Publication Search

This is meeting number 18 of the Board of Internal Economy.

Today is February 16, and this meeting is televised.

Members of the Board of Internal Economy are participating remotely, by video conference.

Before we go to the first one, I'd like to change the agenda a bit.

Would that be okay?

Item 3 requires a bit more time, so I suggest we deal with items 1, 2, 4 and 5 first. I think we can get through them fairly quickly.

Then we can move on to number 3 and take our time. I believe that one will take some time.

Mr. Julian.

I'm fine with that, Mr. Chair, but we have to discuss item 5 in camera. Were you planning to have the committee go in camera to discuss item 5 and, then, resume in public to deal with item 3?

Yes. Those in the room can stay for the in-camera portion of the meeting. We will discuss what we need to discuss in camera, after which, we will come back to item 3.

Go ahead, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

I'm fine with that as well, Mr. Chair. I hope all of my fellow members will stay to discuss that item and not try to duck out.

Some things I can't control, Mrs. DeBellefeuille. That said, considering everything that's going on in the House and in committees, I don't think anyone will slip out.

That brings us to the first item of business, the minutes of the previous meeting.

Are there any questions or comments?

I see that the committee is in agreement.

Under business arising from the previous meeting, item 2c is Internet expenses for members and their employees.

Ms. Findlay, do you want to cover that?

Was it Ms. Findlay who wrote a letter?

Yes. Ms. Findlay wrote a letter asking....

Do you want to speak to that? Either you or Ms. Findlay....

I'm assuming Ms. Findlay might like to start. If not, our finance folks might.

Okay. Maybe we'll let the finance folks talk to it first.

Ms. Findlay, do you want to introduce it?

Okay. It's fairly straightforward. I think anybody who has read it understands it.

Ms. Findlay, if you want to say a few words on that, that would be great.

I think it is quite straightforward. The issue is, I believe, payment of bills for Internet at your home or for staff at their homes, which, given the circumstances that Canadians find themselves in, having a difficult time paying bills and with inflation at the high rates it is at, seems to be something that should be a personal expense and not tied to your job as an MP or as staff to an MP.

That being said, some MPs have spoken to me and said that at the beginning of the COVID-19 lockdowns, etc., when they had to work from home, being in particularly rural communities, they had to upgrade their Internet. One MP even had a tower erected in his backyard in order to facilitate that. However, those costs were incurred in the past. Now that we are where we are, our feeling is that this should be a personal expense and should no longer be charged to members' budgets.

We as a party have taken the step of telling our members not to claim those charges anymore. I believe others have done likewise, but I don't know the status for all the parties.

Thank you.

Mr. Holland.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'll just add that we concur. We have advised our caucus the same. While there may have been a time when this particular item made sense, in the contemporary context it does not. Internet is something we all have to have in our homes, in the same way that we have to have hydro. I think for principal residences, it makes sense to withdraw the ability for members to apply for that.

Mr. Julian.

I just wanted to ask how many MPs accessed the home Internet costs over the past year.

If it's the percentage, we're looking at about 20% in terms of claims of the 338 over the last fiscal year.

Thank you for that.

Were those MPs from all parties, or preponderantly from one party?

That would be from all parties. That's primary residence only.

Do you have anything else, Mr. Julian?

I don't have an objection to the proposal. I saw some news reports that indicated that one party seemed to have accessed the home Internet costs more than other parties.

I think it's important that we have a consensus on this. I have no objections. It's fair to say that in BOIE we have a responsibility to take off our partisan hats. I will suggest that something like that shouldn't be, when we have correspondence around the BOIE, trying to tweak a sort of partisan element to it. I didn't appreciate the tone of the letter, but I certainly appreciate the intent.

Very good.

We'll now go to Madame DeBellefeuille.

I'm fine with changing the policy, Mr. Chair. It's important to ensure that the rules keep pace with the times. I completely agree with Mr. Holland on that. We should ask the House administration to repeal the policy.

Very well.

Are there comments on that?

Go ahead, please, Ms. Findlay.

I just wanted to add that I think the preponderance of MPs who serve rural ridings was the issue—not in all cases, but as I said, to my knowledge, those representing rural ridings have upgraded their Internet to a standard that is acceptable in the House and in committee.

At this point, I think we should move forward now, as the government House leader said, to look at the modern and current situation and act accordingly.

Thanks.

I believe we have consensus at the table. Everybody is nodding their head in favour.

The question is timing. I understand that it was in place until the end of March. Is that a good time to stop it from continuing? If we do it right away, it might cause some confusion.

I propose ending it on March 31, at the same time as the policy.

The expiration of the rule will cause it to sunset. Is that fair? Does that work well?

Over to you, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

That's fine with us, Mr. Chair.

I think people have heard or read that almost every party has already opted to halt the practice. Logically, then, there shouldn't be any requests coming in, since each caucus came to the decision on its own.

I understand that, from an administrative standpoint, the rule has to expire, so it's better for that to coincide with the end of the fiscal year. It's important for those following today's proceedings to understand that the members of each caucus made the decision to put an end to the practice.

Very good.

Everyone is in agreement, then.

Everything is in place. Very good. I believe we have unanimous consent, which is nice.

Now we'll move on to number four.

Monsieur St George, Monsieur Fernandez and Ms. Lafontaine will be presenting on the quarterly financial report for the third quarter of 2022-23.

Go ahead, Monsieur St George.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today, I am presenting the quarterly financial report for the third quarter of 2022‑23.

This unaudited report, based on a modified cash basis of accounting, was prepared by the administration. I attest to the accuracy and reliability of the information provided in the report.

As of December 31, the House had spent $391.6 million, which is an increase of $24.8 million over the same quarter last year.

The increase is mainly due to four items.

The first accounts for more than half of the increase, so $11.6 million, resulting from an increase in travel costs as activity levels on Parliament Hill increased and public health restrictions were lifted.

The second item represents an increase of $3.6 million in equipment costs, mainly due to equipment delivery delays in the previous year and IT projects in support of members and equipment life-cycling.

The third item is also attributable to increased parliamentary activities and amounts to $3.1 million for supplies for food services and printing services.

Finally, the fourth item accounts for $2.7 million, an increase mainly for IT projects and initiatives related to members' security enhancements and higher hospitality costs.

Most importantly, it should be noted that as of December 31, the House was operating within the approved authorities, and there are no other financial material variances or concerns to bring to the board's attention.

Mr. Speaker, this concludes my presentation. I welcome any questions the board may have.