LIPA Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DE LA BIBLIOTHÈQUE DU PARLEMENT

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 18, 2000

• 1300

The Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament met this day, at 1:00 p.m., in Room 356-S of the Centre Block in order to consider its second report and to examine the Main Estimates 2000-2001: Vote 10, Library of Parliament, Part III — Report on plans and priorities.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud, P.C., and Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Joint Chairmen) in the Chair.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.)): As provided in the agenda, we would like, under "Consideration of the Second Report", to see the draft report adopted as the second report of the committee to the House and that the Joint Chairmen be authorized to table the report in their respective Houses.

We ask that the second report be adopted as amended. We have brought some changes to the first draft to require the presence of a member from the Official Opposition and a senator from the opposition when reports are concurred in. Is the committee satisfied with these amendments?

[English]

Ms Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): How does the mandate for the committee in here differ from what it is now in the standing orders of both houses?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lavigne): It does not differ. It is the same thing. The only thing we changed is that we will have a member of the House of Commons from the opposition and a senator from the opposition present when we have a meeting.

Ms Catterall: Then why do we have that first paragraph in the report, if our mandate is already laid out in the standing orders?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lavigne): That one was included in the first report. It was already there. We did not change that part. The only thing we changed in the first report that we deposited in the chamber and the Senate was the point about having a member of the opposition. We did not originally have that.

Ms Catterall: As far as the first paragraph, we are recommending the same thing twice.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lavigne): The only thing we have changed is having the two opposition representatives present when we do a report.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, CA): I have a question. When the report says a member of the opposition, it does not explicitly say Official Opposition.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lavigne): No, just opposition.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Louis J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.)): That is a member who is not a member of the government.

Mr. Epp: So it can be any member in the opposition. It does not have to be the Official Opposition. Is that the intention? I ask because you did talk about Official Opposition in your preamble.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lavigne): Excuse me, it is not right in the report.

Mr. Epp: The report does not say Official Opposition. Your words are at variance with what is written. That is why I ask the question.

I think we are comfortable with that, provided that we have reasonable notice of the meetings, and that is already covered.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lavigne): Is it the wish of the committee to adopt that report?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lavigne): Carried.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Robichaud): On the budget, I would ask Mr. Paré to step forward.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Paré (Parliamentary Librarian): We thank the committee for inviting us today. I have only very brief comments to share with you.

[English]

First, I should like to say a few things on information resources and services of the library, on the renovations and on the budget for 2000-2001. Of course, after that, I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have on the Report on Plans and Priorities document that we have.

You may recall that a couple of weeks ago, on May 4, we had an open house on Library services, and many of you came to visit the services. In the different alcoves of the Library we showed the different services we provide that give direct access to information resources and services of the Library. One was on the PARLCD, which includes 40 titles and more than 60 CD-ROMs on a CD tower, and you have access to the information directly from your computer.

Another presentation was on the PARLMEDIA. I am sure that many of you are aware of PARLMEDIA, which is the Library electronic news filtering system. It offers access to the full text of articles and stories from more than 35 major Canadian newspapers, both English and French. You can search for news from up to three months back.

Another one was on PARLINFO, which is a parliamentary information system. It is mainly for the public. This database is built with general information on the Parliament and is accessible from visitor centres where a touch-screen computer enables visitors to come and ask for information about their members, the senators and the governors general, the prime ministers and so on.

I also want to mention PARLCAT, which is the on-line catalogue of the Library. We have more than 308,000 titles in the catalogue, of which 3,256 — I have the figure from this morning, so it is quite precise — are full textbooks and documents. You do not just have titles, you have full texts of books and documents directly accessible through the catalogue. From there, there is an icon that you can click when you want to have a book or a document and you can borrow it from your office. For instance, in April 2000, 134 loans were requested on-line from a computer. The research publications are on-line for those who use the Internet. There is access to documents on the House of Commons or the Senate, especially the House of Commons. When we have a bill, a legislative summary is attached to the bill and is accessible to the public.

Most of the other research publications at this time are still only available on the Intranet. That means the background papers and the current issues are all accessible on the Intranet. In the future, we are planning to put some of them on the Internet for the public. First, we will select the materials that we will put on the Internet rather than having all the publications available to the public.

Concerning services, I wish to add some other items on "Quorum." Last year we conducted a survey after we received comments that there was a need for more coverage and different coverage and more articles to be included. The outcome of that survey was that the regional coverage should be enlarged and the document should be available at 9:00 a.m., as had been the practice. We have increased the number of pages in "Quorum." We have gone from 34 pages to 44 pages daily, and the Monday morning edition is now comprised of 50 pages. We enlarged the coverage and put the on-line copy of "Quorum" on the Internet. We could call it e-Quorum, like we say e-commerce, e-government, and so on. This electronic version is available at 9:00 a.m. As a result of the increase in the number of pages of "Quorum," we were not able to print it fast enough. Since there would be an added cost to print this larger version, as well as a requirement to increase the number of staff involved in its production, it was preferable to offer it on-line for members.

We have been conducting a new survey. Many of you who were part of the survey last year will receive a request for a small interview so that we might have some feedback on the improvements that we have initiated in this daily service of the Library. I encourage you to comment on this survey. If adjustments are required, we will certainly pursue them.

I will now talk about the forthcoming renovations in the Library building.

[Translation]

The council advising the Public Works Minister on parliamentary buildings recommended, last December, that renovations to the Library building proceed as soon as possible. The Minister has agreed to this recommendation, and renovations are scheduled to start in 2001, that is next year. We will have to vacate the building for three years, while work is in progress.

The planning for these renovations is almost completed. All that is missing is a small area in the Centre Block where we could set up a library branch during renovations. We have requested such space from the House of Commons.

[English]

The budgetary reference level for 2000-2001 is $22,766 million. About 80 per cent of that is for staff and employee benefit costs and 20 per cent is attributed to operation costs.

On the staff or the employee budget, there is an increase of $889,000 which stems directly from the signing of collective agreements in 1998-99. For the employees' benefit budget, there is an increase of $350,000 which has been earmarked for the Library of Parliament to match the shares of the employee benefit plans. We were too low on that item, according to the Treasury Board, so we had to put more money on the employee benefit budget.

As to the operating costs, the increase is $999,000 of which $130,000 is for the creation of an internship program in the Parliamentary Research Branch. The objective of this program is to bring new blood into the team of researchers that we have. Some of our researchers are aging and will retire in a few years, so we must ensure that we will have good replacements. We also want to attract candidates from different regions of Canada. We have noticed that more than 80 per cent of our research staff comes from central Canada. We would like that program to attract people from different regions.

This year, about $200,000 will be allocated to a second Teachers' Institute program. Many of you participated in the Teachers' Institute program on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy. It has been very popular. With the support and the approval of the two speakers, we will hold a second institute this year. The first one will be, as usual, at the beginning of November 2000 and the second one will be at the beginning of March 2001.

About $82,000 has been earmarked for our information systems. We had a review of our system this year. We must keep our infrastructures of computers and electronic instruments in line with those of the House and the Senate. The objective at the library has always been to be at the same level as the members of the House and the senators, because this is where we serve you. For instance, this year we are moving up to Microsoft Office Suite 2000. A major part of the cost will be to pay for licences to move to that software.

The remaining $162,000 would be for the rest of the operation. We also have earmarked $25,000 for "Quorum" if we plan to make some improvements on our service this year. That reflects the increase of the budget this year.

We have the Report on Plans and Priorities. We have divided the expenses and the budget of the library into five functions. This is a new way to do it. The House, the Senate and the agencies follow the same model, and we are doing the same thing. I am pleased with this report, which is our second report. I am sure that we have improved from the first one. There may be some improvement to come in the future, because this is a new process, but this report has been improved upon since last year.

I would now be pleased to answer questions from the members of the committee.

Mr. Epp: I thank you for being here today, Mr. Paré. We have found the services from the library to be extremely helpful. I do not remember any member of my staff ever complaining about the service that the Library of Parliament provides. When I walk over from the House of Commons to the Library because I need to know something fast, I am amazed at the swiftness with which I can receive help, instantly, and be out of there with all my questions answered. I have a habit of always asking easy questions, however.

Regarding the move toward more computerization, you indicated that you are looking at greater expenditure there. You mentioned the purchase of new software. How much money are you spending on actual computer hardware? Who manages that? Is that part of the whole House of Commons electronic department? Where does that happen?

Mr. Paré: Thank you for the compliment on the library staff. I am sure you did have some difficult questions.

Mr. Epp: Well, yes, that is true.

Mr. Paré: On the computer equipment, we have a plan over three years on which we will proceed. There is an increase of $142,000 this year, after the budget review. The total budget is in the range of $1.2 million. That includes all the software and systems for the library. The selection and the standards for the equipment are done by the House of Commons.

We have an agreement between the House of Commons and the Senate to ensure that we have standard equipment and standard systems. They decide the computers to be recommended, but the budget is in our envelope.

Mr. Epp: The PARLCAT system, you mentioned, has roughly one third of a million titles available on-line. Are they available to the public as well?

Mr. Paré: No. PARLCAT is available on the Intranet. Part of PARLCAT is available on the Internet because we transfer our data to the National Library catalogue, which in turn provides a catalogue to all libraries. In PARLCAT, we have books and periodicals that are scanned in full text. To make those documents public might violate copyrights.

Mr. Epp: That is why I asked the question.

Mr. Paré: That is a good question. Those files are available to you. The part transferred to the National Library contains only the titles and the descriptions.

Mr. Epp: On page 43, you talk about your organizational chart. You show actual spending right at the bottom. The collections budget is actually going down percentage-wise, though not by much. Why is that? Everything else, nowadays, seems to go up. In infrastructure, particularly, your costs are up substantially over the last three years.

Mr. Paré: In order to respond, I must go to the third function, which is explained on page 23. The forecast is pending for 2000. There is an increase in 1999-2000. We show a decrease this year.

Mr. Epp: Please explain the decrease.

Mr. Paré: I thought that answer was in the report. I missed that one. I noted the same thing and I asked the question when it came up. Certainly, it is a slight decrease.

Mr. Epp: Is it due to the fact that you are reducing the number of magazines and periodicals to which you subscribe?

Mr. Paré: Those numbers are not reduced, but we have access to more electronic information. That may be one reason, but there may be another reason. Also, that number will not go down very much but it may fluctuate from one year to another.

Mr. Epp: The House of Commons will be shut down for major renovations over the next five to six years. Are you on-stream to provide the required services for parliamentarians during that time of considerable disruption?

Mr. Paré: The long-term plan is that the House will move to the West Block. We will have a library branch to serve members there.

Mr. Epp: While the Centre Block is being renovated, will you move out all of the library materials?

Mr. Paré: For the library renovation, everything is moving out — all collections and staff.

Mr. Epp: Will you have rental space nearby?

Mr. Paré: Yes, we will go to the old Bank of Nova Scotia building on Sparks Street. We cannot accommodate everything there. Some collections will be in storage.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, CA): I agree with my colleague. My office uses the Library fairly extensively and we appreciate the diligence and good service we receive. The information is a very valuable resource for us.

Referring to page 10, I should like to know whether pay equity settlements have affected the forecast spending. Why would the employer's share of employee benefits take a dip in 1999-2000 and then revert to a higher rate? Does that reflect a greater or lesser number of employees?

Mr. Paré: Thank you, also, for your good remarks on the library services.

Regarding your question, we had to put less money in that envelope in 1999-2000. We did not have fewer staff, but it was for other priorities. We have moved a little bit of money there. We were told that we were already too low. This is why we had to add more.

Mr. Goldring: That is an adjustment?

Mr. Paré: Yes. There was also an adjustment of about 2 per cent requested by Treasury Board, in addition.

Mr. Goldring: In the operating expenditures, there is a relatively large increase from 1998-99 to 1999-2000. What caused that change? It looks like a 10 per cent increase in operating expenditures.

Mr. Paré: The fiscal year has just ended. I would say that part of that change was due to budget cut for collections between 1995 and 1997. Therefore, we need to add new money. That is not the full reason. Last year, we had some money in the Teachers' Institute program. We do receive support from foundations. They decided, after three years, not to donate, so we had to cover that money. I am just talking from the top of my head because it is from last year. Operating expenditure includes salaries and the salaries have increased. That is the $18 million.

Mr. Goldring: I see. Were the employment equity settlements paid out of this budget or out of this amount?

Mr. Paré: They will be in the next one. However, because we do not know how much it will cost exactly, we cannot plan an exact amount.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lavigne): Final question, please.

Ms Catterall: I will say to Mr. Paré how grateful I am to have a report that refers to the function and not the business line. I do not think that government is a business — it is something quite different that is very important to Canadians. I am a little sick of that language, so I appreciate that.

It was indicated that the Teachers' Institute program would cost a little less than $250,000. Given that there is every reason to believe that there may be a federal election next spring, and given that members of Parliament are heavily involved in your Teachers' Institute program, will next spring be the time to add another one at that cost, or should we wait, in fact?

Mr. Paré: The costs will be less because a portion of the costs that is related to infrastructure will be served. Therefore, it will be only 65 per cent of the cost.

Ms Catterall: I thought you said $200,000.

Mr. Paré: The total cost is in the range of $300,000.

Ms Catterall: Is this $200,000 wise or necessary in this particular budget year?

Mr. Paré: Yes. Your question about the timing is quite appropriate. We established that time frame a few months ago. It will be the end of February or the beginning of March. We expect that by that time, even though it is a bit early in the year, we will have a chance to do it before the election, if there is one in the spring. At the end of the day, if we cannot have it, it will go back to the labs.

Ms Catterall: The second question had to do with the increase. You mentioned that the increase of $448,000 is attributable to salary settlements and higher benefit costs. That is 12.5 per cent. How can we have 12.5 per cent out of those two costs?

Mr. Paré: We had to take into account that when a collective agreement is signed there sometimes is an immediate impact. Also, there was the additional increase in the regular budget the year after. In 1998 we had an agreement with the research officers. As a result, there was an impact on the next year, 1999. As well, we had an agreement with the librarians. We had three groups.

Ms Catterall: Not 12.5 per cent, surely.

Mr. Paré: A big part of that money was going to backpay.

Ms Catterall: Of the contracts that you have, particularly in the information technology field, are there any that are over budget?

Mr. Paré: Not to my knowledge. Do you mean in the project technology?

Ms Catterall: I mean any information technology contracts that you have. I am asking this question because of our experience with the NORAD contract that was for $400 million and grew to approximately $600 million.

Mr. Paré: We do not have many contracts because we usually use the expertise of the House and the Senate. I know that we are negotiating a contract for PARLMEDIA, so I would certainly look into it carefully to be sure that we are not overlooking something.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): I am very satisfied with the services provided by the Library and it is a pleasure to go there. My first question concerns the renovations at the Library. I would like to know if its present appearance and beauty will be preserved. My second question relates to its location. Where exactly, in the West Block building, will it be located during renovations?

Mr. Paré: The building's interior will remain untouched, except for the way working areas are set up on the floor. There will be less employees in the middle and we will give more space to visitors, especially during the summer. The Library will nevertheless remain a place where members of Parliament and senators can go to consult books and documentation.

The interior will not change. The renovations will rather concentrate on the external envelope. The roof will be redone and all mechanical systems will have to be replaced. The floor will also have to be changed. This is taking place sooner than anticipated, but since the renovation project is expected to last 40 to 50 years, it was decided to redo the floors simultaneously instead of four or five years later. Those are the main renovations to be done. We can assure you that the interior appearance will not change.

In answer to your second question, during renovations, library services will be provided in the Nova Scotia Bank building, on Sparks Street. When the House moves at a later date, we will already be back in the Library building. We will have a small branch in the West Block to provide services to all members of Parliament and House personnel who work there. I cannot at this time tell you exactly where it will be located in the West Block, but the Library of Parliament as such will have moved back by then, because according to long-term plans, renovations at the Library will take place almost at the same time as those in the West Block.

The House will move back in after four or five years and the Library will go to the West Block. It will then be the Senate's turn to move temporarily in order for the renovations cycle to be completed in the Parliament buildings.

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein (Metro Toronto, Lib.): I should like to examine this budget from a somewhat different perspective. If the answers to any of the questions I ask are not readily available, you can take all the time in the world to get back to me and the committee. I should like to approach the Library of Parliament in a fundamentally different way than the traditional practice. I agree that this is a fabulous document and it is very helpful. I should like to see if it is possible to approach the Library of Parliament with dual economy thinking as opposed to paper economy thinking.

The questions I will ask are the following: How many hits does the Library of Parliament's Web site get? Can you break them down between hits received from the House of Commons and the Senate, hits received from other institutions like the departments of government, and hits received from institutions outside the departments of government, such as the Supreme Court or others? I know that you service all of those in a magnificent way and it is reflected here in some lines. I should like to have a functional analysis based on e-commerce as to where the pressures are coming from in terms of responding to requests and how you would break them down.

Second, you have a fiscal gateway, improvements for Internet-based resources for policy, and it is spread out in a lot of different categories. It is integrated completely. I do not quarrel with that as a question of budget, but I would be interested to see where the old is going with respect to the new. In other words, are we really shifting from the traditional use of library based on paper to the use of library based on the electronic economy?

Except for the House of Commons, the Senate and the agencies of those two institutions, is it appropriate to lay off some of the costs already encountered on other departments as opposed to on the Library of Parliament? Is it fair for the budget? I know some people are concerned about costs, and I am wondering if there is a fair allocation between costs properly allocated to the House of Commons and the Senate and those that should be allocated to other departments.

This is not to prevent other departments from using the database that is available at Parliament. I am not suggesting that we should end up paralleling that in departments, but I am wondering whether or not this has been in traditional terms, because of the reallocation use. It may well be, when you have done this rough analysis, and I am looking for a rough analysis, that they use it only 5 per cent of the time and it may not be useful. But if, in fact, there is an increasing use by additional departments, should there be a fresh look at that.

Finally, I would be very interested in seeing who uses our system outside government, and by that I mean all other governments, provincial, federal, their agencies. If they are using our system, is there appropriate allocation of cost?

I just give you the simple model that when I go and pick up a $200 bill from an ATM machine, I pay twice. I pay the bank a $1 and I pay the ATM machine $1. I regularly pay those charges. Why? It is a question of convenience, getting it quickly. However, the cost of those $2 is roughly 13.5 cents. There is a 90-cent profit to the ATM machine and a 90-cent profit to the bank. I do not mind that, because it is efficient.

My question is whether we should be taking a look at increasing your costs, your efficiencies, your investment in e-commerce and at the same time loading off some of those costs in a way that would be publicly appropriate.

The Joint Chairman (Senator Robichaud): That is quite a package of questions and comments.

Senator Grafstein: I should like those answered some time before the end of the century.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lavigne): I would ask Mr. Paré to send me his answers to those questions in order that we might circulate those remarks to the committee.

Mr. Paré: Certainly. I do not have to answer all of those questions now. I will have to go back to my assistant.

I just want to make a comment on the shifting use of the electronics. We are seeing a shift more and more, mainly for the senators and members. We are more focused on our primary client outputs. There is movement. We try to keep the pace. We do not want to be ahead. We believe that Parliament will represent the population of Canada, so we will have people who will use more or less your electronic instruments and so on. We are moving. There is a shift going in that direction.

As for the costs, I will certainly have to go back.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lavigne): Mr. Paré, I would prefer that you give your answers in writing and that you send them to me. I will make sure the committee gets them. Does anyone else have a question to ask before returning to the House for Question Period?

Mr. Paré: As you wish.

[English]

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): You were speaking about tradition in Parliament. Are you still sole-sourcing contracts, or are you using the MERX system for an open-bidding process?

Mr. Paré: We do not do many contracts, but for the ones that we have we use the MERX system.

Mr. Clouthier: For anything over $30,000?

Mr. Paré: Anything over $25,000.

Senator Norman K. Atkins (Markham, PC): I should like to add my appreciation on behalf of my colleagues for the support that you give us.

I am glad to see that you are expanding the Teachers' Institute on Canadian Parliamentary Democracy program, because I think it is excellent. I just wondered whether there are any other professional groups that you have thought about that might have the same opportunity to come to Ottawa and experience what the teachers have.

Mr. Paré: There is already a youth program, a forum for youth.

Senator Atkins: They come four times a year.

Mr. Paré: I am not aware of others that are coming. Certainly, if other groups were considered, it might be possible. The two speakers also are very keen on the Teachers' Institute program, because they believe that it gives good visibility to Parliament and a better understanding of the system.

Senator Atkins: I was thinking that political scientists or historians might, on a casual basis, be invited.

Mr. Paré: There is the Canadian Study of Parliament Group, which is an association bringing together academics and parliamentary personnel. They meet twice a year here in Ottawa. There is a meeting coming up in June. That is our link with the academy.

Senator Grafstein: I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that I am not a super fan of the parliamentary library. My secretary, my researcher and myself all use the parliamentary library. I want to congratulate the staff there because they are superb. They are on time, fast and efficient at any time of day or night. I want to ensure that that is on the record. My questions here are not intended in any way, shape or form as criticism of the Library of Parliament; they are directed hopefully to enhance their budget.

Mr. Paré: I understand that, senator, thank you.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lavigne): Mr. Paré, I thank you very much for coming here to discuss the budget with us. I would also like to congratulate you and your very efficient employees on the excellent work you do at the Library.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Senator Robichaud): Thank you very much, Mr. Paré. Due to time constraints, we cannot prolong this meeting any longer. It is unfortunate, because it was going so well.

We must adjourn the meeting to the call of the Chair. We hope the next meeting will be as fruitful as this one.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Lavigne): Thank you everyone.

The committee adjourned.