BOIE
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1066 - 1080 of 1310
View Claude DeBellefeuille Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Mr. Paquette.
Are many of the members who inadvertently made this mistake paying for the expense without having requested an exception from the Board of Internal Economy?
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Paquette, you have the floor.
Daniel Paquette
View Daniel Paquette Profile
Daniel Paquette
2020-06-01 16:07
I am currently aware of only one case, but it is not at all on the same scale. We are only talking about a few hundred dollars. It is not on the same scale as the situation we are talking about.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Now we'll go to Mr. Strahl.
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
Quickly, I know what we're going to do here is to charge the member's office budget. It didn't take a lot of work to figure out that a lot of the staff members had come over from Mr. Brison, so I'm a little unsure. I've been involved in politics at the staff and MP levels for a number of years, and you've never been able to do what he did, certainly not without the approval of PAMS.
He was a month ahead of where the policy was, but there was apparently enough COVID stuff in there to allow it. Was the printing expense within the acceptable range? I know that issue was raised in our previous document. The cost for some external suppliers was way too high and PAMS had to go back and either say no or negotiate. Was the range acceptable?
I certainly have never heard of members going out on their own and mailing things under anything other than the negotiated frank rate or the rate for unaddressed ad mail. What was the additional cost because the member went outside of the contract for unaddressed ad mail that the House of Commons has with Canada Post?
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
We'll go back to Mr. Paquette.
Daniel Paquette
View Daniel Paquette Profile
Daniel Paquette
2020-06-01 16:10
The member did meet the requirement. There was COVID-19 content in the document. The printing itself was within reasonable parameters, and the cost for printing, although a little higher than we'd seen, was not excessive.
The big part of the cost was the post, because, from my understanding, it was the printer who went to Canada Post and got the normal bulk rate, no corporate discounts whatsoever. Canada Post was not aware that this mailing was for a member of Parliament, so it didn't invoke any of the advantages we have for that. That's where the large majority of his excess cost came from. It's the postage, because it was a third party that mailed it for him.
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
That's my question. Are we allowed to use our MOB for bulk mailing? We're trying to retroactively cover him a bit here because of what he did. He made a mistake, but does the mistake ever extend to...? What is the cap on postage? Is that the 5,000? Is that where that comes in? I'm trying to understand this.
We want to give some grace when mistakes are made, even though we might have questions about them, but the mailing part is concerning to me because we have never had a policy allowing us to contract for bulk mail, not that I'm aware of. That is what I'd like to know. What was the difference in cost between what he did and what would have been done had he waited a month and been approved?
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Paquette, you have the floor.
Daniel Paquette
View Daniel Paquette Profile
Daniel Paquette
2020-06-01 16:12
I don't have the exact difference between what it would have cost had we processed it ourselves and what it cost him doing it on his own.
The 5,000 limit is just on the printed materials. There has to be more than 50% difference in the material if you are going to print more than 5,000. At this point, we really don't have that many specifics in our guidelines on the limitations of using any kind of mail couriers for packages or things of that nature. We don't have that in our parameters. It's really just about the printed copies.
I don't have the specifics of what would have been the cost for us, at this point. We can probably get it for you after the meeting.
View Mark Strahl Profile
CPC (BC)
I would just say, if we take members at their word that it was an honest mistake, and obviously the buck stops with those of us who sign of on these things, so, if it's charged to his MOB.... We don't want to put a member out $13,000 or whatever it would be, but I would simply say I hope that when other members come with the same honest mistake type of defence, that we extend similar grace in those situations and not simply act based on what colour hat we wear around the table.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Are there any other comments or questions?
Do I understand that we have consensus here?
Everybody's in agreement, so we will proceed in the way it's proposed. Very good.
If I can, I'm going to go back to item number five, the brief comment from the clerk. The proactive disclosure requirements will be coming into effect on June 21, whether we like it or not, so I don't have much of a choice there, but I do have a commitment from the clerk that they will come back and explain what the exemptions are and whether the person travelling, the family member, is actually named or what information is disclosed, and they'll have a lot more detail on that for us.
If it's okay with you, we'll let that one pass and have the information come back to us.
Do I have agreement on that?
Ms. Bergen.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
I don't think that's ideal.
I'm not sure if we're being told by the law clerk. If we have an option, I would say no, that your initial decision was the right decision. If the law clerk is saying we don't have an option, then we don't have an option.
That would be my position. I support your initial decision, unless we don't have an option, and then we're basically just being asked if we approve of the templates, which we do, but I don't think that you did get a consensus on this moving forward.
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'll defer to Mr. Dufresne on that.
Philippe Dufresne
View Philippe Dufresne Profile
Philippe Dufresne
2020-06-01 16:15
The proposal was to put in force the implementation of the legal obligations, i.e., the templates for the disclosure, and that we as the administration would come back with the process and the details for the use of the Speaker's powers to exempt certain elements of information. That would come at an upcoming board meeting, but the approval would be sought to put in place measures for proactive disclosure as indicated today and required by the legislation.
Results: 1066 - 1080 of 1310 | Page: 72 of 88

|<
<
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data