Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 139
View Judy A. Sgro Profile
Lib. (ON)
Good morning, members of the board.
I want to thank Mrs. Block, who is going to do a presentation in detail on the conference for which we are seeking your approval today. Mrs. Block gave a presentation to the subcommittee on committee budgets—SBLI—on behalf of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, on March 12. Her request was approved unanimously by the members of the subcommittee. I now present the request, of course, to the board for approval, as is the process.
The budget before you is based on the participation of 110 delegates and 25 accompanying persons. The conference will take place basically over two days, from Sunday afternoon until Tuesday afternoon when folks would depart.
The cost of the conference is shared between CCPAC and CCOLA in an approximate sixty five-thirty five split, depending on the participation of each group, with CCPAC absorbing the greater percentage because there are more CCPAC members participating than the CCOLA members. That also means that the revenues generated by the conference fees are split in the same way.
You'll see in the budget document that the global cost is $97,785. The PACP's share of that cost is $27,000 once the conference fees are calculated.
The committee is asking that a maximum of $42,000, including anticipated revenues for registration fees, in temporary funding be provided for the organization of the conference in 2022.
I believe Mrs. Block wanted to now speak to the issue, as well.
View Kelly Block Profile
Thank you very much, Ms. Sgro.
Good morning, members of the board. I am pleased to join you today.
As Ms. Sgro has outlined, today we are seeking approval and funding to host the 2022 conference of the Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors and Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees. I know you have received a submission in detail, so I just hope to give the broader context.
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, of which I am the chair, is a member of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees. This council and the Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors host an annual meeting to discuss best practices and provide information sessions on issues related to the study of public accounts.
The CCPAC was first created in 1978 and has held joint meetings almost every year since 1979, with each jurisdiction taking its turn to host. The federal committee has never hosted this event.
Discussions have been ongoing since 2017 to have the federal committee host the meeting in November 2020. The PACP adopted a motion to host the conference in 2022, once the appropriate budget had been prepared and adopted and the necessary permission from the host had been received.
I'll just repeat that first part. Discussions have been ongoing since 2017 to have the federal government host the meeting, and in November that is when the PACP adopted a motion to do so in 2022.
I would simply also state that the chair at that time, in 2017 up until 2019, was Mr. Sorenson. He was a firm supporter of the committee participating in these conferences and of the federal committee taking its turn to host in Ottawa.
Eric Janse
View Eric Janse Profile
Eric Janse
2021-03-25 11:32
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I will be brief. Whenever a special committee is created, the funding comes directly from the Board of Internal Economy, not from the funding for all standing committees.
Members have before them a submission that seeks a start-up budget for the recently created Special Committee on the Economic Relationship between Canada and the United States, with a recommendation that the funds required for this committee, nonetheless, come from the global envelope for standing committees.
Daniel Paquette
View Daniel Paquette Profile
Daniel Paquette
2021-02-25 11:30
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This presentation follows up on the analysis with respect to temporary measures in effect due to COVID-19 that was presented to the board last December. At that meeting, the House administration advised the board that we would continue to monitor the use of those various policies, the expenses that members were incurring and how they were to evolve. We would then return here to the board for any recommendations, if any were needed.
I must note that these temporary measures are all set to expire on March 31, 2021.
We have observed that the use of these temporary measures has continued since the last analysis I presented to you in December. Despite the pandemic, members of Parliament continue to provide services to their fellow citizens. As a result of our consultations, we understand the need to maintain these measures for an extended period of time.
The House administration recommends that the board, as part of the measures taken to address and mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic, approve extending the temporary measures through March 31, 2022. These temporary measures include the purchase of consumable items to ensure that COVID-19 preventive measures are in place in constituency offices, and an increase to the advertising limit to communicate with constituents.
Mr. Speaker, this concludes my presentation. I'm open to any questions the members may have.
View Peter Julian Profile
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank Mr. Paquette and the House administration.
I certainly support the extension of these measures. In our case, in downtown New Westminster where my constituency office is, those measures have allowed us to put up plexiglass panels to protect our employees. We're in a very high-traffic area in the downtown area. Even though our office is largely functioning virtually, when constituents do need to come in, my staff are protected.
I think that these measures have been sensible, and they've been effective, allowing members of Parliament to make the important adjustments that come with this pandemic.
The new variants of COVID-19 are worrisome, as we all know, and many people are predicting a third wave coming this spring. It makes sense, then, I believe, for us to extend the measures so that members of Parliament and their employees can be protected and can continue to serve their constituents in a way that protects everybody.
View Blake Richards Profile
I agree. There's been some usage or take-up of these measures. I would certainly agree with extending them.
I guess where I would have an issue is this. We're talking about an extension to March 31, 2022, and we're hearing from the government that by the end of September we will have all Canadians vaccinated who want to be vaccinated. One would assume, then, that at that point we'd be able to make some kind of a shift in terms of Parliament's moving back towards more normal sitting scenarios, or certainly something closer to that. Obviously, some of these measures, then, would no longer be needed as well.
If the government does fail to meet that target, we can always look at extending it beyond September—that is, if the government isn't able to live up to the promise it's made. If it does, then we should be able to see some change in these things in September.
Perhaps what we should do right now is to set the renewal date as September, and we can always look at it again, if needed, in September.
View Claude DeBellefeuille Profile
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do not agree with what my Conservative colleague just said. In fact, I rather agree with the proposal before us that it be extended until March 31, 2022, that is, the end of the fiscal year.
It is important for members to be in a position, as of April 1, to set their budget, to include the amounts in their budget planning. I think it makes sense to allow the extension until March 31, 2022. I would find it strange if we told members to be careful with their budget because the measures are in effect until September 30. Some of the measures relate to advertising costs and may be part of community support planning. As we know, the pandemic does not affect all provinces the same way.
I think the proposal to extend is logical in light of what we have experienced this year. According to the statistics and the results, the cost won't be higher for the House Administration if we save on certain budget items to be able to finance these measures.
Personally, this makes sense to me and is respectful of the members who want to plan their budget for next year. I think it makes sense that decisions of a parliamentary nature should be in effect at the end of September.
I second Mr. Julian, who also agrees with the proposal. In addition, I encourage the members of the Board of Internal Economy to join us.
View Gérard Deltell Profile
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it's also important to understand that—and we've all done this in our ridings—most of the significant spending on internal infrastructure has already been committed, which is normal, by the way. All of us may have some adjustments to make, but a lot of the spending has been done. I think being able to adjust that for September is very consistent, as well, with what we decide in the House. Our measures are in place until September because we operate on a semi-annual basis. Normally, we adjust our spending very well when we see that the need is still there.
I believe that we do not deprive ourselves of anything. It's worth considering this option, given that we've already spent a significant part of our budgets in this regard and that we're also consistent with our work in the House six months at a time. If, by any chance, we find in September that people who have not been vaccinated want to be vaccinated and the third wave of the virus hits hard—no one is safe—we can reverse the decision and extend these measures without any difficulty.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I also agree with Mrs. DeBellefeuille and Mr. Julian.
I accept Mr. Paquette's recommendation.
I get Blake's comments if the government fails to vaccinate people by the end of September, etc. I get all of that. That should maybe be reserved for question period.
I think we have to be careful. The idea that certain public health requirements, as Mr. Julian said, to protect the staff who work for us or protect constituents who may visit constituency offices.... Some of those decisions, as advised by public health officers, may be separate and apart from the vaccination schedule.
I wouldn't suggest that this committee has views on appropriate public health measures. I would suggest that those decisions that MPs need to make to protect the people who work with us and constituents who visit us would coherently be subsumed in a financial year. That's why I accept the recommendation put forward by Monsieur Paquette and endorsed by Mr. Julian and Madame DeBellefeuille.
View Ginette Petitpas Taylor Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I will be very brief.
I'm just wondering if we know how many offices have required a deep cleaning as a result of COVID exposure within their offices. In asking that question, I'm also wondering if we have a workplace health and safety protocol in place in the event of workplace COVID exposure.
Michelle Laframboise
View Michelle Laframboise Profile
Michelle Laframboise
2021-02-25 11:40
Thank you, Mr. Paquette.
Yes, we do have that information. I don't have it at hand right now, but I absolutely will follow up and make sure that the members of the board get the information requested.
Michel Patrice
View Michel Patrice Profile
Michel Patrice
2021-02-25 11:40
Up to this time there have been no expenditures submitted for the deep cleaning of an office.
For the protocol, we'll provide that information to the board.
View Claude DeBellefeuille Profile
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We all know that, traditionally, we try to get along with each other. So, if the position of our Conservative colleagues does not change, given my little training as a mediator, I propose a compromise. The document before us contains seven recommendations. What I understand from what my colleagues said is that recommendations 1, 2 and 3 seem to be of particular concern to them, being directly related to contamination, decontamination and equipment purchase. In contrast, recommendations 4, 5, 6 and 7 are more related to the efforts of members in their ridings to support organizations that provide essential services, advertize their work, and promote their services. One recommendation even allows members to solicit donations for food banks or United Way agencies.
Here is my counter-proposal. If we could agree at least on recommendations 4, 5, 6 and 7, which I think are appropriate for the whole of next year, we could maintain them. If you are concerned about recommendations 1, 2 and 3, perhaps we could look at them together and see if we can remove them from the proposal. That way, together we could come to a compromise and accept some of the recommendations we have before us.
View Blake Richards Profile
That seems reasonable, frankly. My concern was that we're talking about putting in place measures related to COVID, but if we expect the entire population to be vaccinated by September, those measures would no longer be needed.
I think what we're talking about here, Claude, is some of the advertising and things like that. That was where your concerns were, that people be able to plan ahead for things like that. I think that's actually a sensible compromise and one that would satisfy me that we're not putting measures in place that will no longer be needed beyond September.
View Peter Julian Profile
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank Mrs. DeBellefeuille for proposing this compromise.
Health specialists are saying very clearly that we probably won't be out of the woods for another year. So I don't think that vaccination dates should be part of our decisions today.
We should decide to put all possible measures in place to protect the public and our employees and to continue our work as parliamentarians. It is for this reason that I fully support the recommendations of Mr. Paquette and the House Administration. However, as Mrs. DeBellefeuille said, I understand that we are an entity that advocates unanimity and consensus, so I am prepared to support her proposal.
I am not ready to say that we will be out of the woods in September. I hope so, but I don't think so. If we rely on projections, especially if we take into account the new variants of the virus, we may unfortunately have to wait at least a year before we can say that we are out of this pandemic.
Results: 1 - 15 of 139 | Page: 1 of 10

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data