Skip to content
 

Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration

Issue 2 - Evidence for December 5, 2002


OTTAWA, Thursday, December 5, 2002

The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration met this day at 9:05 a.m. to consider administrative and other matters.

Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, I have some announcements. Next week, we will sit in the morning on December 10 and we will also sit on December 12.

Mr. Paul C. Bélisle, Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Committee: What time will the committee meet on December 10?

The Chairman: I dare not mention it because we can never be certain. On December 12 we will deal with the report on committee budgets. I would ask you to mark your agendas accordingly, honourable senators.

[Translation]

Senator Gauthier: Has the date been changed to December 12? We were told that the deadline was December 3. Has that date been changed to December 10?

The Chairman: No.

Senator Gauthier: That is what the clerks are telling us in committee.

The Chairman: There are committee budgets that will be presented today. Other committees will appear on Tuesday. We will have to wait until Tuesday to discuss the other committees and we will come back Thursday with the final report. Is that all right?

Senator Gauthier: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: We are supposed to have a Russian delegation attending this meeting for a few minutes, but they have not yet arrived. We will start our meeting and welcome them later.

Item No. 2, on the agenda is the second report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure and the committee budgets.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, the subcommittee is pleased to present its second report on committee budgets. As you know, a number of committee chairs have appeared before the sub-committee to defend their budget requests. Their arguments were convincing, and the subcommittee is sensitive to the need to providing funding to committees as quickly as possible.

That being the case, the subcommittee carefully examined the proposals, the priorities identified by the committee chairs, and has come to an agreement on how the funds should be allocated, in keeping with a certain number of principles.

[English]

These principles include the fact that the limits of the budget must be respected, especially given the emphasis in the Speech from the Throne for fiscal restraint. Some $1.3 million is available for distribution to committees for the remainder of the fiscal year. While we have a good idea of what total demands are likely to be, there is still some uncertainty. A certain degree of caution is in order. We are aware that at least four more budgets will be submitted for our consideration. The release of funds should be done in such a way as to facilitate the work of committees and, if possible, the chair should only have to appear once before the subcommittee.

Wherever possible, the release of funds should permit committees to plan their work to the end of the fiscal year. Since there are insufficient funds to cover all requests, some difficult choices must be made.

The priorities identified by chairs should be taken into account. The timing of expenditures should also be taken into account. Committees need to understand what is being funded.

It has already been decided by the Internal Economy Committee that funds which were budgeted and allocated but not used for a particular initiative, should be returned for reallocation either to the same committee for a different initiative or to another committee. The Senate has expressed support for public hearings. Public hearings are costly and should be funded at 100 per cent so that all members of a committee have the option of participating. Of course, if fewer senators participate, the remaining funds would be returned for reallocation.

Internal fact-finding trips should be funded to allow six senators and two staff to travel. There should be a higher level of support for travel within Canada. Therefore, fact-finding trips within Canada should be funded to allow nine senators and three staff members to travel.

Conferences should be funded on a selective basis, that is taking into account the committee identified to attend a particular conference and the priorities brought to the subcommittee's attention. Funding for expert research assistance should be funded when the Library of Parliament cannot provide the necessary resources and no funding has been granted for communication consultants or legislative budgets. A reasonable level of funding for communications consultants for special studies is being recommended.

[Translation]

In accordance with these principles, the sub-committee has established the funding allocations recommended in the second report. The sub-committee feels that, in all or nearly all cases, the recommended allocation will be adequate to meet the committee's needs until the end of the fiscal year.

Recommended allocations total $1,122,047, which does not include the $54,400 already allocated to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology for its health care study.

[English]

The report also recommends a process to be followed for the transfer of funds between types of travel.

I request the adoption of your subcommittee's second report.

Before we get to questions, I would welcome today a Russian delegation representing the Russian Federation Council's Commission of Internal Economy on Internal Financial Control who will remain with us for a few minutes to see how we work in Canada. I hope they find it interesting. Welcome to our meeting.

[Translation]

Senator Gauthier: The submissions that were studied by the steering committee and submitted by the standing committees all have an order of reference to justify these expenditures, do they not? When we talk about $165,000 for agriculture, is there a reference from the Senate to cover those amounts? Is there a reference in the case of the $193,000 for the foreign affairs committee?

The Chairman: We were given the necessary explanations and we have acted on that basis. We made decisions based on the explanations and we even identified certain priorities.

Senator Gauthier: My question is specific: is there a reference from the Senate? As far as I know, there was no reference.

Mr. Bélisle: There was, in fact, a reference from the Senate. The director of committees is here and she can confirm what I am saying. There was indeed a reference.

Ms. Lank: Yes, the rules of the Senate indicate that the budget may be submitted to the Internal Economy Committee for consideration only after a reference from the Senate has been obtained. So in all cases where an allocation of funds is being recommended, these are studies that have been approved by the Senate.

Senator Gauthier: There are new committees, such as the Official Languages Committee, where we have a new chair and a new clerk who may not be familiar with all aspects of the system.

The Chairman: Your new chair will appear before us next week.

Senator Robichaud: The report that we have before us today deals with $1,122,000, and we have already approved $54,400 in spending.

The Chairman: For the Social Affairs Committee, which appeared before us some time back.

Senator Robichaud: I think that other committees will also be making requests. The budget of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, and a few others have not yet been included.

The Chairman: There are four that will be appearing before us next week.

Senator Robichaud: How much are we left with?

The Chairman: We have a total budget of $1.3 million.

Senator Robichaud: That means that there would be $180,000 left for committees who have not yet had their budgets considered because they have not received their reference from the Senate.

The Chairman: That is why, in the principles that we adopted, we suggest that when the money is not spent it should be returned. The money can be reallocated either to the same committee, if it needs the funding, or to other committees, if there are other needs.

Senator Robichaud: Is it possible to set aside a certain amount that will remain as a contingency fund?

The Chairman: We discussed that point this week. We do need a contingency fund. A small cushion. We plan to keep a very small cushion, but not very much money at all. We did everything we could to allocate funding that could help the committees.

[English]

Senator Stratton: My question is along a similar line. We have a budget of $1,122,047. We have four months left in the fiscal year to spend this money. We may not spend it.

The Chairman: Some say that yes, we will spend it.

Senator Stratton: As Mr. Bélisle stated earlier, usually a percentage of the amount that is projected to be spent, is actually spent.

The Chairman: It is usually 70 per cent.

Senator Stratton: Would the same rule hold in this case?

The Chairman: It is 70 per cent.

Senator Stratton: We are looking at about $700,000 in reality, historically. That is actually the number we are looking at.

[Translation]

Senator Robichaud: If we accept this practice of spending only 70 per cent, can we count on the other 30 per cent to be the contingency fund?

The Chairman: No, we need another amount, which we plan to set aside as a cushion.

[English]

Senator Kroft: I have just a comment. The issue of counting on not spending a certain amount is a very risky business, as we all know, even though, historically, that may be the case. I was just looking at the flooding situation in the Czech Republic and a commentator said that it was a one-in-500-years probability; but it could happen again next year. Statistical analyses can take us into danger. Therefore, the maintenance of some contingency, even though we might look at existing allocations and think that there is an inherent contingency, is important. This can be a dangerous game.

I would particularly like to ask if an estimated percentage was applied. Could you say that, generally, committees receive 50 per cent or 60 per cent or 70 per cent, or is the figure all over the board depending on the particular circumstances?

The Chairman: That is not how we evaluate it. We evaluate all committee work on the basis of face value.

Senator Kroft: In the past, we have tried to take a estimate a percentage across the board, but we did not do that in this case. We have looked at each case. One committee may have received 100 per cent and another may have received 50 per cent of its requested amount.

The Chairman: When it is requested, we give the $3,000. That is 100 per cent.

Ms. Lank: It may be important just to reiterate that there are certain types of expenditures. For example, in public hearings you need to fund fully, as opposed to a fact-finding activity where there is greater flexibility allowed. That was taken into account. Depending on the work plan of an individual committee, it can have an effect on the allocation.

In respect of conferences there was a range. In certain instances a committee might be specific about which conference it wanted to attend, on which date, at which time and why. Others may have said that they would just like some money for conferences. It is then up to the subcommittee to determine how it will allocate those dollars. It was done very much on a case-by-case basis, an analysis of what the specific requirements were, and how it fit into the guidelines that the subcommittee had chosen.

Senator Kroft: Did any committees believe there was a problem in that they were significantly short of a well- documented plan of work?

The Chairman: They would all want more money, I am sure.

Senator Kroft: One or two committees might feel that there was a major initiative that they were not able to undertake. Is there any initiative, for which the Senate has given an order of reference, which might not be carried out for that reason?

The Chairman: We took a note of the dates of the conferences they wanted to attend, and the dates of the various trips that they wanted to take so that, by the end of February, if there is enough money, we can reallocate it to those committees that may need more. Right now we think we have enough to operate. They have enough to have their special councils, and they have enough to do their own studies.

Senator Bolduc: I see that the Aboriginal Committee wants $125,000 for transportation. It is the same figure for the Agriculture Committee, and the Banking Committee is asking for less than half of that figure. The figure is approximately $87,000 for the Energy Committee and it is the same for the Fisheries Committee. The Foreign Affairs Committee is asking for $145,000; and the request is for $102,000 for the National Security and Defence Committee. These amounts are for seven committees. If we have 11 committees and the others wish to travel, I do not think they will not be able to do more than go to Hull and come back to Ottawa.

The Chairman: There will come a time when we will have to limit the special studies to two or three per year, and we will have to stipulate that the reports should be in at the end of the year and not fund a committee for two, three or four years in a row.

Senator Bolduc: We will have seven reports at the end of these studies, and the transportation for each will cost on, an average, $100,000. For some it will cost $125,000; and for others the cost will be $45,000 or $80,000. Some committees still have to submit their figures, and we have only $180,000 left. Are you aware of the needs of the other committees regarding transportation? Did you take that into account?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Lank: Perhaps it would be of interest to know that in no case where a committee asked for travel were they denied travel. When you look at this proposal, you will see that there were no committees where the public hearings were not held. All the committees included here that asked for it, did receive funding for travel.

As the chairman mentioned, we do have an indication of what are likely to be the forthcoming four budgets, and they fit within the envelope. We do not expect to receive large requests for the remaining four budgets, but things can changed between now and when they are approved and submitted.

[Translation]

Senator Gill: I would like to add something that I hope will be somewhat helpful. Not only did we apply certain principles and criteria in allocating the budgets, but also the committee chairs asked to be able to identify their priorities. Certain priorities were established. We did not do our work in a vacuum. I think that the initial budgets were higher, but once the priorities were identified we were able to allocate certain amounts.

[English]

Senator Bryden: I should like to ask a question relating to public hearings and fact-finding endeavours. You indicated that fact-finding missions sometimes would include nine senators and three or four staff. What is the difference between a public hearing and a fact-finding mission of nine senators and four or five staff?

The Chairman: Fact-finding trips should be funded to allow six senators and two staff.

Senator Robichaud: That is outside the country, though.

The Chairman: That is for international travel. Within Canada, we are allowing nine senators and three staff to travel.

Senator Bryden: My question is this: What is the difference between that function — take the biggest one, nine and three — and public hearings?

[Translation]

The Chairman: It is everything that we need to bring with us.

[English]

Mr. Bélisle: On a fact-finding mission, there will be no necessity to have transcripts. Some of them may have a record supported by the three researchers who will be there, but it will not be our Hansard reporters who will be providing a full transcript. We must ensure bilingualism on all Senate activities, but on a fact-finding mission sometimes there may not be available the infrastructure that is built into a committee room. There is a less formality to fact finding.

Senator Bryden: You said that in all of our functions we must provide for bilingualism. Does that mean simultaneous translation?

The Chairman: Yes.

Senator Bryden: For a fact-finding mission, then, will there be simultaneous transcription?

The Chairman: No, but we have that for public hearings.

Senator Bryden: I am concerned about that. If you take nine senators and three staff on a fact-finding mission, do they all go to visit factories or farms or whatever, or do they have a room like this and invite people to come in and present facts?

Mr. Bélisle: I have never been on a fact-finding trip, so I would ask the director Ms. Lank to respond to that.

Ms. Lank: What is fact-finding varies tremendously. It can be everything from visiting a prison or a fish factory or a farm to a more informal get together. There is a procedural difference between a fact-finding trip and public hearings. As the clerk pointed out, the fact-finding trip is more informal and does not have the same requirement in terms of the Rules of the Senate for notice, for quorum or for all of the other requirements. Interpretation must be provided because a public hearing is a proceeding of Parliament. It must be duly constituted and there must be notice. This is also why we must fund for the full membership, because, as members, senators have the right to attend because it is a proceeding of Parliament. That has implications for privilege as well. It is an important distinction from a more informal type of get together.

A fact-finding mission, which historically was used for visits where you could not properly convene a meeting, take minutes and adjourn because that would be a proceeding of Parliament, was a more informal kind of process that could involve in camera discussions, et cetera. They are quite different processes. Certainly, there is a wide range of kinds of meetings that fit within the general term of ``fact-finding'' depending on the committee's needs.

Senator Bryden: Could I have a copy of the criteria applied to determine when what is happening is a fact-finding mission?

Ms. Lank: Certainly. The key thing is that the Rules of the Senate establish what a public hearing is and what is an official proceeding of Parliament. Any travel of a committee that does not meet those criteria in terms of notice, interpretation, and of due process, in parliamentary terms, cannot fit within the definition of a public hearing because there are strict rules in the Senate about what that requires. Therefore, travel that does not meet the criteria fits within the category of fact-finding. There is a broad range that would fit that definition.

Senator Bryden: Everyone knows where I am going. If we have so much money to spend and we are likely to get, instead of having a public hearing on the issue, which would involve all of these Rules of the Senate, we could have three fact-finding missions and the six senators could travel to four cities to do that instead of going to one city for a public hearing.

The question is: Does it lend itself to abuse?

The Chairman: Those are two different exercises.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: I want to react to that. I will wait for my turn.

Senator Robichaud: When I was a member of the Fisheries Committee, I went on a fact-finding tour. At the time, we had been given a budget for that and we thought that it was a way to go see people. On a number of occasions, we were embarrassed because we did not have simultaneous interpretation.

We need to ensure that senators are not deprived of interpretation when they travel. That happened in Moncton when some francophone associations made a presentation.

There were some senators on the trip that spoke mainly English and who could not understand the presentations. So we had to act as interpreters. It was unacceptable for the senators in attendance. Moreover, they lost interest and that limited the effectiveness of the work, I cannot say of the committee, but at least of the senators who were there. So we should be very careful if we decide to use that process. We need to ensure that senators who would like interpretation are provided with it. Otherwise, we would not be in compliance with the Official Languages Act, and I would not want to get into that kind of problem.

[English]

Senator Stratton: I was involved in a trip where the Agriculture Committee went to Europe to look at subsidies in agriculture. We produced, I think, a good report. We had full translation. As an ancillary to that, because our budget would not allow it, only three senators went to the Scandinavian countries to look at what was occurring there.

It was a very credible thing to do. I did not go, but we needed a balance to what we had heard in the southern part of Europe. It was in contrast to what was happening in France, Italy and other places.

I have a question with respect to fact-finding. As I understand it, within fact-finding trips and within travel budgets of a committee, one senator may be chosen to travel. I am thinking of the National Defence Committee. On occasion one senator will go on an individual fact-finding mission. I want everyone to understand that it may not be two or three senators who do this; it could be just one. The question I always have with respect to this is whether there is sufficient discipline within the committee to ensure that what is taking place is required. I provide that cautionary note. Sometimes you wonder if it is necessary for that individual to take off for somewhere.

I would like expansion on that point, please.

Senator Forrestall: I agree with Senator Stratton. Probably 100 times in the last 10 years I have voiced, particularly in this committee, my continuing concern that in all of our activities, not just formal hearings or fact-finding hearings that are public in nature, we are seen to obey and, in fact, do obey the law. If we do not do that we leave ourselves wide open to justifiable damnation by the people of Canada.

Madam Chair, the question in front of you is not ``if or or.'' You do not save money to obey the law; you obey it. You cut out the work. If you do not like it, then you change the law. Conversely, you do what makes sense. You imbue this committee with sufficient funds to act within the law, and not to use excuses, such as it is a fact-finding mission or this or that. The fact of the matter is, and Senator Stratton and our deputy chair will attest, that it is impossible for us to do the work of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence without professional staff. To travel on fact-finding missions without that professional staff is virtually a waste of time. It is a waste of good Senate committee money as well. If we do not have the professional staff, we cannot do our job properly.

It is a question that has to be thoroughly discussed and answered. I would urge the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate to undertake the kind of study that is necessary to resolve this question. It is a source of embarrassment to me. Without saying anything about it, on more than 10 occasions I have got up and left a meeting because — and this is my final point, which I reiterate — it was a public occasion and we did not have translation capability for those members of the public who were there. Failure to do that is failure for us to comply with a fundamental part of our Canadian culture and nature. We, as the Senate of Canada, should not be seen to be flouting or disregarding that. It is part of our future. It is part of our history. For God's sake, let us get it straight once and for all.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: It would be useful if the Internal Economy Committee prepared a document, a sort of guide, for committee chairs. There is a principle here for financial reasons but a fact-finding mission cannot replace a public meeting. We should not stop people from doing these fact-finding missions. In many cases, the public interest calls for such missions, or it may be that a particular person that the group will meet with is of special interest. During the special study on drugs, some people did not want to be heard in public, so it was appropriate for us to go see them.

There is a strong temptation to do fact-finding missions instead of having the committee travel because it costs less. We should avoid falling into that kind of trap. We have an act to comply with, and we must not get so caught up in the financial considerations that we fail to meet our legislative obligations.

The Chairman: When we were examining the budgets, we noticed that the committees often try to replace public meetings with fact-finding missions, and that is dangerous. It is a slippery slope that we must not go down. Senator Nolin made an important suggestion that will enable us to inform our committee chairs adequately as to the distinctions to be drawn between fact-finding missions and public meetings or in camera meetings. There are certain things we can do as well.

[English]

Senator Bolduc: I have a word of caution about a fact-finding mission undertaken by only one senator. I am a bit puzzled by it. If we do it, we should limit the number of trips, or have a minimum of two; otherwise, what criteria do we use?

Senator Stratton: I would reinforce what Senator Bolduc has just said. With respect to fact-finding, I will refer again to the trip we made to Europe to study agricultural subsidies. The fact-finding trip into Scandinavia was by English- speaking senators only, going to an area that had no French-speaking people.

I think we can be selective and save money. I do not disagree with what you are saying. If we go into an area where senators speak French or people speak French and need translation, let us provide it. However, let us not handcuff committees to that degree. They must have the flexibility because, ultimately, you want to try to save money. It should be your responsibility to save those dollars where you can.

[Translation]

Senator Robichaud: Madam Chair, I have some difficulties with what has just been said. I agree that we need to pay attention to spending, but if senators travel to a region where they think interpretation is not needed, I have no problem going because I understand both languages. But if the group is made up mainly of francophones and there is one anglophone but no interpretation, then the anglophone senator cannot go because of that fact. That situation would give me an advantage, and it could be the other way around.

We need to be very careful about this, since, as Senator Forrestall has pointed out, we might find ourselves in a very embarrassing situation.

[English]

Senator Bolduc: There is a difference between Canada and the rest of the world. If you go to Washington and you do not speak English it is a disadvantage.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I have two final speakers on this point. We need to come to a decision.

Senator Gauthier: I would remind you that section 133 of the Constitution is clear: the Senate, the House of Commons and Parliament must serve the Canadian people in both official languages. I have always said that Canada is different from the United States in that it has two official languages. We do not want the Americans to think that this is simply a unilingual English country. That is not true. When we travel, we need to show clearly that we speak both official languages. Always! It worries me when there are no anglophones present who speak French. It also concerns me that francophones are more comfortable in English. We speak both languages. I can speak English. However, I am more comfortable in French. I try to read in French as much as possible because I understand more easily. It is a bad habit, but I have been doing it for 73 years.

The Chairman: We must not limit francophones to visiting French-speaking countries and anglophones to visiting English-speaking countries. We need to give everyone an opportunity to visit a given country.

Senator Prud'homme: We must be very careful on this score. I often chaired committees in the House of Commons. Since I have come to the Senate — I have concrete examples that I could give in private — I have sometimes seen committee chairs say: ``That senator would insist too much on bilingualism, he is an embarrassment in committee, he should not be appointed.'' We might be opening a real can of worms. So I would urge extreme caution. I have concrete examples where private clubs have developed where people say: ``We would rather bring this one and that one because they work well, they are nice, they will not create any problems.'' Senator Gauthier put it very well. It is a reflection of the institution. We have friends from Russia here this week. What example could we give them, given that they have all those languages belonging to all the nationalities they have in their country? Maybe there is an example in Canada they can follow? I know it is expensive, but it is the price we pay for having a country.

The Chairman: Senator Prud'homme, I think we have given our friends from Russia a good example by speaking both languages in committee.

Do I have a motion for the adoption of the second report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure?

Senator Robichaud: Yes, I agree to support this report. We should look into fact-finding missions. Senator Nolin, who suggested that we look into how we would use —

The Chairman: The committee will have to come up with a guide for committee chairs to explain properly what is involved in a public meeting, a fact-finding mission, other types of meetings, conferences that people need to attend, since we do not send the whole committee to a conference. We will provide you with that as soon as possible. It will be ready early in the new year.

Senator Bolduc: Before saying yes, Madam Chair, I just want to be sure of one thing. There are nine proposals right now, and others are still to come. Do the chair, the steering committee and the staff feel that the remaining funds will be enough to get through the year? With a small cushion, too?

The Chairman: Yes, with a small cushion of about $50,000. All right? Agreed.

Senator Gauthier: I did not give my approval. I want all the committee to present their budgets before we adopt the whole thing. I am not in favour of adopting half or a third of the budget. That is not right. We need a definition because people need to know what constitutes a fact-finding mission, a public meeting or a special study. There are all sorts of terms being used here.

The Chairman: It would seem that the motion is carried on division, since Senator Gauthier is not entirely satisfied with the definitions provided.

Senator Robichaud: Madam Chair, if I can go by the precedent established in the Senate Chamber yesterday, when the chair said ``agreed,'' it was too late afterwards to express any reservations or anything.

Senator Nolin: That was not a precedent, it was the Senate rules!

The Chairman: The report is adopted. We now go to item 3 on the agenda. Last week we provided information on information technology renewal for this morning. I do not want to have to ask Ms. Bouchard to leave again. You have the floor, Ms. Bouchard, and then we will be able to ask you some questions.

Ms. Bouchard is Manager, Information Management. She is accompanied this morning by Mr. Feltham, who is a Senior Analyst. She is responsible for all activities in the Senate involved in acquiring, using and supporting technology and information management.

[English]

Today we have a presentation about the information technology renewal and the renewal of the technologies necessary to ensure continuing operations and to introduce initiatives. The advances in communications and computing technology in recent years have accelerated the rate of change in presenting opportunities and challenges. Governments are being thrust to the forefront as citizens demand new and faster services comparable to those available from the private-sector organizations. Today we are expected to deliver information and services electronically in an efficient, effective and innovative manner.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Bouchard, Manager, Information Management: The purpose of my presentation today is to talk to you about information technology renewal in the Senate. Before beginning, I would like to give you a brief overview of the developments over the past seven years. In 1996 the Senate developed its first strategic plan concerning information systems; that plan dealt primarily with renewing its local area network and updating the computer equipment in order to enhance internal and external communications and offer users better work tools.

In 1996, there were 350 computers on the Senate network and there are now just over 750 in 2002. In order to keep the network, hardware and software up-to-date, along with other technical components, the information management budget has risen from $680,000 in 1996 to $2.5 million in 2002.

Today, the strategic direction in the public and private sectors is taking a very different turn, since there are now well-established programs for replacing equipment and network services. Today's concerns revolve mainly around management of electronic information. Sooner or later, every organization will have to manage or collapse under the weight of huge amounts of information, data and documents if programs are not developed to reduce some of the risk. That is why the Senate needs to remain at the cutting edge of new developments with respect to information management in Parliament.

An integral part of the legislative process is that the Senate must be prepared to undertake and expand research, as well as access, analyze, use, produce and disseminate legislative information relevant to the Senate's activities, as our partners already have them.

The purpose of my presentation is to inform you of the challenges and pressures the Senate is facing today in the area of information technology and management, the way we compare with others in this regard, the investment required in order to move forward and the risks involved if we maintain the status quo. There will be a crucial need to invest in information technology and management over the next five years, if we are not to stagnate and fail to take full advantage of the opportunities before us. Indeed, lack of funding will prevent our information technology from moving forward, since it is only by moving forward that we will be able to face the challenges ahead.

Information is the Senate's main activity. For that reason, we have the most to gain from information management through technology. As you know, the Senate spends more time creating, processing and managing large volumes of information than most other organizations, since we produce information as our primary product rather than physical goods. In a world where quick and easy access to information has become so critical to an organization's effectiveness, any institution that wants to meet the challenges of the 21st century has no choice but to undertake the required improvements. The greater the volume of information, the more pressure we are under.

The pressures we face in information management are, of course, emerging technology, including digital asset management, storage area networks, mobile computing and wireless networking, just to name a few.

With respect to user support services, new models of support are required as the complexity of technology increases and the demands of users grow. Information management is still in its infancy, functioning as no more than a passive repository system. We are suffering from information overload, a situation that will only get worse unless steps are taken to manage information. In order to meet the specific requirements of all users, information management must take into account the need to publish information in various media and formats.

Moreover, with the number of employees expected to retire in the next 5 to 10 years being significantly higher than normal, the Senate risks losing valuable corporate knowledge not captured in a system or document that can be accessed or retrieved. That being the case, the integration of knowledge management with information management becomes a much more pressing issue. As technology evolves, people expect to be able to access information quickly and efficiently, which means that we need to update the infrastructure and systems involved in information management, as well as archiving systems built on an appropriate foundation that will ensure long-term access to information for current and future generations.

As concerns security we will be increasingly exposed to cyber threats and therefore more and more at risk. Computer security will need to be an integral part of our daily activities in order to protect our electronic environment. We must prepare for the future today.

[English]

The vision of the Connecting Canadians initiatives is to make Canada the most connected country in the world by connecting all Canadians and Canadian businesses to the information highway. Many of the elements of this initiative require integrated service delivery across departments and will have profound implications on the Senate information management and technology infrastructure that will be required to implement the vision of Connecting Canadians.

We will have to face it some day. Unfortunately, as time moves on, our information management and technology cap will increase and will be more expensive.

P.K. Agrawal, who speaks and writes about technological issues, says that it is not about reducing costs; it is about providing capability, improving business, and connecting the country. On return of investment, I do not believe we will save money. Did we save money on railroads and on freeways? These were huge expenses. We are talking about value creation.

I believe the next slide speaks for itself. Canadians are hungry for information. Therefore, let us ensure we are positioned to let them have access to it. The parliamentary Web site received close to 3 million visitors in 2001 compared with 33,000 visitors in 1995. Basically, it is not that we do not have the information; the issue is to develop the access capability to an increasing repository of information, as evidenced by the next slide.

Gartner Group is predicting that the volume of digitized information will double every year from 2002 to 2007, an increase of 30 times today's volume. As an example, just look at the numbers on the slide, 100 becomes 3,200 in five years, simply by doubling the amount.

Let me now illustrate where we do not want to be. The Auditor General stated that the 1990s will be a lost decade for records management because organizations have not provided the appropriate standards and infrastructure to use all the electronic information generated. With the advent of the Internet and intranet, we are drowning in a sea of information. This may be a positive development, but if we cannot find the information we need, too much information becomes a problem.

As the amount of electronic information disseminated within the Senate grows, practical issues emerge. Among them is how to distinguish official sources from non-official ones that could be providing misinformation.

The consequence of not having the necessary infrastructure is similar to trying to find a piece of paper in a room overflowing with paper. What do we need to do?

[Translation]

Ideally, we need infrastructure that will allow us to archive, retrieve and use efficiently all the information that we produce and access, particularly when that information is in document form. Structured documents are smart documents, since they contain information on their structure and their content. For example, a structured document will explicitly identify subjects, key words, date, author, description and any other information we may want to put in. A library without an index would be useless. Here are some parliamentary projects currently underway on how to process, archive and retrieve this increasing quantity of information.

The PRISM project is a House of Commons initiative designed to provide an integrated system for creating, publishing, using and archiving information. As for the Senate, this initiative will provide senators and the public better on-line access to parliamentary information. It will reduce waiting time and improve the quality of answers to requests for information, and it will multiply our options for providing new services with value added.

The House has already invested a little over $10 million in the applications development and the implementation of new business processes. It has become a model for Canadian provincial legislatures and foreign parliaments.

The LIMS project is a justice department initiative designed to provide an interface between the House, the Justice Department and the Senate for exchanging information on bills and amendments.

The multimedia strategy is an initiative that stems from the long-term renovation program, which will enable us to implement standard multimedia solutions on Parliament Hill. Multimedia technologies cover several areas such as broadcasting, audio technology, video, storage equipment, video conferencing and facilities infrastructure management.

The information management strategy will help us foster a parliamentary discipline to preserve and eliminate electronic information banks, and provide some control and insurance of effective information services.

As soon as these initiatives were implemented, the Senate was invited to participate in these technological projects to ensure that all of its infrastructure needs were taken into account.

For several years now, the Senate has benefited a great deal from its partners. It would be in the Senate's best interest to implement these initiatives immediately to avoid being isolated from our partners.

Now let me talk about the advantages. These initiatives will enable the Senate to increase the value of existing information because it will be generated and stored in the same integrated system that will allow users to use navigators to collate all the documents and transcripts of hearings on a bill or particular issue fairly quickly.

Hyperlinks between publications will automatically be created so that users can easily access related information, and in the case of House, Senate and committee proceedings, there could also be a link to the audio and video segments of the transcribed text.

These will provide more leeway since the new technological infrastructure will be an excellent starting point for integrating new technologies into senators' workplaces. The technical environment will be able to truly ensure the support and adjustments required by providing, for example, access to information and applications on computers in the Senate Chamber and committee rooms.

The quality, accuracy and reliability of all these information products will be improved thanks to a sole centralized source that will automate the publication procedures, without any intervention or conversion.

Renewing the technological infrastructure and improving the operational procedures will also help reduce the time and costs related to transmitting the information.

Meeting new challenges requires investment.

[English]

We cannot think of taking funds from the present budget, as it is fully expended. It is, in effect, underfunded to the point where it will not maintain the status quo. Let me compare the Senate to the industry benchmarks.

Senate Information Management Services commissioned a IT benchmarking study to provide information that compares the scope of services and the cost of providing IT services in the Senate to the cost of providing similar IT services in other organizations. The study revealed that the average total cost of ownership from the industry benchmark has a range of $8,000 to $10,000 per workstation, depending on the industry research group providing the metric. As you can see, the Senate is way under the industry benchmark.

The second rule provides the metric of IT spending as a percentage of total Senate spending. The benchmark of 7.2percent is conservative, since participants are expecting a 25 per cent increase in the next year.

Today, many organizations target IT spending to be 10 to 15per cent of their overall budget. Although the total costs of ownership represent a funding shortfall from the industry standard, it is unique in that it shares many of its IT costs with other organizations such as the House of Commons and Public Works. As such, a realistic target for the Senate would be $6500per station, or between 8 and 9 per cent of the total Senate budget, resulting in an annual funding shortfall of approximately $2.5 million on its current budget. As you can see, we are well below the industry standard. As such, it is increasingly difficult to even maintain the status quo to mitigate risk with respect to the security, the level of service and the network availability, not to mention undertaking new initiatives.

The detailed resource imbalance measure as shown in the following table is a set of metrics to gauge the balance between resources and services. Users per staff and workstation per staff are workload metrics. Staff as a group can only support so many users or workstations before quality of service deteriorates or burnout occurs. Since both of these two metrics are above the high end of the range, they indicate that information management staff are overextended.

[Translation]

The detailed funding allocation process as described in the following table is a way to determine in percentage terms whether the financing of various management and information technology functions are higher or lower than the industry's reference level.

As we can see, the percentage value for computer equipment at the Senate is much higher than in the industry, whereas the percentage value for development in the industry is much higher than at the Senate.

Basically, what these two measures show us is that since most of the capital budget for information management is allocated to the equipment replacement program, there is very little left for development and support.

With an increased budget, the numbers for equipment would be lower and those for development would be higher, which would lead us to funding levels comparable to those in the industry.

As for total employee costs, the figures show that information management is 50 per cent lower than in the industry. In other words, the information management staff is being over-extended, which threatens the current exemplary level of service.

The Senate's information management services have been working for two years with consultants to see how the Senate could break away from the status quo and progress. The study carried out clearly showed that the Senate could divide its needs into three categories. The Senate as parliamentary institution, the Senate support services and the resources required for information management so that the Senate can proceed.

This slide, which presupposes a long-term financing plan, provides an overview of the funds required over the next five years to implement the new technologies, to follow through on current initiatives and projects as well as to start new ones.

Here are the main items in the proposed budget. Besides being able to complete current and future projects to implement parliamentary initiatives, to develop organizational resource management tools as well as web communication tools, the increased budget will also be used to centralize the costs related to the purchases of standard equipment and software for senators' offices; to build, maintain and support the Senate infrastructure to meet industry requirements and those of our partners and users; to establish the appropriate funding allocations to purchase and maintain telecommunications tools on Parliament Hill; to establish appropriate funding allocations to replace and maintain audio-visual and broadcasting equipment in committee rooms; to hire additional staff and restructure the Information Management Branch to ensure it continues and furthers its activities.

Now let me describe the risks of maintaining the status quo.

[English]

IT service delivery is only possible when there is a balance between services, resources and costs. If the target level of service is greater than the available resources or available funding, then it cannot be delivered. If the resources are too few, then costs will increase or service will degrade.

While also addressing you, honourable senators, let us not forget that your staff and the public expectation are constantly challenged based on the possibilities and the capabilities provided by new and emerging technologies. If the Senate delays in renewing its information technology, services offered by the Senate and the House of Commons will be compounded significantly. Today, our technical environment is not capable of providing the functionality required that will allow the Senate to continue to be an equal partner in the communications and information environment on the Hill. Should you not get the same services that the House of Commons will be offering to their MPs?

At the present time, due to the stand-alone nature of many of our current systems, sharing or exchanging data by automated means is difficult to almost impossible and could contribute to potential technical errors. In an environment where requirements for accuracy, reliability and consistency of information are extremely high, this means significant costs in time and resources.

As mentioned earlier, in the next five years there will be a significant loss of corporate knowledge, when a number of long-term employees will become eligible for retirement. Providing integrated systems that capture and preserve as much business knowledge as possible will ease the transfer of roles and responsibilities to new and upcoming staff. As an example of this, the implementation of PRISM in the Senate will help us to prevent such a loss and will better position ourselves for the future.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I hope I have shed some light on the need to renew our information technology base. The base budget must be increased not only to maintain the status quo, but also to translate current and future projects into action. If these projects are implemented, the number of electronic services provided to senators and their employees can be increased and the foundations the Senate will require in the future can be strengthened.

[English]

The Chairman: As you can see, honourable senators, this is a very important item on our agenda, not only for the coming months but also for the coming years. It is for that reason that I asked Ms. Bouchard to give us the information this morning, before we recess. We can discuss it further when we return.

Senator Stratton: That was an excellent presentation. I will give you a bit of background first. The most difficult thing for management in business is the management of finances, apart from the bank manager. The tendencies, of course, are for the ITfolks to gild the lily or to want a Mercedes when a Chevy is required. I am not suggesting that that is the case here, but I put that forward as a cautionary note. It is inevitable that that tendency tends to be built into the system. It is important to be cautious, because the IT drives too much of what you really want to achieve.

With that in mind, I should like to go back to slide 31, the five-year annual funding requirements for IM/IT. The annual proposed budget, in the last column, is $4,705,300, and then it projects down. You said that the budget increase is $2,228,000 million for that year, and the current budget is $2.228,000 million, so we are virtually doubling the budget.

Ms. Bouchard: Yes, for that year, and for the year after, if you compare this to the 2002-03 budget.

Senator Stratton: Where you tend to get benefits is the road, 2005-08, when you actually do achieve a benefit as a result of this technology.

Ms. Bouchard: Yes. Most of the funding for the first and the second year is to implement PRISM, which is the base, the creation of the foundation of the information management aspect. The budget did not include just the system and the programming. It is also important to the success of a project to ensure that we have the commitment from the departments, such as Legislative Services. When we talk about corporate knowledge within an information management area, we need access to these people. However, we are lean in terms of staff within Legislative Services. Hence, my budget provides support to them to continue to function and to utilize these people for the first and the second years for the success of that project. When this is implemented, then it is simply a matter of maintaining the infrastructure.

Senator Stratton: I should like to ask a question of Mr. Bélisle. Given these five-year projections, and of course we have other stresses on the system, will we see a similar five-year projection from you indicating all the additional hits that you will have to live with? I should like that as an overview before we make a decision.

Mr. Bélisle: That is why I wanted you to have a meeting prior to the consideration of the Main Estimates next Tuesday. However, there is a great deal of pressure, as you know, on our budget for next year. That will be addressed on Tuesday.

Senator Eyton: Ms. Bouchard, could you explain the process of developing this presentation, including your remarks? I should like to understand how it came together. Was this done in-house, or did you rely on outside advisers to gain an understanding of what you needed to do?

Ms. Bouchard: First, the whole process began two years ago, when I started to feel pressure about information management. I have also been participating in information management within the public sector. There was much pressure around us. I also worked with the House of Commons, where a great deal of money was being spent to put these initiatives in place.

Nevertheless, I did not feel that just because the House of Commons was doing it the Senate should do it; rather, I wanted to know what would be good for the Senate. We wanted to prepare a vision and a strategy for the Senate. Two years ago, a few senators were involved in that, and everything was directly related to information management. That needs to be developed; we have the infrastructure in place; and now, we will do something with the information.

We prepared that vision working with consultants. We had a few senators and administration involved, as well. We wanted to know where we stood in comparison to industry, to other departments and to the House of Commons, in terms of information technology, staff and resources. An external company did that study. We also wanted to ensure that these numbers accurately reflected the institution. We did not want to just go with the numbers that were given to us. Rather, we wanted to know that they would meet the needs of the Senate.

We took into consideration the fact that we do not have the same business as other institutions, so we are different. As well, we do benefit from the House of Commons in terms of services and in terms of resources, and the same applies to Public Works. We wanted to have something that would reflect the Senate. We had that IT benchmarking done to support the ITIM vision.

Then we were ready to present something, but not the long-term funding plan. Last year, we were ready to present that to the Internal Economy Committee, but because of September 11, everything shifted. Everything was focused on security, so we backed off a little bit and took that opportunity to work on a long-term funding plan. The initiatives that are happening now within the parliamentary precincts give us a better idea of how much it will cost to implement these initiatives.

We also took that opportunity to talk to the departments and to try to determine their finance, human resources and information technology pressures. We were able to put in that long-term funding. I know there is some consideration in terms of our financial system to probably not be supported by Treasury Board in the next two or three years, so that means this will probably have a major impact on the Senate in terms of having to replace this financial assistance.

Everything was taken into consideration within the long-term funding plan in order to ensure that we were covering everything. We had the ITIM vision prepared; we had the IT benchmarking to support that; we had the long-term funding plan prepared to support the new initiative; and we had consultants.

Senator Eyton: That is a long answer. Essentially, you are telling me this was developed in-house over a few years, by talking to many people and with some help from an outside consultant.

Ms. Bouchard: Yes.

Senator Eyton: The responsibility was yours.

Ms. Bouchard: Yes, it was our responsibility.

Senator Eyton: I will make an observation, then, following up on that, about the specs that you come up with. We have the numbers here, but what we are talking about is a system that has some specs. You must have had some specs, or you could not have come up with the numbers.

Ms. Bouchard: Yes.

Senator Eyton: In coming to those specs, did you consider, and I will use a homely example, that I as a senator receive all kinds of material, and all kinds of information flows across my desk? Half of it does not get any attention at all, and another quarter I look at and deal with quickly. Only the remaining quarter is useful and requires action and, in particular, needs to be retained in any form.

It seems to me that government, because it is so embracing, has a tremendous amount of information, and specs must take into account that there is a volume of material there that need not be part of the system. It seems to me that, by doing that, you could achieve greater efficiencies and reduce costs considerably. Has that been taken into consideration?

Ms. Bouchard: I am not sure if I understood your question, senator. I am sorry.

Senator Eyton: I will shorten it. That was probably too long. There is a lot of waste in the system.

Ms. Bouchard: Yes.

Senator Eyton: There is too much information in the system.

Ms. Bouchard: Yes.

Senator Eyton: How can we eliminate some of that so the system itself is more efficient and will cost less?

Ms. Bouchard: I understand. This is also part of the funding. It is important in that we will do a study to determine what to keep and what information we should work with, because you cannot keep everything. We receive a tremendous amount of e-mail, and we want to make sure that information will be categorized. Most of it now is to focus on the information that the Senate is producing within the chamber and its committees. At this point we focus on the legislative aspect of information.

Senator Eyton: I will make one observation. It seems to me the design you come up with, and the suppliers of the system — one way or another, I suggest to you it should be beyond in-house — are critical to all of this. I suspect that certain numbers may change.

Ms. Bouchard: Yes.

Senator Eyton: We will end up with a much better system if we are very careful on the specs, the design and the suppliers.

Ms. Bouchard: That is right. As well, no system exists outside to support that. Given the business that we are in, we have to develop a system to support our business, because there is no system outside that does it. The House did it, and we want to benefit from the information they have on that. The House spent $10 million on the system that we want to implement here.

The investment that the Senate will make on implementing the system is to fill the gap between business, the House and the Senate.

Senator Eyton: We should try to make our system better than that of the other place.

Senator Stratton: I have a supplementary on this, because I never did hear a follow-up. Perhaps I did not ask the appropriate question. Are we getting a Cadillac or a Chevy? What I do not want to have happen is you to tell me a Chevy and a few years later we have a Cadillac.

Ms. Bouchard: First, I think it is between the Chevy and the Cadillac.

Senator Stratton: A true diplomat.

Ms. Bouchard: It may look as if I am the one who is driving this, but I am trying to show you the pressure that is on us. It is not IT-driven.

Senator Bolduc: What do you mean by pressure? Do you mean pressure by the administration or by the senators?

Ms. Bouchard: It is pressure within the Senate. It is pressures that the House will provide to MPs better access to information. You have to understand that we are sharing the same infrastructure in terms of providing information such as the Internet. The Senate and the House of Commons are sharing the same repository of information. The House is putting in place the structure to be able to provide better services in terms of information, in order to search information for the public and for MPs. If we do not do anything about it, our information will be more static, and there will be no intelligence with it

Senator Bolduc: Did you survey the senators on what they need? For example, I pretty well know what I need.

Ms. Bouchard: Two years ago, when we had a vision of our strategy, what we heard from senators was that they wanted to have more information on-line, more services on-line so that they could, for example, access their budgets and other information on the Internet. This is more focused on the corporate aspect, the work that senators are doing within the chamber and committees, rather than on individual need.

Senator Bolduc: You propose to double the budget in the first year.

Ms. Bouchard: Yes.

Senator Bolduc: Is it for equipment or personnel or both of them? It is for consulting?

Ms. Bouchard: It is for consulting, development, equipment, and it is for staff.

[Translation]

Senator De Bané: If I understood correctly, Ms. Bouchard, this budget is for the Senate itself. You have certainly done a lot of work and held a lot of consultations with other institutions we should obviously work with.

However, I am sorry the specific needs of senators are not taken into account. I do not recall anyone from your department coming to see me over the past year to ask me about my needs for information services.

Here in the Senate, we have a budget for the institution. I understand that and I support it. However, senators also have specific needs and I have the feeling that your branch is more concerned about the institution itself than about the need of senators. That was the comment I wanted to make today.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Bouchard. We will certainly have the opportunity of seeing you again soon.

The committee continued in camera.


Back to top