Publication Search

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to the eleventh meeting of the Board of Internal Economy of the 44th Parliament.

We'll start off with the minutes of the previous meeting.

We have a point of order, or a request from Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a point of order and also a request.

I move to reverse items 6 and 7, and to take item 9 following item 4.

The idea is to concentrate all the decisions concerning members and administrative rules affecting members so that we can review them today. That is my first proposal.

I would like to know if my colleagues agree with that.

Do we have everyone's agreement?

Mr. Brassard would like to speak

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I don't disagree with Madame DeBellefeuille, I think we should be going right in camera and dealing with item 8 first and item 7 second. I think we can defer item 6 in camera to later, and then we move into the public portion of the meeting after that. My suggestion would be that we move to item 4 in the public portion after we finish with those two items in camera. I think they're very timely matters that need to be addressed. That would be my proposal, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, is this acceptable?

I don't object to this, but I still want to warn my colleagues. We may have one more meeting to go. I really want to make sure that, before we leave at the end of June, we have made decisions on all the things that have to do with constituency offices, MPs' budgets, and so on. I would like to make sure that we deal with all of those items today or, perhaps, next week.

That's fine.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

I agree with Mrs. DeBellefeuille on this. Given our agenda, we will meet next week, it is unavoidable. It is better to determine what we want to discuss today. I agree with Mrs. DeBellefeuille that item 4 and item 9 are important and that we need to determine what we will discuss next week.

Since we will also be holding part of the meeting in camera, we need to establish what would be the best way to proceed. It seems to me that we could set a time today to go into closed session, after we have considered items 4 and 9. I would agree to that. The other important items could be deferred to next week.

Mr. Holland, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's my view that we have an agenda in front of us. I'm comfortable with the order that's there. I think, if we want to invert this to be in camera, we could talk about that, but doing so would be left for in camera. I think we should just proceed with the agenda we have.

Go ahead, Mr. Brassard.

Thank you.

After hearing the discussion again, I think we can get through four items today, two in camera as a priority, and two in public.

If I hear Madame DeBellefeuille correctly, items 9 and 4 are the in public priorities. I agree with that. In camera I would suggest numbers 7 and 8, and if there is an opportunity to meet next week to deal with these other issues, then we're prepared to do that at any point at the beginning of the week or at the end of the week, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. That would be my recommendation.

Do we have consent to adopt the new order, which would be item number 8 followed by number 7, and then over to number 4 and then to number 9?

Does that make sense? Did I read that correctly?

I hadn't understood it that way.

No?

I understood that we would start with items 4 and 9 in public, and then move into closed session later.

I see.

I had understood that we would meet in camera at first, but we can—

Mr. Brassard, you have the floor.

I think there is a priority on the part of the committee to deal with item 8, considering that we're running up to a timeline. I don't expect items 7 and 8 will take much discussion, and I expect that perhaps item 4 and item 9 will take longer discussions, but I expect that we could get through these four items within the allotted time.

I guess what I'm looking for is direction.

First of all, do we agree on the change, and what will that change be? Do we go the public route first and then over to the in camera route, or vice versa? I'm hearing different stories.

My proposal is that we go in camera first and then we go public second.

Okay. That's what I had heard.

Is that acceptable?

In the interest of consensus, Mr. Chair, I will cede on that.

Mr. Holland is shaking his head.

No...?

No. We have an agenda to deal with the in camera item. I don't mind it if you want to start with a priority item, but I think we have to deal with that first.

My preference would be to do public first. I don't think it will take a lot of time, as we've had conversations on it. I think it should be dealt with first.

Are we okay to start with numbers 4 and 9 and then come back in camera?

Okay. We're fine.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit a brief point of order about next week's business.

You are aware of the security event that occurred on Parliament Hill. All MPs received alerts to inform them of the emergency situation. As you know, the French alert message arrived eight minutes after the English alert message. The form and colour of the message was different from the messages we usually receive. There are even members of my caucus who thought that hackers had sent the message.

I have spoken with the Sergeant‑at‑Arms about this, and he is well informed about the situation. However, we would like to see a report so that we can find out the cause of this discrepancy. If an event with serious consequences were to occur, it would be problematic for the French-speaking people to receive the alert message eight minutes after the English-speaking people.

I would like clarification on this. If you could add this to the agenda for next week's meeting, I would be very grateful.

Very well.

I think we're all in agreement to ask that the Sergeant‑at‑Arms give a report at the next meeting, which is next Thursday.

We will start with item 8 on the agenda.

I'm sorry. We're going to go in camera first.

We do the public first.

I'm sorry. That's my mistake.

We've gone back and forth so many times I got confused.

That's fine. We'll start with number 4: “Cost Pressures on Members' Budgets”.

Mr. St George and Mr. Fernandez will make their presentation.

Mr. Chair, I believe we have Mr. d'Entremont here for the third item, and I guess the question would be whether we allow him to get back to his day.

Realistically, Mr. d'Entremont, if you don't mind coming back at our next meeting...?

I'm wonderful for the next meeting and my report as long as that is okay.

We apologize for bringing you out.

It's not a problem, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Julian. That's a good point.

While we're still public, do we want to cover item number 2?

This item pertains to business arising from the previous meeting.

Everything is okay? Good. We've done one. We've done two.

Now we'll go to number 4: “Cost Pressures on Members' Budgets”.

Mr. St George, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am submitting proposals to the Board of Internal Economy that are intended to address questions raised by members of the board, that have been analyzed by the House of Commons Administration. These issues relate to the impact of rising costs caused by the growth in the property market and the increase in the limit on advertising expenditures.

The first question relates to constituency offices. Over the past five fiscal years, the median monthly rental costs of these offices have increased by more than members' budgets.

To provide members with greater budgetary flexibility, the administration is requesting that the board allow members to charge the equivalent of $3,000 per month for rental costs to the central budget. This amount is based on median constituency office rental costs.

The administration also requests that the board authorize the chief financial officer to review the maximum threshold annually based on the consumer price index.

The administration would monitor the impact of additional costs charged to the central budget, and if necessary, submit a request for funding through the 2022‑23 supplementary estimates and the 2023‑24 main estimates.

The second item relates to secondary residence rental costs, which is the largest expenditure under the travel status expense account. The administration observed that the average rental costs incurred by members have increased by about 20% over the past five fiscal years, while the account increased by approximately 10% during that same period. As a result, the administration proposes that the board approve a one-time increase of 10% to the travel status expense account to offset the increase in secondary residence rental costs.

The final item relates to the advertising limit, which was temporarily increased by 10% to 20% of members' office budgets, as of April 2020. The administration proposes that the advertising expense account limit be set permanently at 20% of the member’s office budget, to provide members with greater flexibility to communicate with their constituents during the pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, this concludes my presentation. I would be pleased to answer any questions that the members may have.

Are there any questions or comments?

We'll have Mr. MacKinnon, followed by Mr. Julian.

Mr. MacKinnon.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'd also like to thank the House Administration staff for their work. On behalf of many of my colleagues across party lines, I can certainly say that there are more and more challenges in providing services to the public.

A great deal of pressure is also mounting around wages, as Mr. St George mentioned. We are far from parity where staff is concerned. So we face a challenge in terms of keeping wages competitive as well. There are also issues in terms of where services are provided to the public.

We would prefer to be on main streets so we can be conveniently located for all our constituents. Rents are up across the board.

Thank you very much for your analysis, and I draw the same conclusions as you.

The geographic location of offices also presents challenges. You mentioned constituencies that are large in area or have a high population density.

In your analysis, do you plan to look at differences between ridings across the country, on which we could base future adjustments?

In our analysis, we looked at supplements provided to MPs based on the regions or constituencies they represent. In particular, I'm talking about the supplements provided based on the number of constituents and geographic location. The supplements are paid to account for the added pressures there might be in urban centres or in rural areas, where expenses such as travel costs can be a little higher.

We continue to monitor budget utilization to determine if there may be pressures in that respect.

Perfect.

Now we'll go to Mr. Julian, followed by Mr. Calkins and then over to Mr. Brassard.

Mr. Julian.

Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important question. We are, as members of Parliament, really the last line of defence for Canadians who are looking for support in a wide variety of federal issues and in interaction with federal ministries. My riding office in downtown New Westminster is an example of that. We've helped about 20,000 people over the years, but we're finding that there are more and more people who are coming in to seek assistance. As a parliamentarian, I have the job of making sure they get that assistance.

When Kabul fell there was literally a lineup. I'm on Carnarvon Street in downtown New Westminster. There was a lineup right under the SkyTrain station, and the lineup went around the block and into the area where the SkyTrain station is. The need is very big, but I've certainly found that with the high cost of rent, I'm not able to allocate as much of my budget to making sure that we're actually taking care of the increasing caseloads we're seeing.

I think this proposal helps to address that in part, but I look to the B.C. model. For B.C. members of the legislative assembly, the budget is actually taken out of their members' office budget. It is applied centrally. There are criteria, according to which, for each of the offices there are a certain set number of square metres; one has to make sure it's an accessible office; one has to make sure it has certain limitations in terms of visibility. All of that is set, and so all the members of the B.C. Legislative Assembly have basically the same criteria. It's a system that works extremely well. It means that those MLAs in high-rent districts aren't penalized in providing supports to their constituents compared to MLAs who live in communities where there is much, much lower rent.

My question to Mr. St George and Mr. Fernandez is to what extent they have examined the B.C. model. I would suggest, in terms of the recommendations, that part of those be to mandate the administration to look at the B.C. model and to make recommendations at a future Board of Internal Economy so that we can look at the best practice, which to my mind is, really, the one in B.C., in terms of ensuring that members' office budgets really go to providing services and not to the increasing amount of rent.

Were you able to look at the B.C. model? Is it appropriate that you'd come back with recommendations at a future meeting?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Julian.

We did look at a couple of models. We do intend, obviously, to look at them further. However, currently, we feel that in the existing model we have we do have supplements that look at electoral and geographical locations. Therefore we already have various levers that are in place to ensure that there's equity from that perspective.

Certainly it's something we could go back to look at a little more closely. We'd have to come back with an understanding of what the full impact to the members' constituents would be, in terms of the contracts, the insurance, etc. We certainly can do that.

Thank you. So you would be amenable to that.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to suggest that we add to the instructions to the administration that they come back at a future meeting with recommendations based on best practices. Perhaps there are other jurisdictions that have taken a similar approach, but the B.C. model seems to me to have really appropriate ramifications for how we structure our work at the local level.

Do we have consensus on requesting that from Mr. St George? I believe we do.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.

I'm not sure. I understand the argument being made, but does it keep us from adopting these recommendations?

No.

No, not at all. We're asking Mr. St George to submit a report so we can determine if there will be other solutions in the future.

We're good with that.

Now we'll go to Mr. Calkins, followed by Mr. Brassard.

Then it will be Mrs. DeBellefeuille's turn.

I just want to speak to what Mr. Julian brought forward.

Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Look, I don't necessarily have a problem with asking for it, but I think we're asking the administration to tackle something that's extremely difficult, considering the breadth of the country and the number of regions we have. The various costs associated with living in numerous cities in numerous provinces are going to be much more substantive than they are for simply looking after the needs and modelling after a single province, like British Columbia, with one relatively concentrated area. Two-thirds of the population of British Columbia live in the GVA-Victoria area. It's a completely different thing from what we have for the country.

I guess that doesn't stop us from trying, but I wouldn't want to be the one to have to undertake that task. I'm pretty satisfied with what we're actually doing right here.

What exactly are we saying here? We're not asking for a report, or we are, or there's a problem with asking for some kind of examination?

Go ahead, Mr. MacKinnon.

I would support Mr. Julian's suggestion that we have an analysis of some of the things that he mentioned. I endorse the proposal as a whole, unless there are further comments.

Very good.

We'll continue....

Mr. Brassard, did you want to add to that?

Mr. Chair, first of all, I want to thank the administration for coming back with this suggestion. Obviously, staff have been extremely.... The demand for their efforts has been extremely high over the course of the COVID pandemic. We've seen that in our office with the amount of interactions we've had.

This will help, and we're hearing from our members about the retention of staff and the pay impacts. This will help with that. It's my intention to use any realized savings—because of the central budget looking after the office—to increase the salaries of my staff, because they deserve it, quite frankly, and they are relatively low paid, in my view, compared with some of the other work that goes on.

I would suggest one thing, and I'm going to look for consensus on this, Mr. Chair. In the course of the fiscal year, we're allowed to give one raise to our staff members. In some circumstances...certainly in my circumstance, I have done that at this point. I would ask that consensus be sought for a recommendation that we add a waiver for the one-year spacing between employee raises.

If it is the intent of members to use this money to augment salaries for our employees, some of those employees have already received an increase this year. That would make them ineligible until the next year.

I'm looking for some consensus to allow that to occur, Mr. Chair.

Is that something that we—

Agreed. That's a good point.

—would take care of in camera, along with number seven?

We could.

I think that would be a more appropriate place for it.

That's fine. I know we're public. I want to signal that, because it could be a problem for some members that we need to realize, but we can deal with it in camera.

It seems like it would fit better in item number seven, which is our fourth item.

Perfect. Thank you.

I think the argument's already been made, and it seems like there's some consensus, so we'll move on and get back to that one in a second.

Right now, we have Mr. Calkins, followed by Mr. Brassard

Then it will be Mrs. DeBellefeuille's turn.

Go ahead, Mr. Calkins.

I wanted to get some clarification on the travel status expense account, because this is problematic for some colleagues.

My understanding is that for those colleagues who choose to purchase a secondary residence or have a residence that they own here in the capital region, there is an allocation for them to...I think it's $50 a day, if my memory serves me correctly.

Can you confirm that's the case?

Yes. For the ones who own, it's $50 a day.

That has been in place since 2003. Is that correct?

I don't recall, but we can find it.

It's been a long time.

It has been for some time.

Any of the increase that we're proposing to the travel status expense account right now would be beneficial to people who stay in hotels or stay in a rented apartment. Would anybody who stays in a purchased residence see any change to that?

No, since the maximum they can claim is $50 per day.

All right.

The other thing I would like to get some clarification on is the use of the travel status expense account for members, even when they're outside their home province. If a member of Parliament is outside of their home province, they must use the travel status expense account for any hotels or accommodations, whether they're in Ottawa or not.

Is that correct?

When they're outside the national capital region, they have a choice. They can either charge it to their TSEA or the MOB. That's why there's some...they can maximize. The TSEA is only for the use of the member. It's not for their employees. They can charge on this account the accommodation and per diem expenses they incur while travelling in the constituency, the province or elsewhere in Canada as well.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Brassard.

You're fine? Very good.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille, you have the floor.

I will be brief.

I want to thank the House Administration staff for doing an analysis based on documented data in record time. They listened to the staff in the members' offices, our staff and our teams. I support all the recommendations before us.

I agree with Mr. MacKinnon when he says that perhaps we should be doing more in-depth analysis of the supplements based on number of constituents and riding size.

It's more expensive for rural MPs to travel to their ridings. For example, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean said yesterday that it takes him an hour and a half from his constituency office to get to Normandin to attend a dinner, and that doesn't include the time it takes to get back. That's a total of three hours' driving time. It's a lot of time and mileage.

I agree with Mr. MacKinnon that these supplements must be reviewed at some point. I think it's important, particularly for ridings that cover a lot of area and include many municipalities, which translates into a lot of travel and driving to meet with constituents.

Thank you very much. I urge you to close the debate so that this passes.

Mr. Julian, the floor is yours.

Mrs. DeBellefeuille summed up the proposal well.

I would also like to thank the finance team for this.

I think the decision will lead to better quality services for the public. That's basically what the work of parliamentarians is all about.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Holland.

You're on mute, Mr. Holland, or there's a glitch of some sort.

Can you hear me now?

We can hear you. It's perfect.

You can hear me and I can't hear you.

The interpreter is indicating to me that the sound quality is very poor, which is making her job difficult.

I will have to replug this.

Anyway, I'll figure that out later.

There's no interpretation, apparently, due to the quality of the sound.

Okay.

How about now?

That's good. Please proceed.

There's something wrong with that other headset. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, yes, I'll extend my thanks to the House Administration. The reality is that our offices provide essential functions on the front lines for Canadians. This will go entirely, I think, towards assisting constituency offices to be able to help their staff. I think that's important.

I have a question to follow up on Mr. Calkins' question. There hasn't been an adjustment in the daily amount for those who own a residence. I'm sorry; I just want to confirm that it's not contemplated to change that $50 a day in this as well. There's no adjustment to that.

That is correct. It's not in the proposal today for an adjustment.

Okay. I was just curious what the logic was if there's an adjustment being made for 10% for the budget generally and for other related expenses but not to adjust that expense. It hasn't been adjusted in a long time. Would it not also make sense to adjust that?

Monsieur George or Monsieur Patrice can take that.

I believe Mr. Patrice wants to take this question.

Yes, given the discussion that we had today and the various elements that were raised, obviously it was our intention to proceed with a deeper analysis of all of the cost pressures and our different rules to simplify and clarify them. Obviously we'll consult with the various House leaders, whips and so on to address ongoing matters that would create issues. The administration will do that review in consultation with the various whips over the course of the summer to address any kind of inconsistencies or pressures that need to be addressed.

Just as a final point on that, Mr. Chair, if there is a process by which these things are adjusted automatically, as many other items are, so that we don't have to deal with this on an ongoing basis, it should be adjusted as costs change. It would change in the way that the per diems automatically change.

That makes sense so that we don't have to continue revisiting it, but I would just posit that, if you are changing the other amounts, and this amount hasn't been changed in a long time, it would seem logical to me that there also be a change there. That seems to be a bit of a miss.

I don't know if other people have the same feeling. I would be comfortable applying the change to that as well.

Then what we are doing is this. I seem to have consensus on the recommendations, and we will be coming back with a report. The staff will be coming back with a report on the office costs, possibly looking at the B.C. model.

From there, the other issues will be looked at on a separate basis, so we are good.

Very good, we'll continue then with item number 9, “Professional Development Project and Training for Members' Employees”.

I believe Ms. Daigle will be making the presentation. Am I correct?

Yes, okay, we'll let Ms. Daigle continue, and Ms. Laframboise will be there as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I am submitting a proposal for the professional development project and training for members' employees.

In June 2021, the Board of Internal Economy approved a one‑year pilot project to support professional development for MP employees. As part of this pilot project, each MP was provided with up to $5,000 from the central budget to support training and development to support members in their parliamentary duties. The pilot project coincided with the summer break and the fall election, which took place in the context of a pandemic.

The limited use of the pilot project has made it difficult to assess its success. To date, 111 MPs have participated in the pilot project, incurring total expenditures of approximately $150,000. This figure reflects only the use of the pilot project for MPs' employees since employees of senior agencies and research offices were not included in the initial pilot project.

Given the timing of the pilot, we are recommending that the pilot project period be extended until March 31, 2023. This will allow for better evaluation and review of the pilot.

We are also recommending that the pilot include the employees of House officers and national caucus research offices. Caps would be set based on employee counts commensurate with MP offices.

In a related but separate note, in reviewing the delivery of training offering some members' staff, we are also recommending that the existing health and safety training as well as retirement planning training for members' staff be charged centrally.

I am happy to take any questions from the board members.

Are there questions or comments?

Go ahead, Mrs. DeBellefeuille.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that I am fully support the recommendation.

I recall a certain meeting during which Mr. Holland convinced us to approve this pilot project with the support of the entire Board of Internal Economy.

As a member of Parliament, I have used this budget. In the context of a pandemic, it is very demanding for our staff to work and serve the public. Our staff need resourcing, additional training, and support. I can tell you that this budget is very well spent and very useful for our human resources.

We also have very good support from your organization, Ms. Daigle. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, as I've learned through the grapevine that you have to leave us, because you've been promoted. I'm very proud of you, and I'm sure that the people you'll be working for are very lucky to have your expertise.

Personally, as whip, I have enjoyed working with you and your team. I salute your professionalism and take advantage of the fact that this part of the meeting is public to thank you for your dedication and your professional rigour. I wanted to put that on the record.