Biennial reviews: Clerk
of the House, Sergeant at Arms
Mr Claude DesRosiers, Clerk of the House
Mr Dennis Clark, Sergeant at Arms
Annual review:
broadcast and recording service
Ms Deborah Deller, clerk assistant and executive director,
legislative services
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Chair /
Président
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek PC)
Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood ND)
Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek PC)
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton L)
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell L)
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Donna Bryce
The committee met at 1538 in committee room
1.
BIENNIAL REVIEWS:
CLERK OF THE HOUSE
SERGEANT AT ARMS
The Chair (Mr Gary
Stewart): We'll call the committee to order. We have
three delegations. Welcome to all. Because I believe maybe there
is a little bit of overlap in the three things you folks are
doing, we will have you all together. I don't know what the
protocol is, but if each one wanted to chat about their
particular area, then we'll just go through the three, as on the
agenda, starting with the Clerk, then the Sergeant at Arms and
the executive director. I was going to say "age" but I thought,
no, I can't use that as the start code.
Welcome. Thank you very much,
and we'll turn it over to you.
Clerk of the House
(Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): Thank you, Mr Stewart. It's a
pleasure to be here. This is a procedure that was started not
long after I came on board here in 1986. I would come in with the
sergeant and answer questions and make sure that members were
informed and at ease with the way the administration was running
and so on.
Just to refresh your memory,
the administration here is run by the Board of Internal Economy,
which I like to refer to as the board of directors. They meet
about every month and they make the main policy decisions and
they adopt the budget for this place and bring to the table
concerns that members have directly. They also address concerns
that we put in front of them. I act as secretary to that board
and, of course, you know the Speaker acts as chair of that
board.
There is another committee
that operates on a weekly basis, and on a daily basis often, and
that's the management advisory committee. When this management
advisory committee was created in the late 1980s, I started to
appear before this committee to report on the activities of that
committee. I chair that committee, and it's made up of Mr Clark,
who is responsible for the security and for the building
management; and Mrs Deller, who is responsible for the
Legislative services. Also sitting on that committee are Mrs
Nemanic, who is responsible for human resources, purchasing and
finance; and Mary Dickerson, who is responsible for our excellent
library facilities.
We meet every week and we
have a fixed agenda. We discuss how we are best equipped to serve
you. We all have the same job, basically, and that's to help the
members do their job. That's why we're here and that's our
mission statement and that's our reason for being.
I don't have a prepared
statement. What I can highlight is one area where we have been
spending a lot of time recently, and that is what we refer to as
the capital plan. We'd be more than happy to answer questions on
this and I hope that you might be made aware of the contents of
this. It's a plan that was devised, that was imagined in the
early 1990s in order to address the upkeep of this building,
which is an important building. People have said-I have said-that
it is the most important building in the province. I believe that
firmly.
In the late 1980s, money had
not been spent on this building for a long, long time and
therefore the roof was leaking, the exterior stonework was
literally falling down, it was dangerous, and the 100-year-old
windows were rattling. We were approaching at that time the 100th
anniversary of this building, so it was felt very important to do
something about it.
A plan was put together and
it was studied by a special committee of this House. Members
looked at this plan and approved it and reported to the House
with their approval. This has become our Bible. This has become
our roadmap for looking after the maintenance of this place.
Obviously, that all depends on money to a great extent.
We started with the most
important one, and that was the exterior. It was important to
secure the exterior. It was important to realize that if we
didn't, we were literally going to lose the building. A new roof
was put on. The stonework was completely overhauled. We had to
import people from Scotland to do the stonework because we had
nobody here who could do it. When those people were here, we got
them to teach a course at George Brown College, so that we have
our own young people now who are well-equipped to do this work.
We also replaced most of the windows. As of that time, we could
say that the building was secure from the elements and would
withstand the effects of time.
The whole project as it was
devised in the early 1990s was approximately $100 million. The
exterior part of that is about $33 million, and that is what has
been spent so far on the building.
We are approaching the board, we have talked to the
board about this, and we are working with them to try to continue
this project because, of course, it was difficult to do. Right
after we finished the exterior the financial situation was a very
tight one, and in 1996 the board said, "Well, wait a while." But
now we have come back and we have said it's time to move ahead,
for many reasons.
There is approximately $60
million of work left to do to this building to bring it up to par
and to shape; $40 million of that is life and fire safety work.
It's work that has to be done. The fire marshal has said,
"Listen, I can't force you to do this"-because this is an old
building, it's a heritage building, and it wasn't build to code
specifications, that's for sure-"but I have looked at your
plan"-and we have this on paper-"and I approve of your plan and
this is what you should do in order to make the building
safe."
So it's now time that we move
forward, and we're proposing to move forward in four-to-five-year
stages in order that in five or six years, at the most, we can
say that the building is secure.
This building has its scary
elements. That wonderful oak floor that was uncovered last year
and that everybody is raving about-I have a piece of that wood in
my office-has about an inch of pine as a subfloor all over the
part of the building that didn't burn down in the first part of
the century. That pine is now so light that it's like a feather.
I mean, a spark in this place would be disastrous. We've
discussed it with the fire marshal. There are many, many ways to
make a building safe and the code prescribes many, many ways. One
of those ways is to build walls to make sure that smoke-because
smoke is probably the biggest killer in a fire-doesn't go beyond
where the fire is. We can't do that in this building. We can't
build a wall around the main staircase. There's just no way.
The next-best thing, and
which the fire marshal has approved, is to make sure that there
are funnels for which to evacuate the smoke. That is in our plans
as well, but it's sort of urgent to get moving. I'm saying that
the board is working with us and the board wants to do this; it's
just a question of making sure that everybody's on side.
As of yesterday we have a
committee of members. We had asked each caucus to put forward the
name of a person to work with us in the implementation and, as of
yesterday, we now have two thirds of a full complement because we
don't have an NDP name. I don't think we're going to wait for an
NDP name; we're going to go ahead. We have Ms Di Cocco from the
Liberal Party and we have Brenda Elliott from the Conservative
Party. We will be meeting with these people very, very quickly to
start devising how best to go about this and to explain to them
what the key problems are in getting this thing on the
tracks.
That's one of the main things
that has been preoccupying me, apart from the House itself and
apart from the general administration. But that's something that
I really hold very, very dear to my heart.
I see Mr Peters has written
to you, Mr Chair, about various items. I can assure Mr Peters and
the committee that these are items that are dear to our hearts
too, but that we have to address within the capital plan because
everything is sort of like a series of building blocks.
1550
In the capital plan, the
first thing that has to happen is finishing the fifth floor.
Right on top of here there's wonderful space. What do you call
that commission? The censor board used to sit up there and watch
movies that nobody else in the province could watch. But this
area has fallen into total disuse, so we would like to refinish
that area to make it safe. It's absolutely not safe right now.
That would be number one because we need to finish space in the
building before we can do other things.
People often ask why we have
the restaurant where it is. If you look in the master plan,
you'll see that the restaurant is just above here; it's in room
228-230. That's where the restaurant was before it was moved down
to the basement. If we move the restaurant to 228-230, what are
we going to use for committee rooms? The space we would finish on
the fifth floor would be the committee rooms. It's sort of a
juggling thing, but the important thing is to get started.
Hopefully you'll be hearing more about this.
We're going to try to do it
in as much of a non-disruptive way as possible because, you see,
one of my beliefs is that this place should not be a museum; it
should be a living institution. So I think the challenge is to
keep it up to modern age, as technology develops, as different
ways of proceeding, of working develop, then make sure that this
building goes along with that. Other buildings, to my great
chagrin, have become museums. You can walk through them and see
what offices used to look like in 1860 and so on, but I don't
think that's what we want to do. So the challenge is to go ahead
with the renovations but, on the other hand, the other extreme
would be to shut the place down for two years. I don't think we
want to do that either. I think we want to do it over a period of
four or five or six years, at the maximum, to permit members to
continue their work as work is going ahead, much the same as the
renovations you've lived through. Sometimes, unfortunately, the
dust gets around and so on, but it's livable. You can live
through this. This is what we envisage for the future.
I'll finish that, and maybe
Deborah or Dennis could talk to you about security.
The Chair:
Then we'll take questions. Is that OK?
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette
(Oshawa): I think we should do them now.
The Chair:
That's what I'm saying. We'll do them all and then take
questions.
Mr
Ouellette: No, I mean questions individually.
The Chair:
You want questions now?
Mr
Ouellette: Yes.
The Chair:
Fine. No problem with me.
Ms Caroline Di Cocco
(Sarnia-Lambton): With the whole issue of renovation and
restoration, there's the functionality of the building you're working on
that's really important, and the other one is a restoration of
the historical integrity of the building. I guess it was a bit
shocking when I'd go into rooms and there were partitions and all
kinds of things that were done ad hoc, as people came in, that
changed without any kind of plan. So when it comes to the
functionality of the building, I think it's needed so that it
functions and, as you said, it's a living building and it's
usable. When it comes to the heritage integrity of the building,
what aspect of that are you looking at in the overall plan?
Mr
DesRosiers: We're trying to combine both. For example,
in the refit of the chamber that took place last summer, it's a
combination of both. We went back to the original colours. We
went back to the original mouldings. When the mouldings were
first devised, that's what they looked like. So we've gone back
to that.
The chamber, of course, did
not look then as it does today because it was a Victorian-age
chamber with lots of frills and stuff that you just can't
reproduce today, and that it wouldn't be practical to reproduce
today. But it's a compromise. I think we can say that we went
back towards the heritage integrity but not all the way, so to
speak.
Ms Di Cocco:
Your finances, as you said, the ongoing sustaining of maintenance
and restoration of the building: Is there a long-term plan in
place that is going to go above and beyond, let's say, the next
three or four years?
Mr
DesRosiers: There is. In this year's estimates, which
have been approved by the board, the sergeant has put in $700,000
a year just for that express reason. The board wanted to ensure
that this was not an automatic $700,000 that would pop up every
year. This is a line in the budget, up to $700,000, that the
sergeant will have to justify every year. It might be $500,000 or
$400,000 a year, but this is to ensure that in 50 years' time, we
don't have to undertake the same kind of refit that we're going
through right now, so we can ensure that we're spending money on
the building so that it keeps up with the times.
Mr
Ouellette: I'm glad the question came out about the long
term, because that's important as well.
A couple of other things: I
think some areas need to be looked at. I'm just making comments
here and I hope you can pass them on. First of all, the elevators
I think are disgusting. We get on elevators, we read "4" and it's
actually floor "2." We need a retrofit there. We need a
maintenance contract and upgrades.
As well, the heating system
needs some major upgrades. You can't get the air-conditioning or
anything working in any fashion.
Interjection.
Mr
Ouellette: Yes, the heating's working fine today, and we
don't need it.
As well, it's my opinion-and
I've stated it before and I'm happy to have the opportunity to
get it on the record-the dining room should actually be on the
fifth floor and utilize the west elevators to have direct
express, in the same fashion as they do at the ROM. As opposed to
redoing two separate areas, do the renovations so that the dining
room is on the fifth floor, in the same fashion that they have in
Quebec. For those who have been to the Quebec Legislature, the
grand dining room is rather spectacular to see. People are proud
to show their constituents a place like that. I think something
along those lines would be beneficial.
I appreciate the opportunity
to mention these things.
The other area is the one you
mentioned about bringing in the Scottish stone builders. Have we
checked with other jurisdictions in the same fashion to find out
how they took care of the upgrades in their buildings?
Mr
DesRosiers: I'm going to let Dennis Clark explain the
heating and cooling. It's in our plans. The elevators, I have
full sympathy with you. I try to stay away from them myself. It's
in our plans as well. I think it's a question of just replacing
them. These things have been fixed and refixed to a point that
it's a very frustrating problem.
The dining room is something
that's totally-everything is possible here. We're certainly in
full agreement with the principle here, which is, privatize.
That's working very well with Marriott, and that's good. Our
concern, though, is-and this has been discussed-to get a very
high-class restaurant, to get someone interested from outside who
would put on a very high-class restaurant here and attract people
from the city to come and dine here.
The restaurant is for the
members, and our concern is, we just don't want to price the
thing outside the members, so that the population could come and
use the restaurant but the members couldn't. I think that's where
we've got to be careful. But that's well under consideration and
it's fully a possibility.
Dennis, did you want to go
into a bit of the details of the heating and cooling?
Mr Dennis Clark
(Sergeant at Arms): Sure. Just to get back on the
$700,000 that we spoke about, that is for the exterior only.
That's an exterior maintenance program that we have this year for
the first time. It's obviously very important because of the $33
million we spent on the exterior. Yes, we spent that, but
obviously the building's not going to stay the way it is. That
$700,000 is for such things as salt on the portraitures and
things that are rotting away. And there's the roof. Last year we
had a couple of incidents where the slates came down and we put
in roof guards. So that $700,000 is for the exterior.
1600
Each year we have
approximately $1.2 million in our budget for light, fire and
safety for the interior. Quite truthfully, that doesn't go too
far, because there's just so much work that has to be done, as
the Clerk pointed out.
In terms of the air-handling
system, I can't argue with you a bit. It is terrible. It's
everything from the heating, the fresh air fans, the
air-conditioning, and removal of steam radiators. Again, this is
all part of the capital plan. If you get the opportunity to look
at the capital plan, we've taken it in phases. The first phase
we've broken down into phase 1A and 1B, in bite-sized chunks,
where we'll do a portion of the building. Because we go up
horizontally and
vertically with systems, we'll start there and be able to
continue on.
It's very important-I think
the Clerk alluded to it-that we want as little disruption as
possible, obviously. You have to realize that there's a small
window of opportunity each year for us to get some of the work
done. That's why to me it's important that there is approval,
that we got on with it and get going with it. It's just like the
chamber last year. There were times when we had people working 24
hours a day just to ensure that when the members came back, they
didn't have to walk under a scaffold.
Mr Joseph Spina
(Brampton Centre): I'm not sure how to address you; Mr
Clerk, I suppose, formally.
I just wanted to clarify a
point that you were mentioning. You indicated that out of the
$100-million estimate, $33 million was done on the exterior and
then you said that $40 million was for the rest of the
building.
Mr
DesRosiers: No, $60 million.
Mr Spina:
Sorry, $60 million for the rest of the building. The renovations
that you did to the chamber and to the wings, removing the
carpets, how much was that and is that part of your $60
million?
Mr Dennis
Clark: That would be pulled from the $60 million.
Everything we do each year would bring that cost down. It's less
than $1 million each year, so when you have-you're absolutely
correct, that part of the work that we did in the chamber,
$600,000, would be pulled from the overall capital planing. It's
explained in the capital plan.
Mr Spina: I
don't mean to get this detailed, because it's not a challenge, by
any means, I was just curious as to how you replace the spongy,
powdery pinewood underneath a well-maintained hardwood?
Mr Dennis
Clark: You don't. That's one of the reasons, as the
Clerk said, it's very important that we have the proper fibre
compression in terms of spring loads.
Mr Spina: So
there's no plan to lift it and replace it.
Mr Dennis
Clark: No. It's there.
Mr Spina:
OK, thanks.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde
(Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): I have quite a few points,
because I've been calling around first.
First of all, the change that
we've brought in the building itself is beautiful, but ever since
we changed the curtains in the House, the sound is not as it used
to be. Most of the time we have to use our earphones just to hear
even the person in front of us who is speaking in the House. So
that is a point. I don't know if we have to look at our sound
system. There's something definitely wrong there, because I
notice more and more people are using earphones in there, and
they told me it was because we have brought some changes in the
finishing of the inside.
My second point was, yes, the
new curtains are beautiful, but yesterday again it was brought to
my attention, when people are taking a picture, especially from
outside, the drapes that we have at the front window facing
University-it looks like a poor area when they're just putting
sheets in the window. I don't know if anybody ever brought that
to your attention. Until they brought it to my attention, I
hadn't noticed it.
Mr Brad Clark (Stoney
Creek): Are you suggesting an Ontario flag in the
window?
Mr Lalonde:
Yes. In this case, we don't have the flag.
I was wondering also, what
have we done to the beautiful chandelier that we had on top of
the stairs? Was there not a chandelier there before? There's
something changed upstairs, because when we were taking pictures,
I could see a chandelier. There was no chandelier?
Mr
DesRosiers: Whatever chandelier was there is still
there.
Mr Lalonde:
Sorry.
Mr
DesRosiers: Monsieur Lalonde, there are things that
disappear in this building and unfortunately sometimes we can't
recuperate them. As you know, the work we've been doing in the
chamber-mainly that Dennis has been doing, trying to get at the
painting that's been covered. There's a painting on the ceiling
above the staircase. Underneath the paint is a painting of a
dark-blue sky. Unfortunately, during Speaker Stokes's time, the
curator decided that it wasn't a very nice painting and while
Speaker Stokes was up north for a weekend, they did half the
ceiling. When he came back on Monday, he looked up and saw this
and he was very, very angry. But then, what are you going to do?
It's like a glass of water half full or half empty. It was
decided that they might as well finish the job and paint the
whole thing, so it's gone. That was irrecuperable. It will never
come back. But the chandeliers are still there.
Mr Lalonde:
I have more questions, Chair. Lately it's been noted that the
stairwells from the fourth to the second floor have been very
dirty. We've seen mud there for three weeks in a row without it
being removed, lots of mud.
Mr Dennis
Clark: What's that area again?
Mr Lalonde:
From the fourth to the second floor. Most of the members are on
the fourth floor and we go down the stairs right next to the
lobby. It's not well kept at all. I was looking at it yesterday
and it's better. They must have done it lately, but it took at
least three to four weeks to have it done. Nobody was removing
the mud. I know they're in a rush all the time.
Mr Peters has sent a letter
and I have it on my list. On the fourth floor, for those who have
their office there, we have one single bathroom. If that one is
occupied, we have to run down two floors. There isn't any on the
third or the fourth, except that single one at the end of the
hallway.
Mr Dennis
Clark: One of our projects this year will be the
fourth-floor washroom, to separate it.
Mr Lalonde:
You've done that on the second floor. They're dual.
Mr Dennis
Clark: The next one is going to be the one on the fourth
floor, and we want to separate them. That will be done this
year.
Mr Lalonde:
They brought to my attention there was not enough lighting
outside the building.
Mr Dennis Clark: We're looking
after that also. We've got the consultant's report, and I believe
it's up for tender. The security systems manager is working on
that. It will be met.
Mr Lalonde:
Another complaint was that there weren't enough disposal
containers for smokers at entrances. I haven't looked at it.
Mr Spina:
Tell them to go to door number 4 at the back. That's where
everybody else goes.
Mr Lalonde:
Do we ever have fire drills?
Mr Dennis
Clark: That's a good question, Mr Lalonde. Yes, we do.
We haven't had one for quite a while. We've just finished off two
fire evacuation plans that are very comprehensive. The problem
was getting people on each floor to be fire marshals. We're
finishing that off and it will go to the Clerk and the Speaker,
at which time we'll set a date for fire drills both here and in
the Whitney.
Mr Lalonde:
If we go with fire drills, do we have a fire marshal on every
floor?
Mr Dennis
Clark: Yes.
Mr Lalonde:
We do? I've never seen them. I've never seen any sign of it or
anything.
Mr Dennis
Clark: Like I said, we're just completing both the
evacuation and fire plans. That was the problem. People move so
frequently, it was a problem getting the fire marshals and fire
wardens.
1610
Mr Lalonde:
Fire wardens, I should call them.
The next one I had was, I
was wondering if it was possible, when a petition is turned down
at the desk, if we could have a stamp on it that the petition has
been refused.
Ms Deborah
Deller: We do attach a certificate when we refuse a
petition explaining why we have refused it.
Mr
Lalonde: I didn't get that on mine. There was a petition
I had to present that I was against. I told the person I would
not sign it, and it was turned down, but I didn't get that note
with it.
Ms Deller:
If you didn't, just come down to the table and we'll be happy to
give you one.
Mr
Lalonde: Thank you. The other one is the security. Some
of the people who called me back said that we should keep
confidential the list of guests who are coming into the building,
that security should not give the list to anybody other than the
security people. It was brought to my attention, when we had a
group in at one time, that other people from other parties were
aware that these people were coming in. I don't know if it is
always kept confidential.
Mr Dennis
Clark: I'll check on that, Mr Lalonde, but as far as I'm
concerned, security would just keep it with security. I can't see
them passing it on to anybody else.
Mr Brad
Clark: We're pretty observant.
Mr
Lalonde: The next one is probably a cable
responsibility, but we used to have French live debate on
television and now we don't. We've been asked that question quite
a few times. If you want to watch the French debate, of which we
have instant translation at the time, you have to watch it at 2
o'clock in the morning. TFO does a retransmission at 2 o'clock in
the morning. Is this a cable responsibility only?
Ms Deller:
We're at the mercy of the cable companies with a number of
issues. Rogers, for example, cuts off our broadcast at 8 o'clock
in the evening, regardless of what is going on in the House, to
play a movie. TVO replays question period at the end of their
broadcast day, which is often at 2 am, and that's what happens
with TFO as well. This is the live broadcast you're talking about
in your riding, Mr Lalonde?
Mr
Lalonde: Yes.
Ms Deller:
We are aware of that in the Ottawa area.
Mr
Lalonde: So somebody else has complained about it?
Ms Deller:
We continue to discuss the issue with the cable companies, with
TVO and TFO, and we will continue to.
Mr
Lalonde: Thank you. I appreciate that.
Going to my colleague Steve
Peters's letter, in his first point he refers to a lack of
Braille in all the legislative building elevators. Do you think
it's possible?
Mr Dennis
Clark: That's something I will check out, all of these,
Mr Lalonde.
Mr
DesRosiers: What we can do here, monsieur Lalonde, is to
make sure that when we go into the capital plan in an area-and it
will be addressed in areas, so obviously the elevators will be a
major part of that. As the sergeant explained, it's usually up
and down; not only the elevators but the whole projects are
vertical. Braille in the elevators is something that would be
looked at if we get a new elevator or a change in the elevator.
If it's decided that an elevator we have is going to stay, then I
think at that time there would be ample money to address that
problem.
Mr
Lalonde: It shouldn't be that expensive.
Another point Mr Peters
mentioned in his letter is improved wheelchair access to the
Speaker's gallery west, and that a platform for wheelchairs
should be provided.
Mr Dennis
Clark: We did that about a week ago.
Mr
Lalonde: Good, he'll be happy to hear that.
He also mentioned that it's
important that improved signage be provided for disabled access
locations.
Mr Dennis
Clark: We can look after that, obviously.
Mr
Lalonde: And again, he mentions the washroom. I don't
think item number three of the letter-
Mr
DesRosiers: These are things he'd have to address with
these individual offices.
Mr
Lalonde: That's why I'm not discussing them at the
present time. I want to discuss it with Mr Peters.
The last item-and I presume
it is under contract-is that our offices are definitely not as
clean as they used to be. Definitely. To me, they never dust the
place. We have to get our own people to do it.
Mr
DesRosiers: I have the same problem. I make the same
complaints. We are addressing the problem. It's not an easy
problem. We have a lot less staff than we used to have doing that, but we are
constantly going after them and trying to get better quality
control and so on.
Mr
Lalonde: Last Thursday I spoke to them. I thought it was
because we were working late at night, until 11 o'clock in the
evening, and they would not come in while we were there. I told
them they could come in any time now, but they just empty our
baskets.
Mr
DesRosiers: That's not the problem.
Mr
Lalonde: No, that's not the problem. It's dusting the
place. It's getting dirtier and dirtier. It's not nice. No one is
watering our plants any more; we have to do it ourselves.
Mr
DesRosiers: Yes, that's true.
Mr
Lalonde: Thank you, Mr Chair. That's what I have.
The Chair:
Thank you. Ms Di Cocco.
Mr
DesRosiers: Mr Chair, Mr Lalonde raised the point about
sound in the chamber. I think that's very important. Maybe
Deborah would-
Ms Deller:
I should probably address that. When we did the chamber refit,
one of our concerns too, because we took away the heavy drapery,
was whether or not there would be any impact on sound. We had
someone we hired to come in do some sound monitoring and check
the levels. The indication was that there was no change to the
sound. Having said that, we have also heard the complaints from a
variety of members saying that in their view, since we've done
the refit, the sound has changed, that it's maybe more echoey and
that it's more difficult to hear in some cases.
When the House rises at the
end of June, they're going to do a sound check again and perhaps
take some steps to try to improve it.
Mr
Lalonde: I know the answer to that one. If you take the
sound reading when the room is empty, no problem. It's like on
Thursday morning, when there is private bills debate. There
aren't too many people there, and I have no problem. But during
question period, if there's a lot of heckling, we can hardly
hear, like I said, our colleagues right in front of us. So if
it's coming from the other side, it's-
Ms Deller:
We'll do it again when the House rises, and I'll make a note of
that comment, and we'll discuss that with the sound technicians
as well.
Mr
Lalonde: I have previous experience in that domain. It's
good to take the reading when there's no one there, but take the
reading when the House is full.
Ms Deller:
Maybe in July we'll fill it with staff and have them yell and
we'll see what happens then.
Ms Di
Cocco: With regard to sound, I had an opportunity to
actually go through the whole building and to get a sense of the
architecture of it and so on. One of the things I understood with
regard to the acoustics is the fact of what was taken off the
ceiling, the horsehair and the plaster that had been placed there
over the murals because of sound. The acoustics in there have
changed, as I understand, probably because of that as well.
Ms Deller:
At the same time, the sound equipment we use is that much more
refined now, so that doesn't make as much of a difference as it
would have before.
The Chair:
Mr Spina?
Mr Spina:
Ms Churley hasn't had a chance.
The Chair:
She's next on the list.
Mr Spina:
Let me defer, because I'm new to this committee.
The Chair:
All right.
Ms Marilyn Churley
(Broadview-Greenwood): I just have a few things. There
were a lot of good questions asked, and real answers. I don't
like the artwork around here. Everywhere you look you see men.
Everywhere-these great big portraits of men. I know it's hard to
find women of prominence, because there was a time when there
weren't women of prominence involved, but it would be nice to try
to scatter a few women in there from time to time.
Mr
DesRosiers: The answer to that one is that we have no
control over the artwork. First of all, the artwork that you're
directly referring to is dictated by tradition. There are three
types of portraits here.
Ms
Churley: Let's think outside the box.
1620
Mr
DesRosiers: But there are three types of portraits that
have to go on the walls; two types, actually: the Premiers and
the House speakers. There's a third: In the building here
someplace you have lieutenant governors, but they're mainly in
the Lieutenant Governor's suite. You have more women there. Well,
not that much more. But anyway, we have no control over that.
We don't own the other
artwork. Those are mainly landscapes that were donated a long
time ago by the Reid family. There are a few nice ones of women
there. What I'm saying is that we have no art and we have no
money for art. I'd like to help, but I can't.
Ms
Churley: OK. I just wanted to put that on the
record.
Mr Spina:
Get some donations.
Ms
Churley: Yes, maybe I'll think about that-in my spare
time. On the issue of Steve Peters's letter, in terms of disabled
access, I think Queen's Park should be made a model. We're the
people's place. I think we need to have a discussion about
allocation of budget when we're doing any kind of renovations,
looking carefully maybe with a person with disability who can go
through the building and look at all the spots where there are
problems. I realize there has to be a commitment from the members
to spend that kind of money, but wouldn't it be a good thing if
we made this building-old as it is, and I know there are
problems-as absolutely accessible in every way possible? It would
be a shining example to others in the private sector and to
everybody, and we could show that we're doing it here. I know
we've been doing it piecemeal over the years, but there's still a
lot to be done. It's just a suggestion. I know nobody would
disagree. I also understand that it's something we have to make a
joint commitment to, a collective commitment to do that.
Mr DesRosiers: I think that
commitment is there, Ms Churley. The point is that we've made the
changes, but we're making the changes as we change the building.
That's the common sense way to do it. It's the more durable way
to do it. But that is very high on our priority list as we go
about the changes. But it's a difficult building. It's not an
easy building. If it were, all these changes would be done
already. There was a comment here about the galleries. It's
nearly impossible to get more people than we do in the gallery,
and I don't think we'll ever be able to do much more than we
have. Where we can, we're doing it. It is very much a commitment
of ours. We really, truly believe in that. I think you'll see it
as we go about the work, you'll see-"Oh, my gosh, I hadn't
thought." But it's in our plans.
Ms
Churley: Is there a way to look at those plans?
Mr
DesRosiers: Absolutely.
Ms
Churley: I wouldn't mind having a look to see what the
suggested changes are and to see if there are any more that can
be-
Mr
DesRosiers: Before you came, I mentioned at the
beginning that we now have a committee. We had asked a while back
for a representative of every party to sit on a committee with us
to go about these changes and so on, once we get the money. Ms Di
Cocco has been appointed from the Liberals, and now yesterday Mrs
Elliott.
Ms
Churley: And you haven't heard back from us, I take
it.
Mr
DesRosiers: No, we haven't.
Ms
Churley: We're still drawing straws on this one.
Mr
DesRosiers: I understand your predicament. We will be
keeping you informed, even if you don't have a person there. It's
easy for us to inform you as to where we're going.
Ms
Churley: I wanted to bring up the cleaning staff as
well. I think we've all noticed a deterioration since it was
privatized. I've talked to some of the cleaning staff-and correct
me if I'm wrong-
Mr
DesRosiers: It hasn't been privatized.
Ms
Churley: Well, maybe we can find out what happened,
because when I've talked to some of the cleaning staff in the
north wing, I know they're run off their feet. They've got an
awful lot to do in a set amount of time. I'm just wondering, if
it's my misconception, then, that it was privatized, what
changed. I certainly don't want to go after the individual people
who are cleaning our offices, because I've watched them try to
keep up with things. What has changed in the process, and what
can we do about it?
Mr
DesRosiers: It's a downsizing situation more than
anything. Also, these are our people now.
Ms
Churley: Can I interrupt for a second?
Mr
DesRosiers: The situation before was that this was a
service we used to get from the government. The same cleaning
people who used to clean the complex across the way, some of them
would come over here to do our work.
Ms
Churley: That's why I'm confused.
Mr
DesRosiers: That has been changed. The people who now do
the work here are technically people who work for us. It's not
because there's less complement, per se, but in total the pool of
people is smaller than it used to be, and that's part of the
problem, but it's not all of the problem.
Ms
Churley: So the same people clean not just the
legislative building but the other government buildings?
Mr
DesRosiers: No, the people who clean the legislative
building clean only the legislative building. That's my
understanding.
Ms
Churley: Then the other government buildings, like the
Whitney Block and all those, are totally separate.
Mr
DesRosiers: That's separate.
Mr Dennis
Clark: On that, because they fall under me, I'll
certainly look at it right away. Perhaps there's something we can
do, maybe look at the shifts or something like that or the way we
go about it, and make sure the dusting gets done. I know they are
very busy, but maybe there is something we can do. Obviously if
the job is not getting done, then there is a problem. I'll
certainly look at that and get back to you.
Mr Spina:
Thanks, Marilyn. You asked the question I was going to ask. I
just wanted to clarify that the contracts for the other blocks
are, I gather, contracted by the maintenance people or the
property people who look after those buildings. It's got nothing
to do with the Legislative Assembly.
Mr Dennis
Clark: That's right. It's ORC.
Mr Spina:
I have one other little suggestion, only because I park there.
I'm by door number 4 at the back, and in that little alcove there
is a group of cars that park up against the building. I know in
the winter we always have the ice warning signs. This winter
certainly was a lighter winter, but you did something that
obviously made it a lot safer. I wonder if you could clarify
that. I would make a suggestion that the parking bollards, the
concrete things, be set out, away from the building for the ones
that are up against the building. Right now they're set usually
just a couple of feet from the building, but I'm suggesting you
set them out maybe six or eight feet. That way, if somebody puts
their tires up to it, there's still plenty of clearance from the
vehicle to the building. I know personally I have hit the stone
with the back end of my car, not realizing how close I was. You
don't need cars running into the stone.
The Chair:
Mr Spina, this is in Hansard, your driving ability, you know.
Mr Spina:
I don't get away with much, because I've got the space right
where everybody has a smoke. I have to compliment you, by the
way, on how they finished that little alcove at door number 4.
That was well done, and needed. There is still a leak for some
reason in a couple of spots there. I'm sure security would be
happy to tell you.
Mr Dennis
Clark: Yes, smokers.
Mr Spina:
When we talked about the long-term plans about shifting some of
the elements around the building, are you moving the press
gallery?
Mr Dennis Clark: That's just an
option. There's nothing I know that's in a plan saying the press
gallery is going to move anyplace else. As we go into the plan
and it's approved, it will be brought forward to the committee,
and it's up to them who moves where.
Mr Spina:
One of the reasons I say that is that we've got members who are
shoved off into the bowels and ceilings of the north wing and up
on the fourth floor. The Liberal Party leader certainly has
access that's far easier. To me it would make more sense that the
members had the opportunity to occupy those offices along the
third floor and move the press gallery somewhere. There's no
reason for the press gallery to have any profile to the public;
they've got their own vehicles. If you've got back corners that
are really untravelled by the public-
1630
Ms
Churley: This is in Hansard, and the press is going to
see it.
Mr Spina:
That's fine. I don't care. The reality is that they are not
something that is to be viewed by the public touring this
building. Even though I'm not in this building, there are members
of the chamber, of the Legislature, who should have better access
to the chamber and to the main part of the building. I think
that's a better utilization of that space. That's my suggestion.
I'll pass that along to my representative member on your
committee, and that's all I have to say.
Mr
Ouellette: Just in closing, I'll ask all the questions I
have now. The design of the grounds out front for protests-I
think protests are very necessary. I believe the public needs the
ability to do that in the same fashion that we as members need to
continue on. In Ottawa, the design of the protests are such that
the steps are kind of the dividing line in the front. What they
have there are walls, and power is available for them out there.
There are all sorts of events, and that allows the driving and
everything else to continue on a regular basis. A restructuring
of the front in the same fashion that they have in Ottawa would
allow full public protests to continue on at any time of day and
the full operation of the building to continue at the same time.
To look at the method they utilize there would be very beneficial
so we could proceed with both here at Queen's Park.
The other thing I'd like to
say is, has anybody ever put any money in your pouch, and if so,
who, and who sharpens your sword?
Mr Brad
Clark: Now I don't have any questions to ask.
Mr Dennis
Clark: On the demonstrations, it might be an idea to
check with your representative on the security committee, who
is-
Ms Deller:
Mr Mazzilli.
Mr Dennis
Clark: We meet as and when required. If you have some
suggestions, I think that would be one vehicle to use, to suggest
it to him. He would bring it to the committee, because it's
all-party. That's what we always obviously look for. I appreciate
the suggestions.
Mr
Lalonde: A similar point: George Smitherman called me
just before I came. I was going to forget, and then he took me
down to the dining room and to the large picture of the building
in the dining room that has the beauty of the building. The fact
that we have cars parked in front of the building eliminates-
Mr Spina:
Or the buses.
Mr
Lalonde: Buses are a little different. They don't stay
there all day. They come in and they leave. In Quebec City, for
example, and in Ottawa there's no parking in front of the
buildings. I don't know about the other Legislative Assembly
buildings. In the long-term plan, if we could look at the
possibility of moving that parking from the front-
Mr Dennis
Clark: It's in there, Mr Lalonde. It's an excellent
suggestion. We want to bring it back to its original state,
shorten the driveway and make the big buses pull up front and
just stop. There is a proposal in the capital plan to make bus
lanes right at the end here.
Mr
Lalonde: Good.
Ms
Churley: I have one question. Are we still
pesticide-free?
Mr Dennis
Clark: No.
Ms
Churley: We're not? I thought we were going in that
direction.
Mr Dennis
Clark: We do something. My understanding is-
Ms
Churley: You will remember this, Deb. A couple of years
ago I made-I don't know if it was a motion. I guess it was
Speaker Stockwell who dealt with it then and I believe-we can
check Hansard-he said that we were going to become
pesticide-free. We don't know for sure.
Ms Deller:
I guess Dennis will have to look into it. My understanding is-and
this may have changed-that our contract with Clintar, who does
the grounds, is that they don't use them.
Ms
Churley: Can we check if that's still the case?
Mr Dennis
Clark: I'll check on it right away. I thought they used
something that's non-toxic.
Ms Deller:
Yes, non-toxic.
Ms
Churley: That was the idea. There are all kinds of
alternatives out there.
Mr Dennis
Clark: It's my understanding that's what they're
using.
Ms
Churley: If you could just double-check and make sure of
that.
Ms Di
Cocco: Just one quick question. It has to do with the
ongoing maintenance of the building. You said there's $700,000
for the outside. What about ongoing restoration? Once the
building is restored and you're finished, in 10 years-I don't
know what the long-term plan is, but I presume it's not going to
be done in two years. Are there ongoing funds to maintain the
inside of the building and the ongoing restorations? Old
buildings like this require a different kind of upkeep, maybe,
than a more modern building would require.
Mr Dennis
Clark: That's an excellent question. We have funds for O
and M-operation and maintenance-services for the inside of the
building. This year it's $700,000. We also have, through ORC, a number of
MOUs for trade services looking after minor renovations.
The Chair:
I think we'll move on to your report, Mr Clark, but before you
do, the Chairman gets to ask a question, I hope.
What kind of insurance is
on this building, if it were to burn down tomorrow?
Mr Dennis
Clark: We're not insured.
The Chair:
You're not insured?
Ms Deller:
No one will insure us.
The Chair:
The other thing is, are you designated as a historic building, or
do you just work to try to maintain it as historically as you
can? The reason I ask that is because it's my understanding that
if a building is designated as historic, it has to be repaired as
it was when it was built. This is owned by the legislative
precinct, but on the other hand I wonder how you can do certain
things without having to do them as they were 100 years ago.
Mr Dennis
Clark: To answer your first question, we are designated
as a heritage building. We have a heritage adviser, who works for
Ontario. Every time we go to do something, we go through that
heritage adviser to be sure we conform with the heritage rules.
Just as a matter of interest, the director of building
management, Mr Paul Tranquada, teaches heritage restoration at
Ryerson. So he's probably one of the better-qualified persons in
all of Ontario when you're looking at that.
The Chair:
When I talked about insurance-this building has never had any
insurance on it?
Ms Deller:
I can't say "never."
The Chair:
Is it customary for legislative buildings not to have insurance
on them?
Ms Deller:
I can't speak to other legislative buildings.
The Chair:
Maybe it's too expensive; I don't know. I'm just surprised that
there wouldn't be some on it.
Mr Dennis
Clark: I know when I worked for the federal government,
all our RCMP detachments were never insured, just like police
cars. I think it's the cost involved.
The Chair:
OK, I was just wondering.
Mr Clark, do you want to
chat about anything regarding the Sergeant at Arms's duties?
Mr Dennis
Clark: Unless there's any other questioning, I think
you've covered just about everything. I'll just briefly say that
we've now been approximately three years with our own security
service here. We have a complement of 55 and a plainclothes
intelligence unit of two. I'm extremely proud of them. They're
very well trained. We have a lot of initiatives going on in terms
of security systems. We've had a lot of upgrades in terms of
duress. We're going to wireless duress with more CCTV cameras.
We're going to proximity cards for access. I would offer an
invitation-I know you're all extremely busy, but if you could
ever pop down to our operational control centre, it will give you
an idea of some of the systems we have and just how secure I feel
you are in this building.
1640
Mr Brad
Clark: If I may, during a couple of hearings we've had
in the committee rooms-I've talked to other members about it, and
some concerns were raised about the security in committee
hearings. In the House it's a little bit different. They have to
go into the gallery; they have to go through a process to get
into the gallery. However, I've noticed that there were some
interesting situations happening in committee hearings, and we're
sitting very close to the public. How is the security handled for
committee hearings?
Mr Dennis
Clark: That's an excellent question again. A couple of
things: For security in committees here within the legislative
precinct we will, when we know there are a lot of people, have
extra security officers outside, but we will not go in unless the
Chair or the clerk, I believe, says there is a problem. At that
time we will come in and do what we have to do, if we have to
remove somebody.
As another initiative, for
travelling committees-we just started yesterday; the first one
was in Barrie-we are sending security officers with travelling
committees where they request it. Although it's a local police
responsibility, if we have a security officer there, they have a
better feel for what the committee is all about because it is
part of the chamber. So we've also taken that initiative. But as
far as the ones here, we will not come in until we are directed
to do so.
Mr Brad
Clark: How do you get directed to do so? Does the
Chairman yell, "Help"?
Mr Dennis
Clark: Basically, yes.
Mr Spina:
On that same point, I've sat through committee hearings over the
past five years, and to me this room is a prime example, not to
mention the other rooms. I don't have a problem with people who
are sitting in the chairs. Where I had a problem was when the
room was permitted to be filled, so we had people standing along
the walls on both sides. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. I have
a problem with that, not only from a discomfort point of view,
but the other side of it is, is there a fire regulation that's
being contravened-even though the building probably contravenes
half of them in the province to begin with, purely by its very
nature? Nevertheless, that's a concern to me. To me, if there are
50 seats here, then the capacity of the room is limited to 50,
period, end of story. Priority should be given to delegates who
are coming to make presentations to the committee. That's the
number one priority. Anyone else, if we have seats left over,
then fine, they're welcome to come in. But I as a member of a
committee would appreciate that the public be limited to the
number of seats that are in the room.
Ms Deller:
The committees branch falls under my area of responsibility, and
I'm interested in what you're saying, Mr Spina. You're absolutely
correct. That should not be happening. Whatever guests are here,
with respect to committees, should be behind this witness table,
and they certainly shouldn't be up against the walls and behind
the members. There are instances when press may be there. Again, though, the
Chair would have to authorize that. I will certainly look into it
and check with committees branch and find out if that's
happening. If it is, we'll take steps to correct it.
Mr Spina:
Recently, I'm not sure it has been as much of a problem as it
was, for example, when we went through the WCB bill hearings, and
certainly through some of the education hearings.
I wonder, are the committee
Chairs trained in terms of what authority they have or do not
have? You just said something to me that was totally new, and
that was that the committee Chair had to authorize the press to
go beyond that press table. Is that right?
Ms Deller:
The committee Chairs have chairs' meetings from time to time, and
each committee clerk advises the Chair on-I can't say for certain
whether each committee Chair is specifically given all those
particular rules at the time. Usually they're advised ad hoc, as
things occur.
Mr Spina:
I have one final suggestion. As part of the ongoing renovations,
perhaps, because some of the room will become essentially
permanent committee rooms-they are now sort of; they're also
double duty for other things. If they become more dedicated as
committee rooms, you might consider a classic wooden rail like a
court.
Ms Deller:
One of the advantages we would have to the fifth floor idea for
committee rooms is that we'd be able to set up the layout of
those rooms such that we could improve the security access and
egress for members as well as put in those rooms all the kinds of
facilities that committees typically need. These rooms on the
second floor were never set up to be committee rooms.
The Chair:
Just one comment, if I may, on what Mr Spina was saying about
people standing behind. When I hear that you started yesterday to
have one of your officers going to the committee hearings-
Mr Dennis
Clark: On request.
The Chair:
On request. When we're on the road, it seems to occur more often
because these hotels where you go-they're set up there, and they
get an overflow crowd. For many of the ones I was on, certainly
in the earlier days, that's where they were standing behind. If
you have one of your staff there, I think it's something they
should be aware of, if they are requested to be there, that that
does not happen.
Mr Brad
Clark: I guess I need clarification-earlier I was joking
about it. I was sitting in here when we had hearings on Brian's
Law. We had a situation where an individual became very agitated
in the back and started yelling. Actually, it was at MPP Patten,
and it was extremely unnerving. The Chair was trying to settle
him down and raising his voice. It was very tense for two or
three minutes. No security was around. I don't know how the Chair
can say, "Security, get in here." Maybe I'm missing something
here. I was joking, "Does the Chairman yell, `Help!'"? I don't
know.
The Chair:
A lot of times they'll get a quick adjournment and then try to
settle it down.
Mr Brad
Clark: I understand that. But in the situation we had,
we had someone who was very agitated in the back. He was in and
amongst witnesses, people who just came to the hearing. He was
getting agitated. He could have become violent. We don't know. He
was very upset. To state, "We're going to adjourn," and have to
walk past that man who's agitated, I think there's something
that's not quite right in the system.
Mr Dennis
Clark: I guess it would be up to the officer to decide
whether she wants security right in the committee room.
Ms Deller:
That would be the call of the committee Chair to make. The
committee Chair could decide to have a security officer inside
the room. The discretion the Chair has to consider is whether
having a uniformed security officer in the room is going to be
more inciteful than not.
Mr Brad
Clark: I'm not suggesting that.
Ms Deller:
The other thing is that the layout of these rooms for committee
purposes is not the best. There's no point of egress for the
members without going through the audience. In certain
circumstances when I was a committee clerk, sometimes the Chair
would dispatch the committee clerk out to make sure they got
security.
The other thing you should
know is, each of the committee clerks has access to wireless,
portable duress buttons. When there are hearings that are
potentially difficult, the clerk will have that duress button in
front of him or her. It sounds an alarm in the operations centre
and they dispatch security. If there is something that is real
trouble, there is an alarm that can be set off.
Mr Brad
Clark: Is that alarm at every committee hearing?
Ms Deller:
Donna, you'll have to help me out here. I'm not sure.
Clerk of the
Committee (Donna Bryce): It's not actually attached to
the desk or anything. It's something a clerk can carry in their
pocket. It is portable. The good thing about that is if the clerk
happens to be standing at the back of the room, as opposed to in
the seat here, and there's some sort of trouble, that panic
button can be hit from anywhere. If it's attached to the desk
here and the clerk is at the back of the room, that doesn't help
either.
Other measures we've taken
when we've had issues like the WCB issue, for one, we actually
had a phone installed right here at the front of the room where
the Chair and the clerk sit. All you had to do was pick it up and
it went directly to security. We have an intercom phone right
here that we can use. It doesn't go directly to security, but we
can certainly phone another staff member. Given the room and
everything, there is a certain amount of planning that we have to
take.
1650
Mr Brad
Clark: When the situation happened on Bill 68, the Chair
was trying to deal with the gentleman in question, and he
did-purely through intimidation, I think-get the gentleman to
take his seat again. Do you know if any notification went out? I mean, would
the clerk or anyone else have said to security, "We may have a
problem here"? You can see what I'm saying: It's going to start
escalating, and if he doesn't get it under control, by the time
we get the alarm issued that we may need security, it's already
at the point where we needed security.
Ms Deller:
It's important to remember, from our point of view, that this is
a decision that is made by the Chair. Just as the Speaker makes
decisions around security and access to the galleries in the
House, it is the Chair who has to be in charge of decisions
around security with committees. The clerk will then wait for the
direction of the Chair. That's not to say the clerk might not
prompt the Chair, but the clerk will wait for that direction.
Mr Brad
Clark: This is the last question, Chair. A number of
members had brought to my attention that the panic buttons in
their offices are not working.
Mr Dennis
Clark: That's why we're replacing them all. They're the
hard-wired ones. We have to replace them all with wireless duress
alarms.
Mr Brad
Clark: With the wireless one, if the member sets it off,
how do you know where he is?
Mr Dennis
Clark: It comes up on our screen in our operations
centre. So it'll show up right on the screen exactly where
that-
Mr Brad
Clark: Where the individual is?
Mr Spina:
It's also a GPS alarm?
Mr Brad
Clark: It shows where the individual is who set off the
panic button?
Mr Dennis
Clark: Yes.
The Chair:
On your concern regarding Brian's Law, we just got clarification
that there was security outside the door.
Mr Brad
Clark: I didn't know that.
The Chair:
So somebody does watch us doing this stuff.
Mr Dennis
Clark: I just want to tell you-you talked about asking
for security, how long they were going to take to get here. If
the clerk or the Chair knows it could be a contentious committee,
the security would be right outside the door-usually more than
one.
Mr Brad
Clark: Yes, I was just raising the point.
Mr
Lalonde: I was going to say, why don't we have a panic
button? Probably every person chairing a committee should have
this wireless panic button. If you go to the phone, if you have
to phone to call someone, the people in the room will notice it.
It's better to use the panic button like we have in our riding
offices.
Ms Di
Cocco: First of all, I want to say I've actually had
some really good experiences with the security people. They've
been very helpful on a lot of occasions over numerous things. I
want to say they're just excellent people. So far I've had some
great-
Mr Dennis
Clark: Thank you very much.
Ms Di
Cocco: I would like to ask how many times actually have
there been committee meetings where there have been situations?
Sometimes we discuss possibilities of what may or may not happen,
but I also like to look at history. Is it very often that there
are any real problems that happen with regard to people being
either violent or out of control? I know in the House we do that
every day, but I'm saying here in the committee rooms.
Ms Deller:
The short answer is no, it doesn't happen very frequently. Most
of the problems are people who have become unruly. They start to
yell. They stand at the back of the room, they get agitated and
it looks like there may be a problem. I can think of only two
instances where we've had what I would consider to be a serious
problem, where security actually had to take more action than
just removing the person from the room and the building.
Ms Di
Cocco: I say that only in the context that I believe
this whole aspect of being accessible and public hearings being
just that: public hearings. I understand being prudent and having
people in place, but we can get a bit carried away in that
regard. If there haven't been a lot of incidents, then maybe the
precautions are there and the people are in place. I'm quite
satisfied with the answer.
Ms Deller:
I think that's why we treat each committee hearing on its own
merits, and that's also why the Chair has to be able to use
discretion to deal with each instance.
ANNUAL REVIEW:
BROADCAST AND RECORDING SERVICE
The Chair:
Ms Deller, we'll let you make any comments you'd like.
Ms Deller:
I'm not going to take a lot of your time, because probably most
of you are familiar with broadcast and recording. My division is
legislative services, and one of the branches in that division is
broadcast and recording services. It's managed by Bill
Somerville. That is the organization that provides bilingual,
gavel-to-gavel live coverage of the proceedings in the House, as
well as certain committee proceedings, those that occur in room
151, notably, as well as some on-the-road committees.
The distribution is via
satellite to cable, so Rogers, Shaw. The satellite is owned by
Telsat. The distribution of that satellite signal is done through
Cancom. They are the ones that provide us with the signal. The
signal goes out to the cable companies. It also goes out to one
satellite distribution company, Star Choice. So if you're going
to go the route of satellite for TV coverage, Star Choice is the
one you should probably get. It goes to the caucus communications
departments. It also goes to commercial broadcasters in Queen's
Park and various news organizations throughout the province.
We also have a
multi-channel network. You've probably had something to do with
that, where you watch the press coverage from the day before. You
can also call up broadcast and recording and have them replay
whatever segment of yesterday's proceedings or last week's
proceedings you want them to.
It's also responsible,
obviously, for all the maintenance of all the video and audio
broadcast equipment and any dubbing console operation services.
The guy who sits up in
the corner of the Speaker's gallery turning all your microphones
on, that's broadcast and recording. One thing to note is that
it's the microphones that in fact control those cameras in the
chamber, so when the console operator puts your microphone on,
that shifts the camera around so that it's looking at the person
who is speaking.
The guidelines that govern
how the proceedings are televised-that is, who's on camera during
what proceeding during the day-are guidelines that were approved
by the House in 1986. You all have a copy of them in your grey
binder, which includes your standing orders and the Legislative
Assembly Act. Those have not changed since 1986.
One thing I wanted to
mention, because it's a question that has come up, is live video
streaming on computers. We currently provide live video streaming
to Hansard. It makes the job of doing the digital transcription
of Hansard a whole lot easier if they can have a picture, in the
corner, of the House proceedings. Broadcast and recording, along
with legislative information systems, are currently evaluating
all the new technologies, network connections and facilities in
order to prepare a report for senior managers with respect to
live video streaming available on a wider scale.
I think that's just about
all I have.
The Chair:
Questions?
Mr Spina:
I just want to say one comment. You guys do a terrific job, and
we really appreciate what you do. Thank you.
The Chair:
Any other comments? Is there live TV in all parliaments in
Canada?
Ms Deller:
Not all. Many, but not all.
The Chair:
Are there other Legislatures that maybe do it differently from
what we do as far as the way the cameras operate? A comment has
been made to me that the assembly was much more professional
prior to cameras coming in, when all of us-notice I said
"us"-could stand up and get on stage. Are there any suggestions
of what others are doing that tend to maybe have a little bit
more control over it?
1700
Ms Deller:
It's been a while since-
The Chair:
I'm putting you on the spot. I don't mean to do that.
Ms Deller:
I'm not going to comment on the decorum in the chamber.
The Chair:
I didn't ask you to do that.
Ms Deller:
It's been a while since we've done a cross-jurisdictional look at
television and guidelines in legislative chambers. Before we
installed our own cameras, we did visit those other jurisdictions
where televising was occurring to have a look at their system and
their technology and their guidelines. It was, in fact, the
Legislative Assembly committee that reviewed all of that and came
up with these guidelines.
We haven't, since then,
done that cross-jurisdictional look because in most cases the
other jurisdictions are taking a look at us and adopting our
guidelines and technologies for their own purposes. But at this
stage, in the year 2000, it might be worthwhile doing that and
having a look.
The Chair:
About three or four years ago there was some thought that this
committee would look at conduct within the House, and we could
not get agreement, because I sat on the committee at that time,
to do that. So that was a bad start. I know that has to come from
the Legislature itself and be directed to us.
I'm wondering if the
committee might be interested in seeing what is being done in
other jurisdictions regarding television etc. Maybe it's only me
but-
Mr
DesRosiers: I'll make a comment on that. I've been
around for quite a while. I was around in Ottawa when they set up
the television in 1979 and I was around here when we set up
television. Yes, it's true that there have been changes in
decorum in the House.
But I wouldn't point the
finger at television. What has changed in the House, because of
television, is maybe different-colour suits and maybe a bit more
careful grooming for certain people. There's this grouping
factor. When there's hardly anybody in the chamber, people will
go and sit with the person who has the floor in order to make it
appear that there are more people in the House and so on.
But the yelling and
screaming and so on-no. I'll tell you what I think. This is a
totally personal theory that I've developed over the years. I go
back to my university years in the 1960s, and between 1965 and
1968 at the University of Ottawa there was a change. In order to
get into class in 1965 I had to have a suit, a tie and jacket, or
I just didn't get into class. But in 1968 I had to have a few
holes in my jeans and a few holes in my sweater in order to fit
in. It was a cultural thing.
The people who took over
the university and changed society in that way in the 1960s are
those who got elected to our chamber in the early 1980s. The
reason I came to that conclusion is because it's in the early
1980s that you start having changes in the chamber. It's in the
early 1980s that things start happening in our legislatures that
really bring about the situation we have today. It starts in the
early 1980s. All parties have done this; all parties have been in
government and in opposition while these things were
happening.
For example, the first item
that happened was in 1981, when the Tories rang the bells for two
weeks in Ottawa. These things happen. They were in a very tense
House. They were debating Trudeau's national energy program, and
the Tories were just fit to be tied, not only because of the bill
that was in front of the House, but because of the situation in
the House. In 1980, Joe Clark had been defeated in the House. He
had gone to the people sure that he was going to get a
majority-he had a minority-but that didn't happen. Not only did
he not get a majority, but the Liberals were elected; and not
only were they elected, but they had a majority; and not only
that, but Pierre Trudeau was back in town.
The atmosphere was very
tense and it led to a whole bunch of stuff. Poor Jeanne
Sauvé would get up-15 years before, a Speaker would get up and the
place would calm down. The magic wasn't there any more. It's a
cultural thing.
My wife and I had a shock
in the 1970s when the kids came back from school and they were
calling their teachers by their first names. We said, "What is
this?" "The teacher wants us to do this." It's a whole reflection
and it shows up in our legislatures and it's something we have to
live with, I think, until society changes again and we get some
quieter times.
The Chair:
We won't look at the policy there. Any other comments?
I had one other comment for
you, Mr Clark. Are you at a full complement of officers?
Mr Dennis
Clark: Yes, we are.
The Chair:
Do you feel that's adequate?
Mr Dennis
Clark: Yes, I do. On that, we have a memorandum of
understanding with Toronto Police Service in that when there's a
major demonstration-we do the exterior anyway, the patrolling,
but we will work in conjunction with them on any special events
or anything on the exterior.
Ms Di
Cocco: I think it would be an intriguing process if
there was an attempt to bring to discussion the decorum and
behaviour in the House. You mentioned that it was done before, or
at least it was attempted.
The Chair:
It was attempted before, if I remember correctly.
Ms Di
Cocco: I'm not a new member any more, but being one of
the latest to be elected, and not having had experience at all in
the Legislature, one of the things I find is that people are
surprised at, if you want to call it, the antics, what goes on in
the House. If we can ameliorate that and make it somehow better,
I'm all for it, because I still cannot get used to that kind
of-where everyone is adult. We're supposed to be professionals;
we're supposed to be representing our constituents. There is a
level of dignity, I would like to think, in this office, and when
we go in the House, I don't know what happens to everybody. It's
like a hockey arena. All civilized conduct goes out the door.
Mr Spina:
And some get penalized.
Ms Di
Cocco: It's an intriguing discussion to be had, and I
think it's of the societal context in which you brought it
together. But maybe it's time to make small incremental changes
or bring it to discussion. I don't know if it's the focus of this
committee or not but, because you raised it, I just thought it's
an intriguing discussion to be had.
The Chair:
Certainly, if we get the House leaders to be in agreement with
our looking at it, it might happen. I guess we could talk it
up.
Mr Tony Martin
(Sault Ste Marie): For what it's worth, when I came here
10 years ago there were people within our caucus-we were the
government at the time-who said they were going to clean it up;
they were going to make sure that decorum was returned. They
then, in a year or two, became the worse offenders.
I remember when the present
government came in and they were going to clean it up. I remember
people being absolutely disgusted. I remember John O'Toole, the
first year he was here, would walk out of here, "This is crazy."
Well, look at him today. You can point fingers at all kinds of
people. You talk about the House leaders. They become the worst
offenders at times. Anyway, it seems to be part of the whole
dynamic of the place. I guess if you can survive that, then you
can survive anything.
Sometimes I think, when you
get challenged in the way you do sometimes when you get up to
speak, that if you really believe in what you're saying, it won't
bother you.
The Chair:
I stand to be corrected, but the committee can decide that they
would like to look at it. It's something maybe that we can bring
up at the next meeting.
Ms Di
Cocco: It may be thinking outside the box or something,
but maybe it's time to at least bring it for discussion. It may
go nowhere, but I think it's valid because you're trying to make
the quality of what happens in the Legislature. You want to raise
the quality there.
The Chair:
Maybe we can all think about it for the next meeting. I agree
with you, although I'm not supposed to agree with you. Thank you
for bringing it up.
We will refer the letter
from Mr Peters to you. Will you advise him? I guess we'll advise
him that we've done that, for your consideration on the
accessibility plan.
Are there any other
questions? If not, I thank you for your attendance and I thank
the committee for their attendance. The committee is
adjourned.
