're all going through the same situation, speed is of the essence.

My question is on West Block. I think it's a ten-year plan. This is undoubtedly a Public Works question, but you mentioned, Audrey, and I agree with you, the ten-year plan is turning out to be the eternal plan. How confident are you with your assessment, even though it does not come under your purview? What are your thoughts on this ten-year plan? Are we going to see this thing done within ten years, on time and within budget, in your opinion?

[Audrey O'Brien]

I think that everything possible will be done to have it come in on time and on budget. One of the very great challenges that Public Works faces, in fairness to them, and that this whole renovation project faces, is that you're renovating heritage buildings but you're not renovating them to be museums. You're renovating them to be 2010 to 2075 or to 3000, God help us, working buildings. So you find things that cost more. I think it was something that was experienced, for instance, when they did the renovations of the parliamentary library, and it ran them over the original budget.

That being said, I think the library has proved that renovations once launched can be done and done well, and can prove that the space, the plans that have been so long aborning, if you will, have been worth while.

Would I say I'm confident? I'm confident that once we get started on the West Block, yes. The Department of Public Works and Government Services has already made significant progress on the whole refurbishing of the Promenade Building. They basically gutted it and started over. The members' suites are ready now in the Promenade Building. They're working on the committee rooms there.

There's no question that it's going to be a long, hard slog. I think we're only going to see in the actual playing out of this the kinds of effects it's going to have on members' operations. And I don't say this to introduce gloom into the discussion, but I think we're all aware that it's not going to be as convenient to members. The Promenade Building is south of Wellington, and Number 1 Rideau is already very well advanced in terms of the renovations there to create committee rooms. They're going to be terrific spaces, but it's not going to be quite the same thing. A really major adjustment is going to be required, I think. We'll have to be attuned to that so we can then be able to come behind. For example, we're going to have much better technology in these interim committee rooms than we've had in this kind of room, but at the same time, we're going to have to be right behind to make sure things like the shuttle buses run that much more efficiently so people are not wasting time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

Monsieur Guimond.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, Ms. O'Brien, I apologize for not asking any questions on the air conditioning systems. I thought there were more crucially important questions concerning estimates. We're talking about $440 million that comes to us from taxpayers.

My first question concerns the biggest increase, the increase in personnel expenditure. We see that the budget increases from $310 million to $320 million. How do you explain that difference of nearly $10 million?

[Audrey O'Brien]

What document are you referring to?

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

This is a table prepared by the library. It's entitled “Table 2 – Budgetary Main Estimates by Standing Object of Expenditure”. In 2009-2010, we approved $310 million. However, you are budgeting $320 million for 2010-2011.

No doubt you would have preferred a question on air conditioning. It would have been easier for you to answer.

[Audrey O'Brien]

I'm going to have to send you that information because I don't know how—

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

In our documents, we only refer to $5 million. That's on page 9.

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

Is one of your many assistants capable of answering that?

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

This document was prepared by the library.