Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration
Issue 2 - Evidence
Ottawa, Thursday, March 28, 1996
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:30 a.m.
Senator Colin Kenny (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I am pleased to see everyone here. A couple of our colleagues have had to send their regrets, so we will endeavour later to give them the information that we are sharing at this meeting.
One of the main objectives of this meeting is to report back to this committee the decisions of the steering committee which was given power by the committee to act in its absence. One of our obligations is to report back to you for comment and reaction on what we have done.
A good deal of this meeting will entail updating past events. At the end of the meeting, I will speak briefly about our plans for next two meetings, which will be priority-setting meetings for this committee. I hope we can have two sets of discussions concerning where senators want to go on this committee, how they want to do it, and how we want to share the work. I will get into that at the end of the agenda.
First, we have minutes from the proceedings of February 28, 1996. Has everyone received the information in advance? Have you had an opportunity to review the minutes?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Are there any questions regarding the minutes?
If not, may I have a motion to adopt the minutes from someone who was in attendance?
Senator Nolin: I so move.
The Chairman: All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Item 2 is the report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. I would ask the Clerk, Paul Bélisle, to give us that report.
Mr. Paul Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate, Clerk of the Committee: Do you have the report before you? Should I read it or go through it?
The Chairman: Is it your preference to have Mr. Bélisle read it, touch on the highlights of the report, or discuss it?
Some Hon. Senators: Just the highlights.
The Chairman: All right. Please give us some brief highlights.
Mr. Bélisle: The first paragraph is pursuant to a motion passed on January 10, 1996, which gave the steering committee authority to make these decisions. Some of the decisions which were mare were to be dealt with and resolved immediately. The first decision deals with same-sex benefits.
The committee decided that employees of the Senate receive the same-sex benefits as Treasury Board had announced previously. The House of Commons and the Library of Parliament have also offered these benefits. We have advised Treasury Board of this fact.
The second item concerns corporate governance. There was an authority for the Banking Committee to travel during the prorogation, and that has been done within budget.
The third item gave authority to the Foreign Affairs Committee which had previously adopted a budget of $152,000. That amount was increased to $170,000. The committee is now travelling in Europe on an important study.
The budget had been increased to $170,000, but that was for a full committee to travel. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that only six or seven members travelled to Europe, not the full committee.
Item 4 is a report which is before the Senate. That report is still before the Senate for debate and for adoption. It recommends, first, that senators no longer be required to submit applications to the ad hoc committee to receive their $30,000 component for research allowance; second, that senators be allowed to access up to $50,000 for research and general office expenses each fiscal year and that this amount shall have the combined flexibility of the previous two separate budgets; and, third, that the budgets be referred thereafter through the research and general office expense budget. That was referred to the Senate for consideration. It may come up today.
Item 5 was that only a quarter-point will be charged for each one-day return regional trip in which no airfare costs are charged and that one half-point will be charged for each one-day regional trip in which airfare costs are incurred.
Concerning Item 6, there were guidelines for witnesses' expenses adopted in the chamber and circulated to all senators previously. It was adopted yesterday in the chamber.
Regarding item 7, the report on taxis has been withdrawn. The order has been discharged and it is no longer relevant. You can drop item 7.
Item 8 is for Carleton University Model Parliament. The guidelines for use of Senate Chamber were met and authority has been given to them to use the Senate Chamber this Saturday.
In Item 9, Senate Bulletin Selected Clipping Service has been reinstated.
Concerning item 10, it was agreed that permanent television equipment be installed to all new committee rooms, not existing ones. This specifies new committee rooms only. There will be a Parliamentary committee room next door.
The Chairman: In addition to this report, I have written to all members of the committee to bring you up to speed in the interim. I would welcome discussions, comments or questions about this report or the letter that I sent out on March 8, 1996, so that we are all working with the same database and the same set of information.
There is no intention to deal with the report combining the budgets today. The intention is to stand it over until after the Easter recess. That is how I intend to deal with that.
Concerning the taxi matter, the sense I have from both sides is that we can improve or perfect the report. I think there is a broad agreement to the principle of it, but there are some concerns about the wording of the report and how well we define it. We will endeavour to improve the report and bring it back after Easter.
Senator Di Nino: Upon my reading of item 10, I am not sure that it fully captured our discussion. I am not too familiar with these new technologies. We are talking about providing new committee rooms with the ability to televise the proceedings. We are not providing equipment such as televisions, and so forth. I think that should be clarified. It left a doubt in my mind as to what kind of equipment we are installing.
We are saying that we would like to install the necessary equipment to allow for the telecasting of future meetings. That would be there on a permanent basis. Is that correct?
Senator Nolin: Yes. That was the intent.
The Chairman: That is correct. An example of that would be the Railway committee room off the Hall of Honour. If you look there now, you will see existing equipment that is stuck up on the wall.
Senator Forrestall: That was done before we had a chance to adorn it with the artifacts that belong there more properly than the television cameras.
The Chairman: Are there any other items that senators would like to raise?
Senator Forrestall: It may be my difficulty in reading item 5, but am I to understand that if I travel from Halifax to Chatham or to a military base, for nefarious political purposes, and if I must stay overnight, it will now cost me a half-point; that is, a quarter-point for travelling and a quarter-point for coming back?
The Chairman: I do not think that is the interpretation. My understanding is that if you stay overnight somewhere, you are being charged a point. However, if you are going and coming back without staying overnight, you are not being charged a point.
Senator Forrestall: I am asking about within one's region.
The Chairman: That is correct, within your region. If you are staying overnight, you are being charged a point.
Senator Forrestall: We now have a third point.
The Chairman: I will turn to Madam Aghajanian and ask her to clear this up for everyone.
Ms Sirouin Aghajanian, Director, Finance Directorate: In your region, if you are going by car, staying overnight and coming back the next day, that is a half-point, a quarter-point for going and a quarter-point for coming back. It is always a quarter-point per leg.
Senator Forrestall: However, if I can drive six hours in the morning, work for three hours and drive six hours back, it is only a 15-hour day and it is a quarter-point. Whose brilliant idea was this?
The Chairman: That is exactly what I was saying.
Senator Forrestall: I wanted you to say that first.
That is fine. I just wondered whether you were importing into a tried formula. How much will this save us?
The Chairman: We had senators from your region who were going to an event and coming back that day. They were being charged a quarter-point each way and it did not seem fair.
Senator Forrestall: Were they going by air?
The Chairman: No, they were driving. This was done in an effort to clear up that problem so that they would no longer be charged that. If someone is to drive somewhere and come back, it did not seem fair to be charging them a half-point. They are now being charged just a quarter-point. That was the purpose in introducing this.
Senator Forrestall: To use my example, if we approve this and if, for example, I go to Chatham or to Cornwallis to address the peacekeeping institute, it is 10:30 at night when we are finished. Then it is a 200-mile drive to return.
The Chairman: You should spend the night and spend the half-point. It is better to do it that way.
For example, if you found some peacekeepers closer to home and went to speak to them and were able to get back at a reasonable time, then you would only be charged a quarter-point.
Senator Forrestall: Nevertheless, if we are still in the region and I travel by plane, then it is half-point to go?
Ms Aghajanian: No, it is a quarter-point to go.
Senator Forrestall: Yes, a quarter to go and a quarter to come back. So it is the same. We have just made the car and the plane the same charge.
The Chairman: Yes. We have said that if you are not staying overnight, we should not charge you.
Senator Forrestall: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I had difficulty interpreting that.
The Chairman: Are there any other points?
Senator Cohen: From the letter of March 8, 1996, concerning the whole communication deal, I know it has been very effective for the Banking Committee. When will we be discussing that? I have several concerns about it.
The Chairman: Senators Nolin and Poulin are co-chairing a subcommittee of this committee. We also have the clerk working with a professional to try to provide some background for them in relation to this matter.
The professional has not yet delivered the work to them. In fairness, we are probably about one month away from having the preliminary views of Senator Nolin and Senator Poulin. Is that a fair guess?
Senator Nolin: It is a fair guess. We would like to have an in camera meeting on that issue.
The Chairman: Everyone can get their two cents' worth in at that time. Right now we are taking the partial work of the Kirby committee and circulating it to committee chairmen as they become appointed. We are asking them to look at it as only half of the coverage because the committee has not even issued a report as yet.
It is important that you look at the electronic coverage there as well, which is on the last page. I do that simply because Senator Kirby got a lot of coverage in the print, but Senator Stratton and Senator Oliver got a lot of the electronic coverage. I am concerned that we go about this in an even-handed way. If anyone has a feeling that this is not being done in an even-handed way, I want to hear about it. I am determined that we do it in an even-handed way. I have seen communications programs break down in the Senate time after time when one side or the other feels the system is being used to the advantage of the other side.
This is a public meeting. I want to be on the record to say that we will make every effort possible to see that it is done in a fair and reasonable way. I am asking you all to let me know if you feel it is not being done that way.
Senator Cohen: I am asking the question because I have a few concerns. I am also on the Social Affairs Committee. We will be getting the unemployment insurance bill which will create a lot of excitement in the country. I mention it because it would be nice if we could zero in on some type of communication to cover the hearings that we will have.
Senator Nolin: That is exactly the purpose.
The Chairman: In the first instance, we will be on safer ground when dealing with committee studies because, on the studies, there seems to be a more common approach. It is a more complicated problem to deal with legislation and how we handle the communications on legislation because that, by its very nature, tends to be a more partisan approach.
I know that Senator Nolin and his subcommittee are addressing this. I am advocating that we work on the easy stuff first and try to get it right and then work on the more difficult stuff after that.
Senator Cohen: We will wait for the report.
Senator Nolin: Unlike the other reports, we want this one to be effective and well implemented. That is why we need the time to make it right.
The Chairman: We are convinced an awful lot of good work is being done in committees and it is being kept secret. We want to change that.
Senator Nolin: On item 4, what will happen to contracts which should start April 1, next week, if this report is delayed or is stood again this afternoon? What will be the status of our colleagues who have requested contracts starting April 1?
The Chairman: That is a problem. The best answer I can give you, Senator Nolin, is that you have a budget which is accessible without application here, as do all senators. If we are able to resolve the report question in a timely fashion after Easter, which I have been assured we will, people will be able to accommodate their contract employees in the intervening time with their general office budget.
Senator Nolin: What would be the paper work and the procedure that should be applied to that?
The Chairman: It is the same as always. You send a letter to Madam Aghajanian saying: I want a contract for this person and here is how I want it to run.
Senator Forrestall: How costly is that, Mr. Chairman? Have we ever stopped to figure out how many person-hours go into the processing of these requests? It is part of our responsibility to ensure that staff have any tools that will streamline their work to free up time for equal but sometimes more important work. Have we ever looked at how much this might save?
Mr. Bélisle: It involves three offices. They come through my office, which is time-consuming, and then they go to Human Resources for contractual work, and then they go to Finance for the payment. We could do that calculation and come back to you.
Senator Forrestall: If it is a couple of person-years, then it is something we must seriously consider.
Mr. Bélisle: Can we make a note of it and ask for a report from the clerk at our next meeting?
Senator Forrestall: Sure. The oversight responsibility is the political and moral responsibility of the senators.
Senator Nolin: I would also ask for clarification on ID cards which are expiring at the end of the month. It is the same thing?
Mr. Bélisle: Yes.
Senator Nolin: So if they are under contract for the new budget, they will get a new card.
The Chairman: The difficulty is, you do not want people whose contracts have run out to still hold good cards.
Senator Nolin: You know how security works. If the card is expired, they will not let that person in.
Senator Di Nino: We should have a motion to receive or adopt this report, and it should be from other than a member of the steering committee.
Senator Forrestall: I move that, subject to the clauses which were stood, the first report be adopted as received.
The Chairman: Is everybody comfortable with that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Item 3 regards the Senate budget update.
Mr. Bélisle: I will just comment and then I will invite Mrs. Aghajanian to come to the table and explain the situation.
The members of this committee received last week an update of the financial report as of the end of February. We send quarterly financial reports in the first three quarters. In the last quarter, we send it every month.
The good news is that the Supplementary Estimates went through the House of Commons and were approved yesterday in the Senate. That should be receiving Royal Assent. So Supplementary Estimates are in.
Other good news is that we are within budget. We are monitoring that on a daily basis.
Madam Aghajanian, would you like to come forward and give us the highlights?
Ms Aghajanian: I will repeat that the Supplementary Estimates were approved in the amount of $3,265,000. Of that amount, $1,285,000 were carried forward from the previous year.
The total, with the Supplementary Estimates, with the original budget that was approved now is $45,279,000, including the $3,265,000.
The annual forecast is that we will be lapsing approximately $325,000: $228,000 from the statutory expenses, $43,000 from employee benefits plans and about $50,000 from program expenditures.
The total program expenditures will amount to $29,000,000; for ongoing operations, $26,000; and for the departure option payments, $875,000; and for capital projects, $2,293,000. These are one-time expenses which will be saving money for us in future years.
The same applies for the departure option plans. We will be saving salaries because of the payment of the departure option plans of $875,000. That is all I have to say.
The Chairman: Stay with us, because I would like to speak briefly to the paper you have in your document under tab 3, comparisons between the Senate and the House of Commons. We discussed this before. There are some new members here with us now, though. I want to draw that to your attention.
In terms of our performance, you will see in, looking back to 1992, that the Senate's actual expenses have gone down by 7.2 per cent whereas the Commons have gone up by 7.4. If you look at the budget estimates, the Senate estimates have gone down by 9 per cent whereas the House of Commons has only gone down by 5.3 per cent.
In this budget, submitted for the fiscal year which is about to start at the end of the week, the Senate is down 3.1 per cent and the House of Commons is down 3.3 per cent.
There are charts that you can see on the next page which graphically demonstrate the difference in performance. The second chart relates to the change in budgets. If you look to the year 1995-96, you do not see a Senate bar there because the Senate came in at zero per cent change. If there is no change, there is no bar.
I would also like you to look at the page titled, "The Senate is the Least Expensive Legislature in Canada." We cost every Canadian $1.51 cents per year to function. That compares to $8.55 for the House of Commons.
Down at the bottom, there is a sort of fun comparison which staff has prepared. We can see what each provincial legislature costs the residents of that province. The best one is B.C. at $7.76 per resident. Ontario has $13. Quebec has $11.
It is important that we are aware that we are the least expensive legislature in Canada. We should never hesitate to make that point.
If you refer back to the letter which I sent to all of you, you will see that my biggest concern is that this institution is badly underfunded. We have made a series of cuts over the past few years which simply are not sustainable.
Right now, for example, we have cut our furniture allotment for the coming fiscal year in half, from $100,000 to roughly $50,000, and we have also cut our maintenance budget in half, from roughly $100,000 to roughly $50,000. If you are not going to be replacing your furniture, you have to repair it. A reasonable person would assume that if your replacement budget is falling, your repair budget is likely to rise. We are doing neither. We can sustain this sort of thing for a brief period of time, but we cannot sustain it indefinitely.
I am also very concerned that we are not fully funding our research budget yet. In fairness, we made a significant step forward in terms of the amount that we put into it for the coming fiscal year, but it is madness for us to go on not properly funding our research expenditures. Just so everyone is clear on this, if senators start to put in applications for research funding, we will start robbing from other departments to pay for it. We are hurting all the other departments if we do not fully fund our own research.
As I indicated in my letter, I have been going around a bit like a travelling salesman with these charts and graphs, trying to make the point to people on the other side. Frankly, I have been well received. No one has said that this is silly or ridiculous. They are shocked that we have so few facilities. On the other side, they have a great many things included in their budget, which are supplied to them by the institution, such as a Xerox machine. If a senator wants a Xerox machine, it is paid for from his budget. Over there, it comes with the rug on the floor and the desk.
I feel that this committee as well as the leadership in the Senate must address this question much more aggressively in the future.
I have been asked by people from the other side what my bottom line is for next year, and I have said it is zero. I do not know where your bottom line is. It will be the decision of this committee and ultimately the Senate to decide where it will go. However, I am very concerned, as your chairman, that we are underfunding the institution and we will be damaging the institution if we continue to do that indefinitely.
You have had your reports from the clerk, the director of Finance, and me. Now I welcome your comments.
Senator Davey: Who are the people you deal with on the other side, not on specifics but just in a general sense?
The Chairman: I have met with the President of the Treasury Board, the leader of the government on the other side, the house leader on the other side, the whip on the other side, Mr. Gagliano. I am still waiting to see the Minister of Finance.
Senator Davey: Are most of them playing ball with you?
The Chairman: They are terrific. I bring them down; I show them the hole in the rug in the chamber, and I ask: "What do you think of that, fellows?"
Senator Nolin: That is why we should keep it.
The Chairman: I remind Senator Nolin this is a public meeting.
Senator Forrestall: I want to commend the staff for an excellent job, of which they can be very proud. We as senators can be somewhat proud of it as well. However, I share the chairman's view that we have come close to the critical point where it will cost us a lot more to regain an efficient operational capability if we let it go any further.
The chairman is right in his observations but he has left out one important expenditure. I do not know how we will get to zero when we have a major pay adjustment that will have to take place next year. Our staff have been without equitable adjustment for some considerable period of time and their purchasing power has eroded and slipped, and we must deal with that.
The other comment I direct to the future. I have cautioned this group about this before, Mr. Chairman: When you go to real spending, as opposed to budgeting, and your request is for 50, when, if everybody used it, it would have been 100, which is the boat we are in, then we can see the problem that arises.
That is what, in turn, causes this tremendous barrier to efficient operation here. We should never do that again. It is a lot easier to give it back or hide it, if you will, but we must do it in an open and transparent way. We must not get ourselves in the same position again, because we are still 20 per cent down on that.
The Chairman: Are we still 10 per cent short on research budgets?
Ms Aghajanian: We are 20 per cent short. We are at 80 per cent.
Senator Forrestall: Do we have any handle yet on how we will deal with salary and benefit adjustments in the next fiscal year?
The Chairman: No, sir, we do not have a plan yet.
Senator Forrestall: We should have a plan by September or October at the latest, so we can all look at it, and so that the Human Resources people can begin to adjust, but more importantly so that the employees' unions and guilds and crafts can themselves begin to look at the parameters so they can usefully contribute to working out their new contracts.
This comparison is a great thing, and we can run it in the op-editorial pages of the Chronicle-Herald, but eight months from now, we will see that the Senate budget has gone up 42 per cent, and people will be asking what happened. It is a contrast that is artificial.
Senator Di Nino: Surely any changes to the salary scales are things that we could not appropriately predict. These are, by and large, dictated, so we would have to be cognizant of that and, at the appropriate time, make the adjustment to the budget. I agree that that is something for which we have not provided and we must.
I particularly agree with you that the staff has been losing ground due to the increase in the cost of living for the past number of years. When the directive comes down, when that legislation ends, we will most likely have to apply for Supplementary Estimates again, but, certainly, none of us disagrees with you that it is something we have to do.
The Chairman: I believe the clerk has a comment about that.
Mr. Bélisle: Senator Di Nino has mentioned the freeze on the salaries and benefits of employees. Madam Beaudoin, the director of Human Resources, can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that, in the Senate, the freeze goes to 1998 in some cases before anything can be done about salaries.
I stand corrected, it is to December, 1997.
Senator Forrestall: We have to make that adjustment in our next budget.
The Chairman: We are in a budgeting mode now.
Senator Forrestall: That is right. Now is when we must start thinking about it.
The Chairman: The point I was trying to make, without being too controversial, is that, fundamentally, the Senate is under-budgeted by $4 million or $5 million.
For us to get on track, we must address that in a serious way, and there would likely be a preference to do that incrementally.
I am not inviting debate on that point, but I am asking you to think about how these numbers add up now and how the research works and whether the committees are properly funded. My point is that we started behind the House of Commons with a very low base, without any of the services that existed there, and then we cut before them. We started cutting from a very low base and cut far more than they did. That puts us in a very difficult catch-up situation.
I do not know when this will be faced. I do not know if the committee wants to face it this year, next year or when, but it will have to be faced at some time. I leave that with you. I suggest that we do not get into a debate on it now. I am merely saying that this is an agenda item which we should consider. We should come up with some creative solutions over the next few months.
Senator Cohen: On one hand, your argument is very compelling. On the other hand, I think of going back to New Brunswick after the issue of the $6,000 increase. I could not go out in public without someone pulling me aside to discuss it.
Having said that, we all have a home to maintain in our region. The maintenance of our homes is our number one priority before any luxury expense. You make a strong point, but we must have good communication people in place before we even begin to think about it.
The Chairman: Does the $1.57 help at all?
Senator Cohen: It helps a little. I do not know if it will help New Brunswickers, but it helps me.
Senator Roux: It is even lower than that. In 1996-1997, it will be less than $1.35.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, our objective should be to recognize that the Senate has a role to play, and we should be considering the question of proper funding to ensure that the role is effective and efficient. Every dollar that we spend on behalf of the taxpayers of this country we must justify in the manner of an efficient and effective operation to discharge our responsibilities. That should be our mandate, whatever it costs.
The Chairman: You could not have said it better.
Senator Nolin: If we cut only to cut, and we lose track of our purpose, which is to serve Canadians, we are not serving them well.
Senator Di Nino: I have no argument with that. That is precisely what I am trying to say. There is a job to be done and we have to spend the money necessary to do that job in an effective and efficient manner. That amount may be less or it may be more. This committee has been charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the taxpayers' dollars are properly spent. If we do that and at the end of the day it costs more, so be it.
The Chairman: I will move on to item 4 which deals with some of the renovations which are ongoing. Before doing that, I should like to apologize to any members here who may have been inconvenienced in the process. I should like to apologize to senators in the Victoria Building who I know were inconvenienced to some extent in the process. That was as a result of a breakdown in communications on my part. We will ensure that we communicate better in the future.
Perhaps Mr. Lavoie could speak to the nearly completed renovations. Perhaps from there you could go on to the proposed renovations.
Mr. Jean-Pierre Lavoie, Director, Services Directorate: I will be brief. I will talk to you about the construction of offices for four senators in the Victoria Building, what we did with the space in the Victoria Building and the approved project of upgrading the telecommunications infrastructure, including the sound system, the data network and the replacement of personal computers.
I will talk to you about the construction of work stations for senators beside the reading room, about the refurbishing of the reading room, and I will give you a quick update on the reconstruction of the main parliamentary committee room across the corridor from here.
As instructed by this committee, we proceeded with the construction of four new offices in the Victoria Building. Due to all the construction going on, on Parliament Hill, there is less space available in the Centre Block so we had to relocate to accommodate new senators. We built four senators' offices, two on the ninth floor and two on the eighth floor. They are close to our standards. There is enough space for the researcher and assistant as well as the senator. It is a basic finish but it is functional. The senators who will occupy them are happy with the final product. Two are already occupied, so the project is completed.
With regard to space utilization, I will confirm the principle we used in the space allocation in the plans. We tried to regroup activities, to provide offices which meet the standards and to keep the upper floors of the Victoria Building for senators. The priority we used was; senators, senators' staff, legislative activities, and general administration as the last priority.
The Chairman: We did not have 104 offices in the Senate. That is why we had to build some more. We lost Senator Robichaud's office in the East Block because construction right beside it made it impossible for him to work. We lost Senator Sylvain's office because of the project with which Mr. Lavoie is proceeding.
This gives us two swing offices. We will in fact need more than two swing offices before the year is up. At the end of the day, we will need many swing offices because the plan to renovate Parliament Hill means that, at some point, the senators in the Victoria Building will move out into the East Block. Members of the House of Commons who are in the west part of the building will move into the Victoria Building while they renovate that. The House of Commons chamber will move into the West Block cafeteria. When that part of the renovation is complete, they will all move back and the Senate will sit in the West Block cafeteria. That is why we need the extra offices.
Mr. Lavoie: To facilitate those plans, we will be moving Committees Branch from the Victoria Building to 56 Sparks Street, right above the W.H. Smith book store. Also, we have need of offices for the two leaders. Those will be provided on the seventh floor.
Many times, senators have expressed the wish that researchers be grouped together on the same floor. Until now they have been on different floors of the Victoria Building. We will now put them all on the same floor.
This will give us the opportunity to build two or three senators' offices on the seventh floor which will meet the approved standards. It will also enable us to solve the problem of shortage of training and briefing rooms and cleaning depots.
Senator Nolin: There is some plumbing work under way now. Is that being done through us or through Public Works?
Mr. Lavoie: That is through Public Works.
The Chairman: Is there anything else on these big changes?
Mr. Lavoie: The infrastructure of this project was large, and we had little time to complete it. However, it is almost completed.
As to the sound system, you have probably noticed on your desk a little black plastic thing which sits beside the new microphones. That is completed at this stage. We simply have to do some adjustments and finish the galleries. The only change you will notice, other than better and more reliable sound, is that you will see a new microphone which looks similar to the ones in this room. You will also see a speaker control box between the two senators sitting at the desk. The speaker will be in that box instead of behind you, and you will get better sound from there. The tally light will sit on the former microphone stand.
Before we proceeded with that, we did consult the Federal Heritage Board, and they agreed with the changes. A letter was sent to senators to inform them of that.
As well, at the same time, we provided for computer network access directly from your desk in the chamber. When you come back after Easter recess, if the Senate decides to do so, there will be the availability of the network directly from your desk.
We need to replace the data network. We are on target and on budget. We had an agreement with the House of Commons on computers, as discussed with the other committee. We will share the same highway, but we will control our share of it. It is all in place, and we can now start implementing the general applications that are available on the Hill, including Internet and PubNet. We will see them more starting in the fall. We must first change or replace the computers, and then we will make the applications available one at a time starting in the fall.
The last one was replacement of computers. Again, it is on time and on budget. Everything has been received. We will start installation April 1. There will be training, both formal and hands-on training. We plan to turn the switch to the new application at the end of September. By that time, all the users will have been trained in a classroom and in a hands-on session. We will have people available to help make the transition.
[Translation]
As you know, the construction of the committee room in the Centre Block forced us to replace the work stations around this area. This room is the former office of Senator Gigantes' assistant, beside the reading room.
[English]
We used that room to build six new work stations.
[Translation]
We took advantage of our experience to construct better work stations. They are closed, isolated and soundproofed. Each station will allow a senator to do some work, especially on the phone. We will also install a photocopying machine and a fax. The first station will be furnished with a working table and four chairs, as well as a speaker phone which can be used for teleconferences.
[English]
Those ones are ready. We are finishing the painting, and the furniture will be installed during the weekend and should be up and running by next week. I think it is a very good facility, and it will be useful to senators.
There have been many comments made about the look and the maintenance of the reading room. We proposed to refurbish it and give it back its original character. We went back to 1922. With the help of the House of Commons curator, we found all the furniture which was there at that time. We are refurbishing and reupholstering that furniture, and we will install it back the way it was in 1922.
We have a reference board with all the details. After the meeting, I will be available to explain it if someone wants more details.
One of the other significant changes is that the television will not broadcast the sound any more. It will be muted. You will have a picture, and you will have a little box which you can hang on your belt which will transmit both the House and the Senate in both official languages. They are like the small translators you carry in conferences. It will give back the atmosphere that was in that room in 1922. That should be completed again when you come back from Easter recess.
Senator Davey: I do not think there is enough reading in the reading room. I have been around a long time. When I first arrived in the Senate, there were all kinds of books, magazines, and newspapers, which we read. I suppose to save money, we have cut back and cut back further. I think we are making a mistake. I am delighted with this whole plan, but if it is a reading room, let us do some reading. Let us bring back some newspapers and publications. I realize it will cost someone some money.
The Chairman: That is a terrific idea. Could we ask you to head a group to look at that? The staff can provide you with a list of the periodicals. You can look at language balance and geographic balance and those sorts of issues. You can report back to the committee when you feel comfortable.
Senator Davey: Fine.
Senator Di Nino: Let me add that an attempt was made to survey the senators as to what kind of publications they wanted. You may want to refer to that as well in your research.
The Chairman: Can the Clerk provide that?
Mr. Bélisle: Absolutely.
Senator Forrestall: What is the range of this amplifier we put on our belts? I am right underneath the chamber in my office. Can I get a picture and translation?
Senator Kenny: The picture comes on your television set, and unfortunately, it is only of the Commons. As far as the sound goes, I do not know if it will go that far.
Mr. Lavoie: I do not think it will go through thick walls.
Senator Kenny: There are devices so people can pick up what is going on in the Chamber. Some senators' offices have them. Perhaps the rest of us could get them, too. Could the Clerk tell us at a subsequent meeting who has these?
Senator Di Nino: What are they?
The Chairman: They are radio transmitters. The powers-that-be are listening to us as we speak. When you see the red light, it means that Big Brother is listening as we speak.
In the individual telephone booths, there will be a capacity for you to tune into the chamber so that if you are doing business and must return to the chamber for some reason, you will be able to keep track of that within your phone booth.
Lastly, Mr. Lavoie has kindly undertaken, after today's meeting, to give any and all a tour of the chamber and the new room, which is 80 per cent completed now. If it is not convenient, it can be later in the day, next week, or whenever you feel like it. When you come back after Easter, it will all be finished. If you would like to see it in progress, it is well along right now.
Senator Forrestall: Who will get to use that new room?
The Chairman: If you recall, some years ago, right across the hall from here, we built what looked like a little bookie shop with four phones and an extra room. It was designed for senators from the Victoria building and the East Block to have a pied-à-terre when they were over here waiting for votes. Frankly, it was available to all senators. Hopefully people will make phone calls there and xerox there rather than doing so in the reading room, which ought to be for reading or for discussions amongst colleagues.
Mr. Lavoie: The last project is the construction of the main committee room across the corridor in the former courtyard. That is a Public Works' project. It started in February. We plan to move in, in the fall of 1997. When the Senate comes back after summer recess of 1997, we will be able to use that room.
What we have left to do and what this committee must approve are the specifications for the technical equipment, the design of the furniture and the funding. We propose that we go to a supplementary estimate, probably in October 1996, so that we can proceed with the procurement of the equipment and furniture. We would be able to install it starting January 1997.
The Senate's main entrance is there. You will come through a lobby. There will be a small subcommittee room, about the size of this one. Then there will be a main committee room which will seat 60 people around the table and up to 150 for audio-visual presentations. There will be equipment and storage space. Work stations will be installed. There will be a separate or private washroom for senators. As well, there will be a small private lobby for senators.
I can show you the interior of the main committee room. I have a virtual representation of it. The room will be lit by a skylight. The computer will show us around the room. This presentation lasts about 30 seconds, but I think it is worth it to see that this will be a good, functional room, but nothing grandiose.
(Computer Presentation)
Senator Forrestall: What will the room be called?
Mr. Lavoie: There is no name yet.
The Chairman: When the steering committee looked at this proposal, it asked, among other things, that the staff come back with proposals for a broad range of flexibility in terms of the set-up of the room.
We have a standard boardroom set-up. It is a big room. I know that some senators have expressed a preference for - certainly when they are conducting hearings - a set-up that is more an oval, such as the American model. Senators would sit around an oval. The witness would sit in the centre of the horseshoe. The press and the public would sit behind that, and staff would sit behind the senators.
I would ask senators to think about the options they would like to have incorporated into the room. The rectangle is one option. If you have other thoughts, perhaps you would convey them to the committee or Mr. Lavoie, who will come back to us eventually with a more detailed presentation on what it will take to fill the place.
This room is being built by Public Works. It is a parliamentary committee room, which means it will also be made available to members of the other place. We, however, are responsible for the booking of the room which will be handled by our staff. Any questions relating to the project are to be referred to Public Works because they are building it and they understand these things.
Senator Nolin: They are funding it.
The Chairman: That is right. They who pay should deal with the questions. If you do not hear much about it publicly from myself or our staff, you know it is because this is a Public Works project.
Senator Forrestall: I was being frivolous earlier when I asked about a name for the room, but it is a serious question.
The Chairman: Let us address it. We can put it on the agenda, and the clerk will receive proposals from any members of the committee or any members of the Senate. Do we want to name it after someone? As room 200 is available to both us and the Commons, this room will be available to both.
Senator Wood: I am pleased to hear that we will have such a room. Those of us who have been here for some time will know we have had to beg and borrow to get a committee room. I was pleased until you mentioned the House of Commons.
The Chairman: I want to assure you that while Public Works is building it and while we will make it available to the House of Commons from time to time, the booking takes place here.
As the room is evolving, we are entering into discussions on where the demarkation line is between the Senate and the House of Commons. It is certainly my view that, at the next election, we should have the East Block entirely to ourselves. This should be a matter of discussion before this committee at some point.
I have had discussions with the Speaker, and we are both in agreement that the dividing line should be the Hall of Honour in the Centre Block. I would like to have the views of this committee on that issue.
At some point, we will have to acquaint the other place and the government with our views, but the right time to do so, I believe, is at an election.
Senator Forrestall: When they are all gone.
The Chairman: Senators with house experience know the play.
Seriously, though, I will be looking for a mandate from this committee at some point. I am trying to tell you what my views are. I am obviously the servant of this committee, and I will take direction from it.
I believe we need a mandate. I certainly know that the chairman of this committee will not be effective without the support of the committee and the support of the leadership in going ahead with this.
Senator Wood: Will the health unit remain in this building?
Mr. Lavoie: Yes. It has been moved across the corridor on the north side where Flavien Belzile and Kate Higgins were located. There is a brand new health unit there.
The Chairman: Over the Easter break, we intend to send a letter to all senators describing the changes and where to find the health unit, et cetera, so that everyone is up to speed on it.
Senator Cohen: How many offices will there be for senators in the East Block when it is finished?
The Chairman: This is a real problem and one which Mr. Lavoie is examining. There are a fair number of offices there now. However, they do not meet Senate standards. This is something which we must work on together. Senate standards state that your secretary and your researcher are adjacent to you. Right now, a great many senators do not have that set-up.
I can say that many senators in the Victoria Building have their researchers adjacent to them or just down the hall. I do not think many of us who are in the Victoria Building will be keen to move out of that building until we are assured that we will have at least as good a set-up in the East Block.
That may throw a monkey wrench into the plan put forward by Public Works for the swing space. However, I will be happy to heave the monkey wrench if they do not do it so that we have a proper set-up.
This committee has done a study on the minimum space for senators. It is based on the Abbott report. Perhaps the Clerk could circulate not only the study but the drawings. There is a minimum and maximum square footage that this committee decided several years ago each Senator should have. My guess is that only about 50 per cent of senators have the minimum right now.
If we are to go through the process of all the renovations, the grief of moving and having the chamber in the cafeteria and all that sort of stuff, then, at the end of the day we ought to come out of it with offices in which we can work properly and not have our secretaries three floors away and our researchers in another building.
Senator Di Nino: Senator Cohen's question begs a follow-up question. You and I have had some discussions, Mr. Chairman, on this matter. We should strive to ensure that the East Block becomes a Senate building after the next election.
I believe Senator Cohen was asking how many offices for senators would be located in the East Block when the House of Commons moves out of there. In effect, that does not mean just the second floor. It should mean the main floor, the second floor and the third floor. I do not need an answer to that question, except to say that that is the way we should be thinking.
The Chairman: That is the way we are thinking. We have done a nose count. The easy count tells you how it works now. We can count up how many senators and how many members of the House of Commons are housed there now. Having said that, a whole lot of senators are not properly housed there. There are also a number of senators in the Centre Block who do not have a proper set-up yet.
It is a double problem. Mr. Lavoie and his trusty gang are working on it. However, it means sitting down and trying to put together groups of rooms which will work. That is not a simple calculation.
When do you expect to have the count?
Mr. Lavoie: We already have a good idea. The East Block can probably accommodate up to 50 senators with offices close to the standards. The Centre Block cannot accommodate the remaining senators unless we move the division between the two houses.
The Chairman: It should be moved to where it belongs.
Mr. Lavoie: If that were done, then we could probably house all the senators with offices close to those in the East Block and Centre Block.
The Chairman: There are all sorts of things which would make sense once you had it there. If we can consolidate senators in two buildings with proper offices, then we can cut down on messengers, et cetera.
The Commons can have the Justice building and the Supreme Court. They can go as far down that way as they want. They already have a fair bit of the space on Sparks Street. If we are stuck, then I think we should go for the Langevin Building.
Senator LeBreton: Or the U.S. Embassy.
Senator Forrestall: You are assuming that we can get some degree of control over the East Block.
The Chairman: I am assuming there will be a very determined attitude in this committee.
Senator Forrestall: We do not have it yet, do we?
The Chairman: No. I am assuming that a determined attitude will develop, and that we will fight like hell.
Senator Di Nino: I do not think there will be any opposition to the chairman's position with respect to that attitude. I think it will be conclusive and unanimous.
The Chairman: I want Senator Forrestall on side.
Senator Forrestall: I come from the other place, too. I know what it is to live in the basement. How many new seats are being added to the Commons?
Senator Cohen: Six.
Senator Forrestall: That will mean 18 new rooms. Where in God's name will they go?
The Chairman: They have the Met Life Building and the building on Sparks Street.
Senator Forrestall: Is it full?
The Chairman: It is full with Commons folk.
Senator Forrestall: There are six more coming. I wish you well. I am on your side with respect to the East Block for an entirely different reason, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: There are no members of the House of Commons in the Justice building yet.
Senator Forrestall: I think the historic nature is best reserved by the philosophy of the Senate, what it means and how it fits into our social structure. That is a very valuable adjunct, not to mention the practical and economic reasons for keeping us as close together as possible.
Senator Nolin: When will you people come up with real numbers and scenarios? We should have an in camera meeting and a thorough discussion of that subject.
The Chairman: I agree.
Senator Nolin: If we are to strategize, then let us be smart.
The Chairman: Is there anything else on this presentation which we have had?
Thank you. It was a very good one, Mr. Lavoie.
The last item is a discussion of priorities, projects and where we will go from here. Senators will recall that when we first met, we agreed to go ahead and have a meeting with just the Clerk and senators present. We would sit down to discuss what we feel individually is important for the Senate. We would discuss what we need in order to do our jobs, where we want to go in the next year, how we want to do it and in what order, and how we could share the work among ourselves.
I am proposing that the first meeting we have after Easter be that sort of meeting. Everyone around the table can give their views. The Clerk will takes notes and prepare a paper. A week later, we will come back and the Clerk will present us with a paper describing what he thinks he heard us say. We will then have a discussion on that paper.
From that, we should try to develop the priorities of this committee and determine how we would like to share the work amongst ourselves. The work sharing is very important.
Between now and then, I ask you to think about yourself in your job. Think about how well you are able to do your job, what hindrances you have, what good things can be accentuated, what irritants can be cleared out, and what sort of Senate we want to have at the end of this century.
We have an opportunity to set a tone for some time to come, particularly due to the fact that we are changing the place physically. Even more important than that is to have the thoughts of individuals on how they are working around here and what this committee can do to improve the ability of our colleagues to work.
Senator LeBreton: And that of the staff.
The Chairman: Yes. It will be wide open. There will be no particular agenda. I will send around a little note in advance with some questions, but you are quite welcome to turf them out. They are intended only to raise some thoughts with you.
I really believe that we can only be effective if we develop our own priorities and our own work plan. If we do that, we will have a terrific committee. In order to accomplish that, everyone must participate in the discussion.
Are there any questions about that? Are people comfortable with spending our next two meetings with that sort of approach?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Until then, and over the Easter recess, the steering committee will continue, with your permission, to deal with emerging matters which arise. We will report back to this committee if anything comes up, or if we must meet.
Senator Wood: With regard to the committee room, what is the third language that will be coming out of the system?
The Chairman: I believe it is just extra capacity.
Mr. Lavoie, is the third track there simply to have capacity for a third language for international meetings?
Mr. Lavoie: Yes.
The Chairman: Because it will be such a large room, it is anticipated that there will be international meetings held in it, as in room 200. There will be the ability to add another language.
Mr. O'Brien has reminded me that we need a motion to print copies of our proceedings. We are proposing to print 250 copies.
Senator Di Nino: I move that the committee be authorized to print 250 copies of its proceedings.
The Chairman: Is that agreed, senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The committee adjourned.