Publication Search

Mr. Chair, I wasn't sure if this should be in the minutes or the business.

I asked a question at the last meeting when we were deciding on an exception for printing costs. I asked what the difference in the costs of the postage would have been for Mr. Waugh if he had used the House's preferred rate as compared to when he chose to do that mailing himself. I'm just wondering if that information has been found and if it could be shared with the group.

Yes, I remember going through that.

Who will be able to answer that with detail?

Monsieur Patrice.

The information has been sent. I'm just trying to locate the information right now.

I don't know, Rebekah, if you have the information right at your fingertips. We're looking for it.

I'll find it and I'll pull it up.

If it's okay with everyone, we'll proceed. When it does come up, we'll interrupt and present the information.

Does that work, Mr. Strahl?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have located the information. The mailing cost for the member at that time was $6,590 at the rate he was charged. If he'd been charged the preferred bulk rate, it would have been $177. The difference was $6,400, essentially.

Thank you, I guess. That's a tough bill to swallow, but thank you.

We will now move on to item 8, which pertains to a request for exception for outdoor furniture.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A member is asking the board to consider his request for reimbursement for outdoor furniture. The space the member is leasing includes exclusive access to an outdoor area. In order to use the space, the member purchased two tables and six chairs, for a total of $2,958.

Given that this was a non-standard purchase, the administration completed its assessment in accordance with the existing board policy. We concluded that this type of furniture is not typically needed in an office, nor is it needed in order to enable a member to carry out their parliamentary function. So that is our conclusion, that it is not office furniture. Furthermore, we conclude that it is not transferrable, since members' constituency offices do not typically include outdoor space that can be furnished and used by the member. As a result of our assessment, the expense was denied.

As per the member's request, we are seeking the board's direction on the review for this matter.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's not so much a question I have, as it is a comment.

My understanding is that the rules make no mention of patio furniture. We would be setting an unacceptable precedent, were we to grant the request. As mentioned, this type of furniture does not count as office equipment. If we agree to reimburse a member for patio furniture, next, we could have someone asking to be reimbursed for a barbecue, and it would never end. I think denying the expense was the right decision.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Did the member contact the House administration before making the purchase? I don't mean through a formal letter, but did they make any sort of inquiry? It's clearly an unusual request.

My constituency office has an outdoor space. Would I be allowed to buy patio furniture? It's clear from looking at the file that there weren't any formal inquiries, but did someone from the member's office or the member, himself, reach out to finance services about it?

Once I know that, I'll comment further.

According to the notes in my report, the member didn't ask for any information, formally or informally, before buying the furniture.

All right. Thank you.

This is a member with considerable experience, not just at the federal level. I think reimbursing a member for the purchase of patio furniture would set the wrong precedent. Had the member made some sort of attempt to contact the House administration, or had there been some ambiguity as to whether the expense was eligible, I'd be more inclined to consider the member's request.

The Board of Internal Economy should advise all members, especially new ones, that if they want to make an unusual purchase, they need to submit a formal request beforehand to make sure it's an eligible expense.

Mr. Paquette, would you care to comment?