//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25454AndrewScheerAndrew-ScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ScheerAndrew_CPC.jpgInterventionHon. Andrew Scheer (Speaker of the House of Commons): (1100)[English]Thank you, and good morning. It's always a pleasure to come and visit this great group of parliamentarians. I am very pleased to be here today, along with Marc Bosc, the deputy clerk of the House of Commons, and Mark Watters, the chief financial officer.We're also joined by other members of the House administration's executive management team: Stéphan Aubé, the chief information officer; Richard Denis, the deputy law clerk and parliamentary counsel; Pierre Parent, the chief human resources officer; and Kevin Vickers, the sergeant-at-arms.[Translation]Today, I will be presenting the House of Commons' main estimates and the supplementary estimates (A) for 2014-2015. I will begin with a presentation on the main estimates and will conclude with information on funding requested in the supplementary estimates (A).[English]The 2014-15 main estimates total $413,725,137. This represents a decrease of 3.5% compared to the 2013-14 main estimates funding levels, and a 7.2% reduction from the 2012-13 main estimates. For reference purposes, you have received a document outlining the year-over-year changes for the main estimates between 2013-14 and 2014-15. I'll proceed by providing an overview of each line item, along with four major themes: budgets for members, House officers and presiding officers; House administration; reductions under the structural operating review; and employee benefit plans.To start, I would like to speak to the budgets for members, House officers, and presiding officers. Even when we exclude the reductions achieved under the strategic and operating review, this portion of our estimates was reduced by over $1.1 million. This figure includes both the statutory increases to the sessional allowance and additional salaries, as well as the statutory reductions to the members of Parliament retiring allowances account, and the retirement compensation arrangements account. The reductions seen as a result of both pension adjustments amount to $1.9 million. As you may remember, the cost to the House of Commons for contributions to members' pension plans is determined and managed by Treasury Board, based on actuarial calculations.(1105)[Translation]Let us now look at matters that relate to the Administration of the House of Commons.First, you will note that the main estimates allocate $1.4 million for increased transparency resulting from changes to the public reporting of members' expenditures.This funding requirement is further to the announcement made by the Board of Internal Economy in October 2013 that we will move to an enhanced disclosure format, as well as towards quarterly reporting for the Members' Expenditures Report.[English]Notably, these changes to improve transparency will include the presentation of service contracts as a stand-alone category, separate members' accommodation expenses for members' per diem expenses, and subdivide the hospitality category. Additionally, more information will be made available regarding the use of all special travel points, and this will, as well, be disclosed quarterly. The first enhanced quarterly members' expenditure report covering the period from April 1 to June 30 will be published by September 30 of this year. While the funding requirements are not reflected in these main estimates, I do want to mention that the members' expenditure report for the second quarter of fiscal year 2014-15 will be further enhanced to bring House of Commons reporting for travel and hospitality expenses in line with proactive disclosure practices of ministers' offices. Extensive system changes are currently under way and will be reflected in a further report which will be available to the public by December 31, 2014. Increasing transparency has been a priority of the Board of Internal Economy for some time, and the board remains committed to finding ways in which we can continue to improve.Moving on from disclosure, the main estimates also allocate an additional $190,000 in compensation for House administration employees. This funding is specifically used to cover economic increases for 2014-15 for collective agreements ending after March 31, 2014.[Translation]Additionally, the main estimates once again account for temporary funding for two parliamentary conferences: the 40th  Annual Session of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie and the 11th Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic region. These two upcoming conferences will be excellent opportunities to showcase Canada, foster parliamentary diplomacy and advance Canadian objectives internationally.The funding decisions for both of these conferences were taken by the Board of Internal Economy, in keeping with the recommendations by the Joint Interparliamentary Council.[English]The 40th annual session of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie requires temporary funding of $184,000 for 2014-15. This session will be taking place this July in Ottawa.Further, the 11th Conference of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region requires temporary funding of $132,000 for 2014-15. The event will be held in Whitehorse this October.There is also a $25,000 increase that is required for pages' remuneration under the House of Commons page program. In December 2010 the board approved a permanent annual increase to the compensation for pages that is equal to the average increases in tuition fees at the University of Ottawa and Carleton University. I am certain we can all agree that we want to continue to recruit top young Canadians for the page program. By linking their pay to their tuition rates, we ensure that they remain fairly compensated for their valuable work. For fiscal year 2014-15 the annual compensation for each page increased by $536 to $13,584.[Translation]Finally, you will note that the main estimates reflect reductions for two instances of temporary funding: the online recruitment tool and asset management. This combined funding of $669,000 is no longer required.(1110)[English]Let us now turn to the reductions that are being achieved as a result of the House of Commons strategic and operating review. As you know, on March 12, 2012, the Board of Internal Economy approved a savings and reduction strategy that is seeing spending for the House of Commons decrease by $30.3 million, or 6.9% of the overall budget.For the 2014-15 main estimates, the reductions amount to $13.5 million and are being achieved through a number of key initiatives that I will cover briefly. Notably, there are reductions to House officers' office budgets in keeping with the decreases per year for the past two fiscal years. These amount to savings of $600,000.Additionally, the reductions include significant savings that have been achieved by the increased use of flight passes and low-fare economy travel. As you well know, regular travel is a necessity for members, and it is an area in which we have been able to collectively achieve substantial savings.The constituency office furniture and equipment improvement fund will be eliminated in 2014-15, resulting in savings of more than $1.5 million. This fund was used to supplement existing stocks of equipment and furniture for members' constituency offices. Going forward, members will make use of their own office budgets should they wish to supplement or improve their office furnishings.Furthermore, savings of $3.6 million are being achieved through the reduction of personnel-related costs. Since January 2014, employees of members, House officers, and research offices are being granted vacation leave in lieu of automatic lump-sum vacation payments. This change brings our practices in line with the standard practices used by nearly all public and private sector employers.[Translation]For 2014-2015, there are further reductions to the Liaison Committee funding envelope. These reductions are in line with measures taken by members of parliamentary committees, as they too continue their ongoing efforts to limit spending and find efficiencies.Additionally, further cost savings and reductions for the House of Commons Administration are being achieved through a combination of budget reductions, administrative operational efficiencies, attrition and a limited number of workforce adjustment situations.The House Administration management team has put forth great efforts to limit the impact on its employees, and where there have been impacts, a work force adjustment policy is in place to facilitate employment continuity for indeterminate employees.[English]The final item that is included in the 2014-15 main estimates is a reduction of $1.6 million to employee benefit plans. This is a non-discretionary statutory expense that, in accordance with Treasury Board benefit rates, has decreased from 17.4% of salaries to 16.5% of salaries.This concludes our overview of the House of Commons main estimates for 2014-15. I would now like to move on to the House of Commons request of $5,048,736 in supplementary estimates (A). This request included funding for three items. The first item, which was previously approved by the board, is for $81,000 to fund a 1% economic increase for House administration senior managers as of April 1, 2013. This economic increase is in line with the 1% increase approved by the Treasury Board for the executive group throughout the federal public service.The second item, for $1.2 million, is for a 2014-15 annual adjustment of members' sessional allowance and additional salaries. This funding is statutory in nature and is based on an index published by Employment and Social Development Canada.[Translation]The final item included in the supplementary estimates is funding of $3.8 million required for the ongoing yearly maintenance and life cycle replacement costs for information technology assets. As established in the Long-Term Vision and Plan, there is a need to equip all buildings in the parliamentary precinct with information technology and related infrastructure required for access to information services in order to ensure the effective functioning of Parliament. The board approved this funding on a five-year basis starting in 2014-2015, and the House Administration must return to the board on a yearly basis to refresh the five-year estimates via the main estimates process.(1115)[English]I am confident you will agree that the 2014-15 main estimates and supplementary estimates (A) reflect both the Board of Internal Economy's and the House of Commons' commitment to continued cost containment. We have been able to find efficiencies and make reductions by carefully analyzing our expenditures. While I am pleased that the main estimates I discussed here today represent a 7.2% reduction over those I presented two years ago, I assure you that we will continue to make every effort to find further efficiencies while providing high-quality support to parliamentarians.At this time we would all be happy to answer your questions.Air transportationAssemblée parlementaire de la FrancophonieBudget cutsConstituency officesEmployment benefitsEventsGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of CommonsHouse of Commons administrationHouse of Commons pagesHouse of Commons staffIncome and wagesInformation technologyLiaison CommitteeMain estimates 2014-2015ManagersMembers of ParliamentParliament Buildings Renovation ProjectPensions and pensionersSpeaker and other presiding officials of the HouseStaffingStanding Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic RegionStrategic review processSupplementary estimates (A) 2014-2015Vacation pay37734683773469377347037734713773472JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30314BradButtBrad-ButtMississauga—StreetsvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ButtBrad_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC): (1115)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.Welcome, Mr. Speaker.I would like to start by congratulating you, your executive team, and really all of the MPs in the House for the cost savings and expenditure reductions that have been achieved. I think it has been a real team effort. I think we're setting the benchmark and setting the trend for the reality of the world and certainly Canada today that you live within your means, and that expenditures are reasonable and according to appropriate rules and within appropriate levels. I want to congratulate everyone involved in that. It's great to see a 7.2% reduction over the past two years, so kudos to all of you for that great work.I would like to talk about the $1.4 million that you are requesting with respect to the new MP disclosure system. Can you give us more of a breakdown of the $1.4 million? Is it software-related or capital-related? Is it for employees who need to be hired to administer the new enhanced disclosure system? I think all MPs are looking forward to this, because it will be a uniform system across the board for every MP disclosing expenditures in a similar way throughout. I think it's a great initiative. I'd just like a better breakdown of the $1.4 million, please.Government accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of CommonsMain estimates 2014-2015Members of ParliamentSupplementary estimates (A) 2014-201537735023773503JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAndrewScheerRegina—Qu'Appelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25454AndrewScheerAndrew-ScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ScheerAndrew_CPC.jpgInterventionHon. Andrew Scheer: (1115)[English]Perhaps I could ask Mark to answer regarding some of the specifics in terms of the percentages, but I can tell you that most of it will be going to staff, to bringing on employees to manage all of the transactions. One of the points that came up during the discussion on this was that members of Parliament and their staff travel a great deal more than even ministers and staff of ministerial offices and other sectors of the public service do, so tracking all of that will require additional human resources. There will also be some one-time software costs and licensing types of expenditures for the computer aspects of disclosure. I don't know if we have a more detailed breakdown with regard to percentage.Government accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of CommonsMain estimates 2014-2015StaffingSupplementary estimates (A) 2014-2015377350437735053773506BradButtMississauga—StreetsvilleMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters (Chief Financial Officer, House of Commons): (1115)[English] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chair, we are planning on hiring—well, we actually did because this was done in the fall of last year, and the committee agreed with the request for supplementary estimates last year to fund this partially—13 employees, 11 of those in my sector, in finance, and 2 in IT, as well as ongoing support for the good care and nurturing of those employees, in terms of offices and supplies, and those types of things, and mostly to look after the interrelationship with the members. We get a lot of questions from members about their accounts and those are answered as those transactions are processed. Often they're answered again. When the reports are ready to be published, we get questions and members say, “Can you please recall for me and reconcile for me the use of my points? I'd like to go over those reports again in more detail.” We do a lot of transactional work and mostly clerical work with members and their offices.Government accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of CommonsMain estimates 2014-2015StaffingSupplementary estimates (A) 2014-201537735083773509AndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleBradButtMississauga—Streetsville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott: (1145)[English]Thank you very much.The next question may go through you, Mr. Speaker, but Mr. Watters might be in a better position to answer it. We had some questions from Mr. Butt about the amount of extra budget that will be needed to have a properly functioning office with respect to higher transparency of MP expenses. It was indicated that a fair chunk of that would be towards personnel. I'm just wondering, have we gotten to the point where...? Are there any issues around health of employees related to stress due to workload flow in any departments, including in finance? Are we absolutely content that we have the right number of personnel, or are we actually getting to the point of losing efficiencies because of stress issues?Government accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of CommonsMain estimates 2014-2015Members of ParliamentParliamentary staffSupplementary estimates (A) 2014-201537736583773659AndrewScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonDavidBrockDavid-BrockInterventionMr. David Brock: (1225)[English]Great, thank you for that question. Thank you for raising one of the matters that was addressed in my brief that I didn't have time to address in my opening statement.Perhaps I can say three things about the provision that would require Treasury Board approval to remunerate officials working for Elections Canada to provide technical assistance or other specialized knowledge. One thing is it is difficult to discern from the bill as it's currently written how that might be applied, because we have no cases of implementation to draw upon, so in some ways I'm working from an understanding of what I think the implication of the bill would be, but we would have a better understanding if this were implemented, and my hope is that it won't be, as I've made clear in the brief.There are two issues here. One is that Elections Canada often engages individuals in the area of research or in specialized technical work within the institution, and they're very good about publishing the results of that work. I, as Chief Electoral Officer in a smaller jurisdiction by number of electors, and in this case even by geography, rely upon that work because Elections NWT has nowhere near the capacity of Elections Canada to produce that kind of what is really world-class research on electoral behaviour and election administration. In addition to that, I don't believe that university academics would fill that gap because, having spent some time in that area, and Dr. Archer knows this better than anyone, political scientists or others are mandated to respond to gaps in the theoretical literature, not necessarily to address public policy challenges that Elections Canada or the Parliament of Canada may be facing in a very short amount of time.My final point is one which I think is fundamental to a few provisions in the bill. I think it is important in this country to think carefully about the relationship between officers of Parliament or, in my case, officers of a legislative assembly, and the executive. I think that going back to 1920, the understanding was that we needed to have an impartial body that did not have an accountability or reporting requirement to the government, but rather had that requirement to the legislature, and Elections Canada is perhaps the strongest example of that in the world.My concern with this provision is perhaps inconsequential as it could be in the long term, depending on how it's implemented, that it fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between Elections Canada and the Parliament of Canada. The office of the Chief Electoral Officer is not an arm of the executive. The office of the Chief Electoral Officer is an agent of Parliament, and the accountability relationship and responsibility is owed to Parliament as a whole. C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain ActsCompensationElection officialsElectoral systemGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsOfficers of Parliament363887036388713638872CraigScottToronto—DanforthCraigScottToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)): (1100)[English]Good morning to everyone.We're here with the order of reference of Monday, October 21, on the review of the Board of Internal Economy.Welcome to all today.Madam Legault, it's great to have you here with us again. We're going to let you make an opening statement, and then we'll ask you questions.Please go ahead.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination34974543497455349745634974573497458SuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault (Information Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada): (1100)[Translation]Good morning, Mr. Chair.[English]I am here this morning with Nancy Bélanger. She is the general counsel at the Office of the Information Commissioner.Mr. Chair, my remarks will be very brief this morning.I really welcome the opportunity to provide my views to the committee on the motion to increase the transparency and accountability of the House of Commons. I will limit my comments this morning to whether there should be modifications to existing laws to ensure greater transparency and accountability. You will not be surprised to hear that I am advocating this morning in favour of extending the coverage of the Access to Information Act to the administration of Parliament.[Translation]Access to information legislation gives citizens a legal framework to seek and get answers about how the institutions that govern them spend their tax dollars. The legislation also sets out the limitations to that right—as it is not an absolute right—and the independent review of disclosure decisions.In my view, the only way to ensure transparency, accountability and effective oversight is for parliamentary institutions to be covered by the Access to Information Act.Both the Standing Committee on Justice, in 1986-87, and the Access to Information Review Task Force, in 2002, made similar recommendations.Internationally, the UK Freedom of Information legislation applies to the administration of Parliament but it exempts records if their disclosure would infringe the privileges of Parliament. Discussions with my colleagues at the Information Commissioner's Office of Great Britain led me to believe that these provisions are working fairly well. It is my understanding that that is what the committee was told by IPSA during its review. Obviously, IPSA is subject to Britain's access to information legislation.During the hearings thus far, there has been a lot of discussion on proactive disclosure and whether or not the new rules set out by the Board of Internal Economy are sufficient.[English]In my view, proactive disclosure of expenses is a necessary step to making detailed information available to the public. Consistent proactive disclosure across the board for all institutions of Parliament can be done in a detailed way, in an open, accessible, and reusable format, on a regular cycle, and in a timeframe that preserves the relevance of the information. So proactive disclosure is a good thing, and the more of it, the better. However, it isn't enough. In order to promote public trust in public institutions, there is a need not only to increase the availability and the quality of information but also to ensure access to that information. Citizens want to be able to validate the information that is provided to them or to obtain more details about an issue of interest, or simply know that the right is there for them to exercise when needed, which allows them, really, to determine the legitimacy of the spending and not just its legality.In my view, bringing Parliament under the Access to Information Act, with appropriate safeguards, would guarantee that right of Canadians.Thank you.Access to informationBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOffice of the Information Commissioner of Canada3497459349746034974613497462349746334974643497465349746634974673497468349746934974703497471JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): (1105)[English]Thank you very much.Thank you, Madam Legault, for being here.Thank you, Madam Bélanger, for being here as well.As you know, the real purpose of this committee is to determine whether or not the Board of Internal Economy should be replaced with an outside independent agency. You may have some comments on that, but I understand from your opening statement that you really want to concentrate your comments on access to information and how it applies both to Parliament and, I assume, to individual members of Parliament as well.You speak of proactive disclosure and the need for that. As I'm sure you are aware, two of the three recognized parties in Parliament, the Liberal and the Conservative parties, have undertaken to proactively post hospitality and travel expenses from their members of Parliament. The NDP has refused so far to do so. I don't know why, but I'm sure they will have some explaining to do about that.Specifically, I want to get into how members could or should post their expenses online because there is always going to have to be that balance between access to information and privacy concerns. We have heard, at least in a written submission from the Privacy Commissioner, a cautioning to members about some of the infringements on privacy when posting some of the information of their expenses online. So that's where I'd like to ask you how you see that balance should be and perhaps could be affected.I'll give you, perhaps for a point of reference and context, a specific example, because it was mentioned in the Privacy Commissioner's written submission. If there were, say, a group of constituents who came to Ottawa to meet with a member of Parliament, and the member of Parliament then subsequently took them out for dinner and posted that expense online, what level of detail do you believe should be on that web posting? The Privacy Commissioner is cautioning us about naming names. The commissioner suggests perhaps the affiliation or the organization that the constituent or the individual represents rather than the name. But if constituents are coming down on a personal visitation as opposed to a corporate or organizational visitation, would it be sufficient, then, in your estimation, for a member to post that hospitality line as “dinner with constituent” or “dinner with stakeholders”, and the amount? Or do you think there needs to be more information than that? If you do, how does that balance off against the concerns that the Privacy Commissioner has? Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOffice of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada34974753497476349747734974783497479349748034974813497482JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1105)[English] Let me take us back to more generic principles, because I think we're losing ourselves in the details of one specific meal.Let me explain where I'm coming from, because my understanding is that the motion that is before the committee is also going to look at whether amendments need to be made to any other acts in order to promote the desired level of transparency and accountability.In preparing today, it's fine and dandy to say that we're going to disclose more detailed expenses or we're going to decide whether we're going to scan receipts and post receipts. But at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament, the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and the Senate Ethics Officer all together account for roughly $500 million of taxpayers' dollars. None of that is subject to access rights for Canadians. Ministers' offices are not subject to access rights for Canadians. I think that when the committee looks at the level of transparency and accountability we have for Parliament, parliamentarians have to decide what level of accountability Canadians deserve in 2013 and specifically in the context of the recent events that we've been living through in Ottawa. In terms of what should be posted publicly, there are various levels of disclosure, and various levels of disclosure are being proposed, and as far as I can tell, we have been discussing MPs' expenses. In preparing for this, I've also looked at the bylaws of the Board of Internal Economy. There are also budgets allocated to members responsible for national caucus research offices. These are not disclosed anywhere, as far as I can tell, nor is there any level of granularity afforded to those kinds of expenses. There are House officers, including the Speaker's office, that receive a separate budget. In fact, they are specifically exempted from disclosure under the bylaws of the Board of Internal Economy. No documents, nothing that's being tabled before the Board of Internal Economy or being discussed before the Board of Internal Economy, is actually disclosed or disclosable. In fact, under the Parliament of Canada Act, the members of that board have to swear to secrecy.That's the legislation that the committee will have to look at, in my view, in changing the rules that would apply to the Board of Internal Economy.So really to answer the honourable member's question, Mr. Chairman, yes, obviously if anything is disclosed one has to always be mindful of interests of privacy, of interests of constituents, of interests of parliamentary privilege, of interests of solicitor-client privilege. All of these are properly protected under the Access to Information Act. When one looks at deciding what level of disclosure is required, I think that the U.K. model in that respect is interesting, because Parliament is actually subject to the access act. IPSA is subject to the access act. Our conversation with the assistant commissioner in the U.K. basically reveals that the more disclosure there is, the fewer access requests to Parliament there are. They in fact have very few complaints. In terms of the specific level of details on receipts, I understand that there is presently a case in court in the U.K. on that issue. So it is an issue that is not decided.From my perspective, that's the only thing I can say. The more proactive disclosure there is going to be, fine, but it still doesn't give people the right to make access requests and find about these kinds of receipts and about the actual events surrounding those expenses. There is no way to properly protect full privacy, parliamentary privilege, and solicitor-client privilege unless you have a proper legislative framework surrounding it. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349748334974843497485349748634974873497488349748934974903497491TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): (1110)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.And thank you, Madame Legault and Madame Bélanger for your presence here today. I was quite amused by Mr. Lukiwski. After all the Senate scandals with the Conservative and Liberal senators, he's now promising to do better but in the same breath also seemed to hedge on the whole issue of what we've been mandated to do by Parliament, which is replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body—not to study the question, but to do it. Mr. Lukiwski will have the opportunity, of course, Mr. Chair, in the coming days to prove that Conservatives will do better, after all of these repeated scandals and all these problems with transparency.As you know, Madame Legault, the NDP is a strong ally of yours. We had Pat Martin just last week calling for a complete reform of what is a broken Access to Information Act. I know you've been a strong advocate for that. The NDP is your strong ally on it. Liberal and Conservative governments have broken the act, and the principle is that when taxpayers' money is being used, Canadians should have access to that information. We also fully support your call to have the Access to Information Act apply to the administration of Parliament. I don't understand why the other parties seem to object to that; it's just common sense. And you said it so eloquently: we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money that the Conservative government just seems to want to keep beyond what citizens should be able to access.So we're strong allies. What I wanted to do to start off was ask you, in terms of the issue that is in front of us—the whole question of independent oversight.... We've had the Auditor General say very clearly that there needs to be an independent organization that is responsible for MPs' expenses. We support that fully. That's what the motion says that was adopted by Parliament. You've referred to IPSA as well, to IPSA's process, which also allows for access to information at the same time as it applies the independent oversight that the Auditor General was so strong on just a few days ago.My question to you is, do you agree with the idea of independent oversight of MPs' expenses, and do you agree with the approach that IPSA has taken, both in terms of MPs' expenses and independent oversight and in terms of access to information?Access to Information ActBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management349749634974973497498349749934975003497501349750234975033497504JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1115)[English]Mr. Chair, again it's a very complex question. I'm not an expert in how IPSA works versus the Board of Internal Economy. I really think that the Clerk of the House is the best person to put these kinds of questions to.Personally speaking, in terms of administrative efficiency it seems to me, from what we have heard and seen so far, that the Board of Internal Economy administers the House of Commons well, and it has a whole slew of officers—an administrative officer, a financial officer, and all of these things—who seem to be working very well. What is lacking is the independent oversight. Now, the committee can decide to recommend to create another body that would be an independent oversight body, but if that body is still not subject to access to information or if that body is hired through the administration of the House, there has to be some reporting that is done to the Board of Internal Economy, to the Speaker. So I'm not sure that solves the issue the committee seems to be trying to address, which is to get out of the self-supervision that seems to be at issue.It seems to me that the Office of the Auditor General provides independent oversight, and if the House administration were subject to the Access to Information Act, there would also be independent oversight through complaints to my office and through Canadians being able to make access requests. So if one wants to look at the economic administration of it, or the efficiencies related to it, you already have two independent officers of Parliament who are independent from the administration of the House.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management3497505349750634975073497508PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1115)[English]Yes, we appreciate that, and you're calling for changes to the Access to Information Act. I should mention to you that when the Auditor General appeared before us, he said that because of the cutbacks we've seen under this Conservative government in the Auditor General's department, he could undertake comprehensive audits of MPs' expenses, but it would cost Canadians, because he'd have to cut back on important audits elsewhere. As we have seen with the F-35s and military procurement, there is a whole range of issues on which the Conservative government has been appallingly irresponsible when it comes to managing public finances.So the Auditor General's scope needs to be expanded. What he said is that he needs those resources in order to undertake a comprehensive audit of MPs' expenses at the same time as he does the valuable work of looking over all of the various instances of misspending that we're seeing from this current government.In your case, you are saying that IPSA is a model. But do you have any specific suggestions, beyond having the Access to Information Act apply as well to the administration of Parliament, that would create an IPSA-like model? Now we're getting into the details of how we transition to an IPSA-like model. Do you have any specific recommendations that you could make about how we can undertake that transition and assure access to information for the taxpayers who pay our salaries and who should know where that money is being spent?Do you have any specific additions to what you had in your statement?Access to Information ActBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34975093497510349751134975123497513SuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1115)[English]First of all, I didn't say that IPSA was the model. I basically said that IPSA is subject to the Access to Information Act. Whether the Board of Internal Economy.... If the whole administration of the House is subject to the Access to Information Act, whether you actually need to create another body is for the committee to determine. In looking at the costs of being subject to access to information, I did a brief basic estimate, looking at the overall amount of money that's being spent in the government and the amount that is usually spent on access to information—which is 0.06%, by the way. So of the total cost of the whole of government, how much money is allocated to access to information in the whole federal system? It is 0.06%. If you apply that to the budget of the House of Commons, it is about $400,000 that it would cost to subject the House to an access to information regime.Whether my office could sustain an increase in complaints.... As I testified before the ethics committee in the last Parliament, my office is basically submerged with complaints at this time.Access to Information ActBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349751434975153497516PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1115)[English]And this is a concern with other independent parliamentary bodies. We're seeing those bodies starved of resources.You are saying that you need more resources to adequately protect the taxpayers' interests.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34975173497518SuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1120)[English]Oh, for sure.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497519PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): (1120)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.In listening to your presentation, Ms. Legault, my ears perked up when you indicated that proactive disclosure is a good thing. I think that we and the vast majority of Canadians, if not all, would agree that proactive disclosure is a good thing. I notice that Mr. Lukiwski also picked up on that particular point. It is something on which, even though there are two parties in agreement about progressing, we have already taken the next step. We are saying that Liberal MPs and Liberal senators have to participate in proactive disclosure.The issue, of course, is that it has that much more meaning if in fact it is administered to all political parties and is done through the administration. We hope to be able to achieve that. It's been difficult, because the NDP do not want to participate in proactive disclosure, but we'll continue to try to get those reforms brought in.That was more of a political statement than anything else. I will get to my question.You also made the comment that “in order to promote trust in public institutions...”. Well, we have made other suggestions, such as having performance audits conducted on expenditures on a more regular basis. I'm interested in knowing your thoughts about the value of having performance audits be conducted by Canada's Auditor General.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentNew Democratic Party349752134975223497523349752434975253497526JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1120)[English]I think that's something you could ask the Office of the Auditor General. Mr. Ferguson was here, and I think he's the best person to determine the value of the audits.I think what I've read is that the audits they are proposing to do are going to be completed in a period of 18 months. When institutions are subject to the Access to Information Act, there is an obligation to respond within 30 days. So the accountability that the two mechanisms provide is different. When you conduct an audit, then you determine whether the rules are being complied with and whether the rules lead to efficiency in administration of the program. When you make an access to information request, taxpayers can also determine for themselves whether they consider that the rules are legitimate, whether the spending under the rules is legitimate, or whether they consider it to be illegitimate. I think the simplest example of a public outcry was when we had disclosure of the $16 orange juice. That was in compliance with the rules; it was an available expense. I think people who have a hard time making ends meet at the end of the week consider that it is not appropriate or legitimate for people who spend public money to incur those kinds of expenses. That's the difference between being able to have an access to information request answered and having an audit answered. They are two different types of accountability mechanisms that exist in Canadian law at this time. The question is, when Parliament spends all of this money that belongs to Canadians, what level of disclosure and what accountability mechanisms are appropriate? I think parliamentarians have to lead by example. They are accountable to Canadians and they have to lead by example in terms of what mechanisms they will decide are appropriate to supervise their activities.I actually went on the websites before coming here. The Library of Parliament has no disclosure of anything that the Librarian, whom I know very well, does, whereas the Parliamentary Budget Officer has disclosure. The Senate Ethics Officer.... It's impossible for Canadians to actually determine properly what money is being spent and where, except in aggregated format as part of the public accounts or the public proactive disclosure of MPs' expenses.What I'm saying today is—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349752734975283497529349753034975313497532KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1120)[English]I guess, Ms. Legault, what I am getting to is that, whether it's a question of more detailed reports coming from the Auditor General or of putting in a mandate under which they are doing these audits every three years, it actually complements that process to see forward movement on access to information, so that the two of them, hand in hand, can ensure more accountability and transparency. Would you not agree to that?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOperational reviews34975333497534SuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1125)[English]Yes. If you conduct performance audits, you will have more accountability and transparency every third year for something that happened in years prior. That's the problem: you're basically looking at the past all the time, so that your accountability will be dealing with something that occurred in the past. It's something that is not available during election time; it is something that is not available during prorogation of Parliament. The House administration, the Senate administration, the Library of Parliament, all of these things continue to operate. They continue to enter into service contracts; they continue to spend money; they continue to manage people. All of these things deserve accountability and transparency. If you do something every third year, it's not sufficient.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOperational reviews34975353497536KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1125)[English]In an ideal world, let's say I meet with a senior on pension because he's having issues with the Canada Pension Plan, and I meet him over at McDonald's for lunch. What should I state on the form?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497537SuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1125)[English]That's what's going to have to be determined, if people are proactively disclosing specific receipts: how the parliamentary function aspect versus the partisan function aspect and the constituency work are being protected. You're going to have to look at what is within the definition of “parliamentary function” under the bylaws of the Board of Internal Economy; that is the extent of what is going to need to be disclosed in order to make a determination on whether that expense is valid.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34975383497539KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1125)[English]If we look at that specific example, should I be putting in the constituent's name? Whether it is disclosed or not, should I be putting that constituent's name on the receipt, saying “I met with John Doe over lunch”?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497541JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1125)[English]Let me answer from the perspective of an access to information commissioner. If I were to look at something like that; if, for instance, you were subject to access to information and that information were being requested, I would have to look at whether or not this information is personal information of your constituents. That is how I would look at it: whether that information is personal information to your constituent. Then I would look at whether or not there is an overriding public interest in disclosure. That's how I would look at it. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34975423497543KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1125)[English]Thank you.Before I get into a couple of questions, Madame Legault, again I want to correct the record. My colleague Mr. Julian has a habit of introducing revisionist history in this committee. He mentioned earlier that this committee has a mandate to replace the Board of Internal Economy. It most certainly does not. We are conducting studies to determine whether or not there could be an independent oversight review body, but certainly there is no mandate for this committee to do so. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMandates of committeesMembers of Parliament34975463497547JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1125)[English]Thank you, Mr. Julian. I'm sure you'll have your opportunity in a moment.I have a couple of questions. You've talked about access to information in institutions such as the Speaker's office, the Library of Parliament, and the like, saying that there should be more information disclosed so that ordinary Canadians.... Would that extend to officers of Parliament—to your own office, as an example?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOfficers of Parliament34975493497550PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1125)[English]We are subject to the Access to Information Act, and your—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497551TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1125)[English]My question is, on your website do you have proactive disclosure of everything your office spends its money on?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOfficers of Parliament3497552SuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1125)[English]Yes, we are basically complying with all of the proactive disclosure rules of the Treasury Board Secretariat, and we are subject to the Access to Information Act as well, since the Federal Accountability Act. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497553TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1125)[English]Would the correct course of action be, or would it be something that could correct what you consider to be a failure in access to information—an ambit of access to information—if the rules and the bylaws of the Board of Internal Economy were changed? I believe right now, if I'm hearing your correctly, that the biggest reason you feel there is a bit of a failure lies not in the fact that they're not complying, but that the rules and bylaws perhaps are too restrictive in terms of access to information. Would that be a correct characterization on my behalf? You said you examined the rules and the bylaws before you came here. If they were altered somewhat to increase transparency in your view, would that be a proper route to take?Access to Information ActBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34975543497555SuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1125)[English]I think that would be good. As I said, any additional proactive disclosure is excellent; there is no question about that. What I'm saying is, even if you do that, there is no level of proactive disclosure that will replace being subject to the Access to Information Act.Access to Information ActBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34975563497557TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1130)[English]Then perhaps for the benefit of members of this committee, you could, within about a minute, talk about the access to information requirements that you think the Board of Internal Economy should be subject to. If you can deal with some specifics, I think that would be more helpful than the generalities.Access to Information ActBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497561JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1130)[English]I do think that the Access to Information Act should be amended to cover the administration of the House and the Senate. I think there should be a proper provision—Access to Information ActBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497562TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1130)[English]No, no, I will get there.And there should be a proper provision for the protection of parliamentary privilege, which is crucial. That needs to be embedded together. The access act would then provide protection for personal information, solicitor-client information, and so on, so that the discussions occurring in the administration of the House, such as discussions that are being conducted or documents that are being reviewed by the Board of Internal Economy in making and implementing the administration of the House, would be subject to the act, but would have the appropriate protections for the appropriate level of confidentiality that's required when one discusses legal matters, when one discusses labour relations matters....But having the whole House administration subject to the act needs to be embedded in the access act, and there would need to be an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act because there is, in section 50, a provision for secrecy for the Board of Internal Economy. That would need to be addressed. Even if you want to open up the Board of Internal Economy, I think that provision in the Parliament of Canada Act needs to be addressed somehow.Access to Information ActBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497564349756534975663497567TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): (1130)[English]Thanks very much, Chair.Thank you very much for your attendance today. We appreciate it. It's very helpful.I would like to just give a clarification from this side of the House, notwithstanding Mr. Lukiwski's view of things. The actual motion that was passed unanimously by the House of Commons didn't just say, “Oh hey, take a quick look at that and see what you think.” It was far more specific. The unanimous mandate from the House was to “conduct open and public hearings with a view to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body”.So this isn't just a drive-by hearing—this has meaning.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMandates of committeesMembers of Parliament3497570349757134975723497573JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonDavidChristophersonHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson: (1130)[English] I'd like to just offer a bit of a vision of where this side so far is beginning to evolve to in terms of what we'd like to see. There's still hope that we'll all come to agreement, because that's still the best: if it's unanimous.But here's where we are. We agree with the idea of a stand-alone, independent, arm's-length agency, as referred to in the motion, and we do like the IPSA model. We had them here the other day. We asked them questions. It's our thinking that it allows for the kind of.... If we go with that model and accept the principles they have, it seems to us that it would satisfy some of the requests and requirements that you're putting forward on behalf of the Canadian people to allow access to information to be a part of IPSA, a Canadian version of it. Also, the Auditor General has said that he very much likes the idea that IPSA is subject to audits by the National Audit Office, which is his counterpart. So for two of the biggest legislative concerns, not from an insider old boys' club of MPs, but from the public point of view in terms of what they would like and need, we see this model as allowing and requiring at least those two changes to legislation to give IPSA access through the AG and through your office.We believe that a stand-alone mandate by Canadians...and IPSA goes so far as to regulate the process of who gets hired. It's an open competition. Their stand-alone mandate is to be accountable to the British people for the supervision of MP expenses and their claims, so it removes some of that conflict that does happen when MPs are sitting around and it's MPs' interests versus public interest, and guess what? Guess how it's going to go and who's going to get the benefit of the doubt nine times out of ten? Whereas we think that if there's an independent mandate of Canadians who are accountable to Canadians for the supervision and accountability of our expenses, that kind of benefit of the doubt to the insider is not going to happen.Lastly, it still allows BOIE to continue, because their work is not just MPs' expenses, and most of that work can then be done in public because there's no need for privacy concerns: they've all been removed to the IPSA shop. That's kind of where we're evolving. We'd very much appreciate your thoughts on that.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management349757534975763497577349757834975793497580DavidChristophersonHamilton CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1135)[English]Mr. Chair, I feel as if I'm reciting media lines, but, really, in my view, I think that one has to also look at the cost of IPSA. I think it's somewhere around £6 million or $6 million Canadian. Anyway, it's in the range of six million, which is a lot of money. Unless the administration of Parliament is brought under the access act, whether or not you add an independent body like IPSA, it will not solve what I consider to be the accountability and transparency deficit of the administration of $500 million of taxpayers' dollars.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management3497582JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): (1135)[English]Thank you, Chair.Madam Legault, I've heard you say $500 million more than once. I suspect that $500 million includes the salaries of members of Parliament and senators, many things that are very, very public. I don't know where else that number would come from. The vast majority of that $500 million is quite available, I do believe. But I have looked at your website and I can't find any disclosure. Would somebody have to use access to information to obtain the information for your department, or is it available to the public online?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOffice of the Information Commissioner of Canada349758534975863497587JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1135)[English]It is, in the Proactive Disclosure section on the website, and lists “Travel expenses”, “Hospitality expenses”, “Contracts over $10,000”, “Position reclassifications”, “Proactive disclosure of grants and contributions over $25,000”, etc.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOffice of the Information Commissioner of Canada3497588DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1135)[English]Okay. I couldn't find it here, so maybe it's my lack of ability on the computer.I want to be sure that what we're talking about in this committee is proactive disclosure. I had the feeling that what you're talking about is access to information by your office, by requests that would ultimately go through that process.Are we talking two different things or are we talking the same thing?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOffice of the Information Commissioner of Canada349758934975903497591SuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1135)[English]Well, Mr. Chair, the motion actually indicates that the committee is going to look at whether or not there is a necessity to amend any other acts in order to provide accountability and transparency. This is the extent of my presentation today.Proactive disclosure is part of the spectrum of transparency and accountability. You have to decide what level of proactive disclosure is necessary. I'm saying that even if you do have a high level of proactive disclosure, access to information is a tool by which people can verify and legitimize the expenses that are being made by anybody who uses taxpayers' dollars.My office receives access to information requests based on some of the things that are proactively disclosed; for example, access to information requests based on minutes of our management meetings. People have all sorts of access requests because they want to find out what, exactly, is being done, and how the money is being spent, and whether they think it's appropriately spent.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349759234975933497594DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1135)[English]Okay, I appreciate that.If Parliament took your advice and brought all of Parliament into that realm of disclosure in the privacy of information, how many more staff members would you calculate it would take for your department to be able to handle whatever the increase would be in demand?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOffice of the Information Commissioner of Canada34975953497596SuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1135)[English]I really can't tell. I really don't know. What I've tried to do is see how much it would cost to have an access to information office within the administration of the House. Based on the percentage being spent right now, it would be around $400,000, and would be a few people. Again, if we look at what's going on in the U.K., they have a lot of proactive disclosure, which has led to few access to information requests to the Parliament in the U.K. What they did is, once they received access requests, they then started to proactively disclose what had been requested on a proactive basis, and there have been few complaints to the information commissioner's office.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOffice of the Information Commissioner of Canada3497597DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25474AndréBellavanceAndré-BellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BellavanceAndré_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): (1140)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you, Ms. Legault, for your input.I had wanted the committee to hear from the Privacy Commissioner, and she sent us a brief. Nothing you are saying contradicts what the commissioner said about personal information and privacy. But I would like to hear your thoughts on a point Mr. Lamoureux brought up.How much information should we disclose? It's important for us, but there are two sides to disclosure. To my mind, it makes perfect sense for my constituents, or the general population, to know how my budget is being spent, because, at the end of the day, it's their money. That's no problem. Like it or not, however, other people are sometimes involved.For instance, if I sign a service contract with the community television people in my riding, what problem could that cause for them, in terms of other media, since they are also involved? Kevin mentioned taking someone to lunch. Obviously, someone who wants to keep the discussion completely confidential will come to my office, where we can close the door. And the discussion will remain confidential. But even in that case, I have to tell you that my office is located right across from a local newspaper, and the reporters have called me up before to ask why so-and-so came to see me. In those situations, we don't give them an answer.Basically, if we go out to eat with someone, do we have to disclose who the person is and what the meeting was for? We also want to know whether certain pieces of information need to be disclosed when it comes to the contracts for our employees.Of course, there are guidelines. But I would like you to elaborate on what we need to do to prevent certain pieces of information from getting out and being made public, information that could harm people who are not members of Parliament.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497601349760234976033497604349760534976063497607JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1140)[Translation]That's what makes the matter so complex. The legal frameworks that were created, such as the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, are comprehensive. The institutions subject to those acts do what they have to do, whether it involves contracts, discussions or documentation. The safeguards in those legislative schemes are there precisely to protect that information when access to information requests are made.Some information is sensitive from a business standpoint, some elements are protected under the privileges granted to your client, and some elements have to be protected because they constitute confidential information. If the act applied to the House and Parliament, it would include safeguards for parliamentary privilege. That's what makes it so difficult to answer your question. Is document A containing information B subject to proactive disclosure? The reality is the answer is very complex.That is why figuring out the level of specificity that applies in the case of proactive disclosure is complicated, with receipts, for instance. It would be very tough to do without following a procedure to ensure the information that should be protected is protected.Whether it's realistic to subject administration to that type of disclosure is for the committee to examine and decide. What you're really doing is trying to invent a totally new system, beyond the existing legal frameworks, in terms of your own rules. And if you want to do so when it comes to the existing rules and the Board of Internal Economy bylaws, you are going to have to develop a framework that covers all those questions. That's the complex task you will have to undertake if you approach things that way.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497608349760934976103497611AndréBellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1140)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to reiterate by following up on Mr. Christopherson's comments about what we're actually mandated to do, because I sense from the other side—and we've seen this in the House with the Prime Minister refusing to answer questions about the Senate scandals—there's a move away from what is actually written. Mr. Chair, I know people in places like Regina and Burnaby and other places across the country will be wondering what exactly happened here. I want to make sure that we have on the record the motion itself, which is to conduct open and public hearings with a view to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body. It follows that we will propose modifications to the Parliament of Canada Act and any other acts as deemed necessary, propose any necessary modifications to the administrative policy and practices of the House of Commons, and report its findings to the House no later than December 2 in order to have any proposed changes to expense disclosure and reporting in place for the beginning of the next fiscal year.It's very clear, Mr. Chair. What we are asked to do is to replace the secretive internal self-policing Board of Internal Economy, and folks in Regina and North Vancouver Island and Burnaby and Newfoundland are expecting us to do that. With that, I'll turn my time over to Madam Groguhé.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349761434976153497616JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71538SadiaGroguhéSadia-GroguhéSaint-LambertNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/GroguheSadia_NDP.jpgInterventionMrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): (1145)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you, Ms. Legault, for your comments.Clearly, the issue that concerns us above all is rectifying the lack of transparency and accountability. We firmly believe in the need to entrust that accountability function to an independent agency, ideally.You talked mainly about the Access to Information Act, which you believe should be amended in order to ensure that transparency and accountability.Aside from the United Kingdom, which you already mentioned in your opening remarks, could you give us some examples of other countries with access to information laws that are working optimally?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34976183497619349762034976213497622JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1145)[Translation]As far as parliamentary transparency and accountability are concerned, the government with the most advanced legislation, the Parliament that is most subject to access to information legislation, is Great Britain's. IPSA is subject to access to information. The British Parliament created an independent agency, and all of it is covered by the legislation.In terms of general legislation, as you know, I am in the process of examining that whole issue. Soon, I hope to establish what the Canadian model will look like, a model I hope will be the best in the world. Right now, I don't believe a single international model exists. Different models each have elements that are useful, but I firmly believe we can create our own Canadian model and that it can be the best out there.Be that as it may, I would say that Great Britain currently holds the top spot when it comes to the transparency of Parliament and its institutions.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349762334976243497625SadiaGroguhéSaint-LambertSadiaGroguhéSaint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71538SadiaGroguhéSadia-GroguhéSaint-LambertNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/GroguheSadia_NDP.jpgInterventionMrs. Sadia Groguhé: (1145)[Translation]With respect to proactive disclosure, you say it's not enough and has its limitations.Do you think that, like IPSA, an independent agency could significantly improve the state of disclosure, including, of course, as it relates to MPs?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34976293497630JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71625TedOpitzTed-OpitzEtobicoke CentreConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/OpitzTed_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): (1145)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I do need to correct something that the members opposite have said. “With a view to” often means to consider as an option. This is a study to reflect on the potential need to replace or make changes to, and that means “with a view to”. It doesn't categorically mean “this will happen”. You can't situate the estimate, meaning “predetermine an outcome”, before we arrive at that.Additionally, my friends opposite are not transparent. As my friend from the Liberal Party pointed out, they refuse to be transparent, and in fact, Mr. Julian only has the most basic of first-year expenses from this Parliament on his website. To me, this doesn't appear particularly transparent, open, or accountable for anybody who potentially wants to lead this country. We'd end up going from having what we built as the greatest economy in the G-7 to having the NDP GPS drive us off the cliff. That's something I find very disturbing.Madam, I'm having some concerns because I think what you're proposing, in many respects, is layers and layers of additional, burdensome administration. There is a lot going on in the House already. There is a lot of accountability. We are the government that put in the Federal Accountability Act in the first place to be able to accommodate this. Our side and the Liberal Party have both agreed to proactively disclose, and you have to give credit to parliamentarians for willingly wanting to disclose the details of our expenses. In fact, when you do look at something to replace or to change, Mr. Sills from IPSA said himself that you really have to determine if there's a problem big enough to prompt a change. That is something we're also determining, and I'm not sure I see a problem big enough to do that.Having said that, we've also had two former Speakers and the Clerk here and all said that the Board of Internal Economy is working well and has the appropriate level of disclosure and that things are announced and produced in the House for disclosure to the public, and all of these experts, these former Speakers, all of these people who have spent decades doing this and working intimately with the Board of Internal Economy have said this to us over the last couple of weeks.Why are they wrong and you right?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497633349763434976353497636349763734976383497639JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonSuzanneLegaultSuzanneLegaultSuzanne-LegaultInterventionMs. Suzanne Legault: (1150)[English]Mr. Chairman, if parliamentarians consider that they are providing enough transparency and accountability to Canadians, then great. I think it's for parliamentarians to decide and it's for Canadians to decide. People who are testifying to the effect that the Board of Internal Economy functions well are people who are members of the Board of Internal Economy. The Board of Internal Economy functions in secret, as per the Parliament of Canada Act. So you're right; they're experts—they are part of it. I really can't comment on that. My comment is that in 2013—in an era of open government, open information, and open data—we should submit to some body that administers millions of taxpayers' dollars and they should be subject to the Access of Information Act. The layer of bureaucracy that is required to do that is to have an access to information officer and analysts who analyze requests from Canadians. My office already exists.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349764034976413497642TedOpitzEtobicoke CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1150)[English]Thank you, Mr. Julian. When you're made chair, you can make these decisions. I'm growing a little tired of your questioning things I do. Thank you very much for coming today and having fun with us. We will suspend for a minute while we bring in our other witnesses. (1150)(1155)Board of Internal EconomyDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationReflections on the Chair349764634976473497648PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1155)[English]I call us back into session. We have a new panel of guests here, but they're an old panel. Madam O'Brien and Mr. Watters, thank you for coming back. We had some questions left from the last time you were here and have some new ones in the interim. We will take an opening statement from you, as short as you can make it, and we will try to get through a full round. Committee, I'll pre-warn you that we're going to try to get to some committee business at the end for some direction on the report. We'd like to end this session a little bit before the top of the hour. Madam O'Brien. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination34976493497650349765134976523497653JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien (Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons): (1155)[English]Good morning, Mr. Chairman, honorables députés.I am pleased to be here with Mark Watters as we return for what I believe will be the final session of hearing witnesses in your study on the Board of Internal Economy. I have followed your hearings with interest.[Translation]I found the comments and suggestions made by those who have appeared before the committee very informative. I won't give an opening statement, but I would like to make a few comments that, in my view, will help clarify certain situations that seem to be mired in confusion.[English]In the first instance, let me simply say that with regard to the salaries and pensions of MPs, the Board of Internal Economy has nothing whatsoever to do with that. The Parliament of Canada sets the annual basic remuneration for members and the additional remuneration for certain office holders. It's the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act that sets pensions. So that's not in our remit.Secondly, because this too seems to be a source of some confusion, the board has an equal representation of government and opposition members. It's chaired by the Speaker, who's elected by secret ballot by all members. It operates on the basis of consensus.I've left with the clerk, and I think she has distributed to you, a report on the statistics on the views per page of the information on our website. That was a question I'd had. I have to warn you that these numbers are maybe a bit disappointing. Certainly they're far from overwhelming. I'm sorry to say that I think it's the lack of direct experience with what is already posted that may lead people to the conclusion that there isn't very much information available or that they don't have sufficient information. Those kinds of comments I think tend to fuel mistrust of the Board of Internal Economy, mistrust of us as the House administration, and by extension, of course, mistrust of you yourselves, as MPs. On the contrary, I believe still, and I think the facts bear us out, that every dollar is accounted for and audited. I'd suggest that a great deal of information is already available. Now, more can be made available, and more is already in the works, but I certainly would urge people to become familiar with what is already on the website.Another little point that Mr. Taylor-Vaisey from last night made was that it was not the entertainment value of the Board of Internal Economy that journalists were after, but rather the content. I'm sorry if my facetiousness might have led to some confusion, but when I was talking about the “ordinariness” of the discussion, I was trying to dispel the idea that the Board of Internal Economy was a Star Chamber. I mean, I've always thought of the Star Chamber as rather intriguing, and wonderful. But because the board is constantly described as the “highly secretive” Board of Internal Economy, it tends to get a little atmosphere of Star Chamber about it when, to use a homely example, I think it more likely resembles a condominium board of directors, that sort of thing. That's just to set the record straight.Finally, I was particularly interested, of course, as we all were, in the testimony of the Auditor General. As members know, the Auditor General's office conducted a performance audit of the House of Commons. The AG came in at the invitation of the board. In June 2010 that invitation was given, and the report was tabled in June 2012. It's a process that took almost two years—two years less a bit if we take it that the first summer was a bit of a lull.That required us as the administration to devote many resources, in terms of time and people, to working with the Auditor General, which we were happy to do. The OAG made eight recommendations in the report, and the administration agreed with all of them. We've completed mitigating action on five of those, and the three others are well in progress. I have to say, just as a small point of clarification, that not one of those recommendations had anything to do with the systems or procedures in place concerning the verification of members' entitlements, allowances, and services. I think that's an important point to realize.That's it, Mr. Chairman. With my colleague Mark, I will be happy to answer questions.Board of Internal EconomyClerk of the House of CommonsGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of CommonsIncome and wagesInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOperational reviewsPensions and pensioners3497654349765534976563497657349765834976593497660349766134976623497663349766434976653497666JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1200)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.I have one more point about clarification, if I may, Madam O'Brien. In the spirit of revisionist history that I keep referring to, my friend Mr. Julian has stated, on a number of occasions now, that there's a movement toward voting as opposed to consensus at the Board of Internal Economy. We've heard that claim refuted by both former speakers. You yourself spoke of that consensus when you first appeared before us, but now, since we are on television and Mr. Julian seems concerned with the people who are watching, so that they get the right information, could you please remind the committee of how the board traditionally works in terms of reaching decisions? Is it through consensus primarily, or is there a movement toward voting and having a decision based on that?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497670349767134976723497673JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1200)[English]Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Lukiwski, when I testified, appearing at the first meeting of the committee, I said that the board operated by consensus. It's my belief that this is an accurate description of how the board operates. I did say that there had been one vote in my almost nine years' experience as secretary to the board. I believe last night Speaker Milliken referred to one or two instances where there had been votes, some of which predated my time as secretary. Again, those are by far the exceptions. In terms of consensus, the way the discussions work, I believe as former Speaker Fraser explained it, very often the items that come up can be dealt with quite quickly, and there's agreement reached very quickly. In some cases, the issue is a bit more contentious, and it may take one, two, or possibly three meetings for people to come to a meeting of the minds. That's really the way we operate. I think it's safe to say that the people on the board would regard something that came to a vote as a failure of our usual processes.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349767434976753497676TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1200)[English]Thank you for that clarification.I want to now, with the time we have left, delve a little deeper into your comments about the Auditor General's audit of the Board of Internal Economy. You said there were eight outstanding recommendations, which you all agreed upon, five of them mitigated, three still outstanding, I assume.More on a, say, overarching view of things, in the report was there any suggestion either through direct recommendations or inference that the board was not fulfilling its duty and perhaps would be better served by having a replacement, independent, outside agency conducting the affairs that now are conducted by the Board of Internal Economy? I ask this because I can only assume that part of the audit was to examine your overall performance, and normally when audits are completed there are notes from the auditor.So was there any indication, in your estimation, that the Auditor General was unhappy to the point where the BOIE should in fact be considered for replacement?Auditor General of CanadaBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497677349767834976793497680AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1205)[English]In fairness, Mr. Lukiwski, I don't think an examination of the role of the board was part of the mandate of the Auditor General. The Auditor General was coming in to see whether or not the administration adequately supported the Board of Internal Economy and executed its directives.I can quote from the report:The House of Commons Administration has the necessary policies in place to deliver services and advice to support Members of Parliament. It has appropriate policies and control systems in place to oversee expenditures and ensure that they conform with the by-laws, policies, and directives of the Board of Internal Economy.Auditor General of CanadaBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349768134976823497683TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1205)[English]Then I suppose—and I asked this question of the Information Commissioner—if you were complying with and following all of the rules and the bylaws as set out, then if there were any need to change the way in which you operate, it would start with looking at the rules and bylaws and perhaps expanding them, changing them, or amending them to some degree.Would that be correct?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34976843497685AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1205)[English]I'm not sure that is correct in the sense that I think the audit didn't go one step behind that to ask if these policies are the correct ones. I think that's one of the difficulties with this discussion of the board: that many different issues become conflated.We're talking about the Board of Internal Economy and the administration as the executing arm, if you will, or the executing body for the decisions of the board, and we're talking about information about those decisions. If you want to get into a situation where you ask if these decisions are correct and if these allowances are the right ones, to my mind that's a different issue.It's a very rich discussion in many ways, but I think sometimes what happens is that there are so many things at play and that people are talking about different things while using maybe the same vocabulary.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349768634976873497688TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1205)[English]Good.If you have been following the discussion, you probably have seen this comment in the blues or the transcripts. Mr. Sills from IPSA spent a great deal of time with us talking about the need for IPSA and how IPSA operates. I noted with interest that many of the operating practices of IPSA are similar, or seem to be similar, to those of the Board of Internal Economy. But the need for IPSA to be formed was surrounding, of course, the expense scandal in the U.K., and from my view, our rules and the bylaws would make it almost impossible for the same type of expense abuse to occur here. But at the very end—this is the point I want to get your opinion on, and I understand it's tough to make an objective opinion when you're in a highly subjective situation, but nonetheless—Mr. Sills said his advice to us would be that we as a committee would have to determine whether or not there was a problem large enough for a need, then, to replace the Board of Internal Economy. I personally haven't seen, over the course of my nine years here, any problems large enough to match the extent Mr. Sills referred to as the reason IPSA was formed.Can you comment on whether or not, in your experience, there have been problems to the degree we saw in the U.K. with members' expenses or anything on the financial side of things in the House?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34976923497693349769434976953497696JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1205)[English]Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important question.One of the things we were particularly pleased with when Mark and I visited London and talked to John Sills, and his colleagues at IPSA and the colleagues at the House of Commons, was finding that the processes we have in place and the kinds of policies that determine those processes are very similar to what IPSA has in place.They are every bit as robust in terms of the determination of the legitimacy of expenditures, and the policies are every bit as strict, even down to the fact that we have a financial portal, which people are finding perhaps difficult to adjust to because it's not just paper anymore, but that's another added layer of safety in terms of saying you have to meet certain threshold criteria.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349769834976993497700JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): (1210)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thanks so much for being back, Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Watters.I want to set the scene. What we'd like to discuss, as much as we can, with you is what the transition to a more independent structure could look like. Let's leave aside the policy debates the other side seems to want to continue to have on whether we're going to have such a body. I would note that Mr. Opitz, who is no longer with us, really did mistake the nature of the motion. He said that we're here to study “as an option”, which is language that does not appear in the motion. The motion says that we are to conduct open and public hearings with a view to replacing the Board of Internal Economy, and so that is the spirit in which we'd like to continue the rest of our questioning.What would it take to transition to a more independent organizational structure, like IPSA, while not necessarily losing all the benefits we see with how the BOIE works? My colleagues are going to ask more specific questions. I want to put paid to another possible misunderstanding. Ms. Legault, who was here earlier, suggested that we really have to look at the cost. Of course we have to look at the cost, but she cited the £6 million figure that IPSA cited, but at the same time, we were told that amount was either less or roughly the same as what the same functions had cost before. Whether or not that's going to be as easy for us to make it a wash in the future is something to discuss, but it's inaccurate to leave the impression in people's minds that the IPSA structure somehow cost an extra £6 million. It didn't. Before we start the questions, I want to end by getting back onto the consensus point to see how that might work in an independent structure. The reason this NDP motion is here is that we believe not only with Madam Legault that the Access to Information Act should apply more broadly to the parliamentary administration, but also that we need much fuller disclosure of MP expenses, and we want this to be non-selective. Parties don't get to decide which expenses to disclose; just travel or just hospitality, for example, which is what the Liberals have done. It should be full disclosure, and here's the key: we believe that not only must the rules apply to everybody, and that's why we're trying through this multilateral process, but also that independent third-party verification adds to public confidence and to the accuracy of the information. Accuracy and completeness of information is much easier if the body tasked with it has an arm's-length relationship to those who are being reported upon; us, the MPs.We have a fairly clear view: we want to see everybody move in this direction. Now, the two other parties keep hammering us to say that we want rules applicable to everybody, and at the same time, the Conservatives haven't done a thing. They keep talking about the fact that they plan to do something—we haven't a clue what it is—and the Liberals have completely botched what they planned. We have the leader of their party putting out one expense, when we know he travels all around the country. Whether he's hiding behind the leader's office, I don't know. The Conservatives have done nothing.If we don't get to the point where we have everybody’s agreement that we go to a multilateral system with new rules, and that everybody knows what fully disclosed expenses will be necessary, then we're going to have to see if we can come up with our own, better system for ourselves.Here is my question. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity, correct?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497703349770434977053497706349770734977083497709349771034977113497712JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1210)[English]That's right.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497713CraigScottToronto—DanforthCraigScottToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott: (1210)[English]Okay, without asking you to reveal anything at all about what goes on in current decision-making, would it be possible in the current system—and therefore be something we'd have to look at in the new system—for the presiding officer to simply declare a consensus if half the members in the room were firmly in favour and the other half did not want to go in that direction? Is it the prerogative of the chair to be able to define “consensus” in that way? Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497714AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1215)[English]I don't know that I'd go so far as to say it's the prerogative of the chair. I can say that no chair has ever done that. It has happened that there has been consensus that was not unanimous, and that too is not all that frequent because there is usually the agreement of everyone around, but not always. My experience has been that the chair will expect agreement among some opposition members and some government members—let me put it that way. It's not a one-sided thing, because consensus with nobody is consensus with yourself.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34977153497716CraigScottToronto—DanforthCraigScottToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott: (1215)[English]So it's ultimately for the chair to come up with his or her own understanding.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497717AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1215)[English]Exactly, and usually what the chair would do is to encourage further discussion. Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497718CraigScottToronto—DanforthCraigScottToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott: (1215)[English]Maybe I'll start with Mr. Watters, as this is now transitioning more to what my colleagues will be asking about, which is what it would look like to keep everything that's good about the BOIE and the way it functions now—effectively, it functions because of professional and highly qualified staff—but layer in the independence of the decision-making structure. Rather than the committee being made up of six members, or whatever it is now, who are MPs and are appointed by their parties, we would have a system of independent representatives who are appointed or otherwise selected.Do you see it as possible to layer that level of independence onto what we already have? Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34977223497723JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1215)[English] May I, Mr. Chairman, and through you to Mr. Scott, cover off some of the points he raised earlier, which, as I understood, were questions? Our concern as officials who serve the House and serve all parties is indeed to have rules that apply to everyone. That's one of the reasons why we're here to speak to what.... Regardless of what the individual parties may decide to disclose in their own party way, we are talking about what the board wants disclosed on behalf of the entire House, so that's important, and it's terrifically important to us that what's disclosed is accurate and is complete. It may not be sufficiently detailed to suit some viewers, some members, and some parties, but it is accurate and is complete. With regard to what we call the key-in-the-door cost to move to an independent body, Mark can speak to that.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349772434977253497726CraigScottToronto—DanforthJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1215)[English]Well, actually, Mr. Chair, there are some things I cannot resist, of course, and I want to pick up on Ms. O'Brien's comments in terms of applying rules to everyone. Mr. Scott was making reference to the Liberal Party leader. He wants to know where the Liberal Party leader flies. The good news is that in regard to where the Liberal Party is flying at taxpayers' expense, you can find out. We have what they call proactive disclosure. It's something that you refuse to participate in. A good example is, we would say that we should also be able to know where your leader flies. We understand that he flew to Winnipeg in first class while our leader was flying economy. We want to be able to know how much your leader is spending on airfare. Through you, Mr. Chair, of course.... Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497729349773034977313497732JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1215)[English]But of course, Mr. Chair.We believe that Canadians have a right to know who's flying first class, to know if they choose first class, like your leader, or who's flying economy, like our leader is flying economy. These are things on which, at the very least, everyone within the Liberal caucus has taken a step forward through proactive disclosure. When the member makes reference to “we want more, we want more”, it's a kind of childish game that they're entering into. You can have this, what we have today, and we can do what Madam O'Brien is suggesting in terms of having a rule that applies to all political parties and is administered by the government, as opposed to a political party. All we need is the consent of the New Democrats in order to make that happen.My specific question is for you, Madam O'Brien. The Auditor General of Canada has provided performance audits on MPs' expenditures in the past. One of the suggestions is that we have that on a more regular basis, so that every three years there would be a performance audit conducted by the Auditor General. Do you feel that would be helpful? Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOperational reviews3497734349773534977363497737JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1220)[English]If I may, Mr. Chairman, I have perhaps a slight clarification, in that the performance audit the Auditor General has done here is a performance audit of the administration, not of members. An audit of members by the Auditor General has been something that members have steadfastly resisted, because it is viewed as an interference in their carrying out of their parliamentary functions. That's never been done. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOperational reviews3497738KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1220)[English]Do you think there would be value in terms of having performance audits conducted, then, on the expenditures of members of Parliament? Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOperational reviews3497739AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1220)[English]Frankly speaking, I think, again, that because of the vast differences in the backgrounds of members, they operate in very different ways; the former Speaker spoke last night about people with extensive industry experience or professional experience and so forth, and people with relatively none all of a sudden coming into.... So I'm not sure that a performance audit in that sense would be all that helpful. I think there are ways in which some things could be made more helpful. Perhaps my colleague, who has auditing experience, can suggest some ways.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOperational reviews3497740KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters (Chief Financial Officer, House of Commons): (1220)[English]I might suggest, Mr. Chair, that if you look at the mandate that was given to the Auditor General with respect to the audit of the House, it was to see how the House administration supports members in their functions. You can imagine, then, that a performance audit of a particular member would be how that member particularly supports the constituents that he or she represents. That would be the kind of focus of the audit within the existing rules. So when we talk about performance audit, that's what you would be buying if you asked the Auditor General to do that type of work.Members serve their constituents in a very different fashion. From coast to coast, with small ridings, large ridings, there are very, very huge differences. Frankly, as a former assistant auditor general, I don't know how I would start to audit that or what criteria I would use to make that assessment. I think it would be quite difficult.From an attest perspective, our financial statements, which include members' spending, are audited, and they're audited by a separate firm. They're audited by KPMG. But KPMG, being auditors in Canada, follow GAAS, which is generally accepted auditing standards, the same standards that would be followed by the Auditor General. The Auditor General would not bring a different vernacular to that attest audit, which is already done.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of CommonsInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOperational reviews349774134977423497743AudreyO'BrienKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1220)[English]I think one of the things that's quite upsetting to many people is the fact that the Board of Internal Economy meets in camera as often as it does. My understanding is that, under the IPSA model, it also meets in camera. So even the outside independent body—both meet in camera.Is there not a compromise here? One of the suggestions is that you have a subcommittee, and that subcommittee is the one that meets in camera. Anything decided would then come to the full committee for discussion. Can you provide comment on that?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34977443497745Mark G.WattersAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1220)[English]I realize that my former colleague Rob Walsh suggested that this happen. I suppose it could. Frankly speaking, I just think it's a certain amount of window dressing if the subcommittee meets in camera and then they bring a report back to a full and public meeting. If that meets some species of transparency demand, then I'm sure we could do that. I'm just not sure it's.... I wonder if that would satisfy anybody, in a way, because would not the question of those people pushing for public meetings be that those subcommittees should meet in public? Do you know what I mean? I'm not sure what people are after, to tell you the truth.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349774634977473497748KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1220)[English]But you see, the information discussed in the subcommittee ultimately would come in the form of recommendations for the entire board, where there would be a discussion about those recommendations, and you're able to bypass the sensitivity issues. Do you not think that would be helpful?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497749AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1220)[English]Well, if members were to judge that to be helpful, then we'd be happy to comply and to support that regime. As I say, I'm a bit baffled, to tell you the truth.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497750KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1220)[English]I think there is a great deal of pressure in terms of this whole in camera situation. There's this feeling that a lot of things happen behind closed doors, especially with politicians, in that sense. But having a subcommittee of sorts that's dealing with in camera issues, and then bringing them forward for ultimate ratification or decision, and allowing for some debate, that's always open to the public to participate.Perhaps you can provide comment on this. If you had a mechanism like that, to what degree do you think it would change the amount of discussion within the typical board meeting?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34977513497752AudreyO'BrienJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1225)[English]Thank you, Chair.I just have to clear up one thing. I keep hearing about all these people who are looking for the information. To be perfectly honest, I haven't got anybody at home, when I go to Tim Hortons, who wants to know all this information. I assume that maybe my riding is different, and they understand the accuracy of the reports. They understand that Mr. Watters and his folks are looking for receipts.My understanding is that there's no payment without a receipt. I think that's exactly what got them into trouble in England, where they could submit for £250 every day without receipts. That's $400 a day to supplement your income with no receipts. In Canada that doesn't happen. We have the rules, and you're ensuring that we follow those rules. I mean, this is a whole different situation.I think I heard somebody suggest verifying the accuracy of the information. Mr. Watters, is there any way that we could tell anybody any clearer that the accuracy of the information depends on the receipts that are received?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34977553497756349775734977583497759JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1225)[English]That's right. In my previous testimony, Mr. Chair, I spoke to the number of regret letters that are sent. I quoted a figure of just over 4,300. Those letters are sent to members when there is a difference between the payment we make to the member and the amount that was claimed. Out of that high number of regret letters, as I indicated, on average over the last two years, only seven requests have gone to the board for reconsideration. I can tell you that in all but one instance the previous decision made by the administration was held, so if you look at fourteen instances over two years, if you want to use averages, in one instance the decision of the board was different from the decision of the administration, so I think we're doing our job in terms of adjudicating claims according to the rules we have in place. Those rules do require receipts for all but a few items. It's the same thing in government. To claim a per diem expense, you don't need a receipt, because you don't get a receipt for a per diem. It's an allowance paid in lieu of supplying receipts for meals. It's the same thing with mileage. If you drive so many kilometres, you're reimbursed for kilometres. We require a road travel log in which members complete the purpose of their travel, where they're going from and to, and the kilometrage claimed. When we get that claim, we verify with Google Maps to see whether that's reasonable. If it's reasonable, we pay the claim. If it's not, then we send a regret letter and we're back into that whole process again.Clearly, we're inspired by what happens in government in terms of the regimes it has with respect to expenditures. The per diem we use is the one used in government. It's set by Treasury Board. The BOIE doesn't set that per diem. The kilometrage rate is also set by Treasury Board. We use that particular item as well. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349776034977613497762DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1225)[English]Thank you.My good friend Mr. Scott was talking about the issue of consensus. If you don't have consensus there is only one other way to resolve it. My understanding would be that you would have a vote. You're still not going to have 100% support in that regard. It seems to me that consensus, the way it operates today, is probably the best solution. It's not in a partisan sense. There are no cameras, as we have here today, so you'll end up with consensus.Do you see any way other than those two options—votes or consensus?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349776334977643497765Mark G.WattersAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1225)[English]Frankly speaking, Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. MacKenzie, I do think that the even numbers of government and opposition members provide a good basis, and I think that consensus is really the best way to decide things, because you're deciding things for the good of the institution in the long run. You put on a slightly different hat—I'd venture to say a very different hat—if you're sitting around the Board of Internal Economy, because you're doing something for the House of Commons as an institution and as the elected House of Canadian democracy, at the risk of sounding highfalutin.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497766DaveMacKenzieOxfordJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1225)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.I am quite amazed by some of the Conservative comments by Mr. Opitz and Mr. MacKenzie about expenses. Mr. Opitz was critical of the fact that I've been posting, for seven years now, and that all NDP members actually post direct links from their websites to their expenses as members of Parliament. The reality is I've been doing it for seven years. People do talk to me about them at Tim Hortons, because they can access them. The NDP is the only party that does that. Every single NDP MP has that direct link.I looked for that for Mr. Opitz and Mr. MacKenzie. They don't even have links to their expenses, so their constituents have no idea what they're spending. It's a little sad and a little unfortunate, so I'm certainly hoping they'll follow our lead on accessibility.I want to come now to the issue of transition, which Mr. Scott raised. We are really happy to have both of you back, Madam O'Brien and Mr. Watters. We really appreciate your kicking off and finishing up the study portion. We do have the mandate to put in place independent oversight. The Auditor General says, “Bring in independent oversight”. The public is saying, “Bring in independent oversight”. Conservatives and Liberals may not be in agreement, but Parliament mandated us to do it, and, by golly, that's what we are supposed to do on behalf of Canadians. I'm wondering then what the transition to independent oversight might look like. I'd like your recommendations or comments on the model of putting in an independent oversight body, a little bit like what is done in Manitoba, which then follows up on administration that takes place through the House, or an IPSA model such as we see in the United Kingdom, which certainly has the advantage of not costing more but actually costing a little bit less than the existing House of Commons framework around finances.Let's just move ahead with the mandate this committee was given. What is the transition period you foresee? What are the measures and the steps we need to take? What kind of model do you see for independent oversight so we can do away with the secretive, self-policing of the Board of Internal Economy once and for all?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMandates of committeesMembers of ParliamentThird party management3497770349777134977723497773349777434977753497776JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1230)[English]If the decision were to be made to go from the Board of Internal Economy model to a different model—whether that be a commissioner, as in the case of Manitoba, or something like IPSA, as in the case of the United Kingdom—I think the first thing we would have to consider is the amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act, which right now vests in the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy the statutory authority for all it does.Once that was done, and depending on which model of those two or any others you were going to proceed with, we could then begin to effect the bureaucratic changes that would be required. I think that the chief financial officer is in a better position than I to talk about those kinds of details.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34977773497778PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1230)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.As the Clerk was saying, we did spend a few days speaking both to the House and to IPSA. Most of our questions for them were around the transition and the level of effort that was involved in it. The impression I came back with from those meetings was that in fact most of that £6 million to do that was new money. Rents, as you can appreciate, in the U.K. in the city of London are quite expensive. The agency had to be housed. It needed to acquire systems, administrative staff, and senior staff. While it's true the number of clerical positions that were involved in the management of the accounts, as we have here, the 21 people I referred to in my initial testimony—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349777934977803497781AudreyO'BrienPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1230)[English]I apologize, Mr. Watters, but it's more the transition, because Mr. Sills testified that there was a reduction in terms of overall expenses. I am interested in the transition process.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497782Mark G.WattersJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1230)[English]Thanks very much.Not to belabour a point, but again I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree with the position the NDP has, that this committee has been mandated to find a way to replace the BOIE. I don't believe that to be true. I believe we have to examine whether or not there's a need to replace the BOIE. At this point in time I'm not sure if there is. I've always been of the view that, if it ain't broken, don't fix it or don't even try to.I go back to a number of words of caution we've heard from previous witnesses. Mr. Sills, who of course was a member of IPSA, cautioned us that in effect we should not even try to replace something unless there's a need to, unless there's a problem that exists. I haven't yet been able to identify any problems large enough that would require a replacement of the BOIE.But I also go back to something, and I think I'd like to get a comment on this. Let's assume for a moment we determined there should be a different body constructed, an independent oversight body. One of the things Speaker Fraser cautioned us on was the fact that—and I'm sort of trying to put it in my own words I suppose—there would be almost a loss of corporate memory. In other words, one of the things that the membership of the Clerk and the chief financial officer brings to the BOIE is that knowledge of the institution. What Speaker Fraser was asking is what role the Speaker would have and what problems might occur by having members who don't have the knowledge of the institution itself when trying to determine, as examples, spending allocations on maybe a renovation of the West Block, or whether or not there was a need to enhance or beef up security services, or anything of that nature. Starting with you Madam O'Brien, I'd like to get commentary from both of you on whether or not you feel that, if we go to independent oversight, we might be in a problem area in terms of lack of knowledge of the institution itself. Corporate memory is, I guess, the term I use.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34977853497786349778734977883497789JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1235)[English]Mr. Julian was talking about the transition period, and I think that whole business of the corporate memory becomes an issue in the transition.We look at IPSA now, and it's been in place for three years, and by this time now they have created an informal liaison committee between members and IPSA, so that IPSA can better understand the needs of members and the various peculiarities of their constituencies and the peculiarities of their parliamentary functions and what they need to support those functions. I think that's certainly an issue we would have to take into consideration.In the IPSA creation, because the scandal, as it was called, occurred very close to a general election, there was just an incredible haste to actually deal with that by the creation of IPSA. I think the haste with which it was created, created really a terrific burden for the people working at IPSA as well as the people at the House. So I think there would have to be, in any kind of handover, a measured approach to give the new people time to take over and take over with a better understanding, whereas IPSA was thrown off into the deep end of the pool very quickly.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349779034977913497792TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25474AndréBellavanceAndré-BellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BellavanceAndré_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. André Bellavance: (1235)[Translation]Again, thank you, Ms. O'Brien, for joining us today. You were here when the committee began its study and here you are again as we wrap things up. We have come full circle.Since your first appearance before the committee, we have heard from other witnesses, including two former House speakers, Mr. Milliken and Mr. Fraser yesterday. Their remarks shed light on progress as it relates to the Board of Internal Economy. Mr. Milliken told us that, in 10 years, he had seen very little in the way of change with respect to how the board operated.Something former Speaker of the House John Fraser said really struck me. I was asking him about the representation of the Board of Internal Economy. Yesterday, we also heard from someone representing the Canadian Association of Journalists. We've talked a lot about transparency as it relates to the public and the media. But we haven't really discussed what happens on the inside. As I said yesterday, during my first seven years as an MP, our representatives on the Board of Internal Economy were Michel Guimond and then Claude DeBellefeuille. We had a rough idea of what went on and we trusted our whip to look after our affairs. We didn't ask too many questions.Today, I'm in a different boat. The NDP and the Conservatives experienced the same thing from 1993 to 1997. The members of my party are in the dark. We don't really know what goes on at the Board of Internal Economy. The minutes barely tell us anything about what's going on or how matters are progressing.Former Speaker Fraser told me that it was definitely possible to make adjustments as far as our representation in the House of Commons was concerned. Belonging to a party that isn't recognized or being an independent doesn't make us second-class citizens. And yet that's how the Board of Internal Economy treats us. If the solution ends up being business as usual and that's how it is, I completely disagree.The first thing we need to do is stop navel gazing and make the changes required internally to improve representation. Next, the Board of Internal Economy needs to be more transparent to the public. What's more, whether it's legislated or at the Auditor General's request, once or twice a year, he or she should conduct the necessary audits of the board's activities. The Information Commissioner mentioned some requests to that effect that could be granted.I don't want to put words in the mouth of former Speaker Fraser, given that, in his case, we were talking only about representation. Nevertheless, I would like to know whether we could overhaul the Board of Internal Economy, rename it and transform it into a different organization, one that was more in line with what I was talking about.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497795349779634977973497798349779934978003497801JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1240)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I consider representation to be important, and I completely understand the dissatisfaction around that. I was interested in what Mr. Fraser said yesterday evening. On the three issues of representation, audits and access to information, I think we could make improvements to rectify the problems you raised, Mr. Bellavance, without dismantling or eliminating the Board of Internal Economy to create a completely new entity.I agree, improvements are needed. There is room for improvement. It might necessitate a review of the Act of Parliament, which stipulates the Board of Internal Economy's membership, but it could be done.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349780234978033497804AndréBellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1240)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.Mr. Watters, I'd like to come back to the issue of transition. I'd like to get your thoughts, then, on how we put together the transition. Madame O'Brien spoke of a measured approach, and we certainly understand that. But we'd like to know, in terms of the transitional measures to take and in terms of the model, what suggestions you have for us.Putting aside the debate around it, I think the motion is very clear, and I think the public has been very clear. We really need your forethought in terms of how to achieve this independent oversight, which is clearly what the Auditor General is calling for.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349780734978083497809JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1240)[English]Thank you.Basically, Mr. Chair, the way I understand the question is, what would be the guide to proceed if we decided to go along this particular route?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34978103497811PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1240)[English]Yes.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497812Mark G.WattersMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1240)[English]First of all, let me say that I think the 21 people in Finance Services who do the work of the adjudication of the claims would have to be moved over, out of the Finance Services of the House, and then basically replicate in the new agency what they do here. That can be done with some machinery change, depending on the entity that's created and that type of thing.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497813PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1245)[English]Yes.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497814Mark G.WattersMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1245)[English] But they would need to be supported, as I was saying a little earlier, by other infrastructure. They would need to be housed in a facility. They would need to have the support of a human resources department, or they would have to be able to buy that service from somewhere else. They would need systems. They would need their own audit regime as well. For the work they would do, they would need an appropriation to proceed. They would need a senior management.Basically, it's the cost of putting the key in the door. You're creating a new entity. It's not a matter of just taking the people who are operationally doing the job that you want them to do; you need to surround them with the infrastructure to allow them to be able to do their job. If those people decide to organize, then you'll have to enter into collective bargaining agreements with the bargaining agent and so on. You can appreciate that there's a lot of work to do in that respect.But it would be important also, Mr. Chair, to take the time. If there's one thing that was stressed to us when we met with the U.K., it was that six months to do this is just far too little time. As the Clerk was saying, some three years later, they're finding the middle ground and the sweet spot in terms of the relationship between the entity and parliamentarians. It takes some time to do that and to not rush things, because they need to be set up properly to do the job that we would expect them to do.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349781534978163497817PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1245)[English]But certainly between now and the next election, this is very doable, this actual list that you've put out. Having set up organizations, I certainly understand what you're saying about a measured approach. This could be in place and voters could see it in time for the next election, perhaps not for the immediate next fiscal year, but certainly for the fiscal year after that.On the audit regime you're speaking of, the Auditor General, who is a strong proponent of independent oversight, has said as well that he wants to be involved in comprehensive audits. That's certainly something we support, and that's something that he would require some additional resources for. But he's been cut back by this government. I think there's a strong mood in the public for the Auditor General to be given those additional resources, because it's taxpayers' money, after all. The Auditor General, on behalf of the public, is ensuring that expenses are accurately undertaken.I'll go to both of you, then, Madam O'Brien and Mr. Watters. Do you have a preference in terms of the Manitoba model with a commissioner, or the IPSA model? Do you have any thoughts on either of those? I'm saying that those are the two choices. You may have another choice, but I'm saying that with the presumption, of course, that the mandate Parliament has given us is that we're doing away with the secretive self-policing and the bureau of internal economy. Given that we're doing away with that, what is your preference in terms of model?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349781834978193497820Mark G.WattersJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1245)[English]I guess that if one were to look at either Manitoba's or an IPSA model, I suppose that an IPSA model would seem somewhat preferable to me.If you have a lone commissioner, it would seem to me that this person would have a crushing burden of expectations visited upon him or her in terms of independence. Who appoints the commissioner? Is it the government? Is it the House? How does that work? IPSA has at least a number of people, and there are a number of statutory requirements for some of the positions. But it also has to be remembered that it is a Speaker's committee that actually chooses the members for IPSA, so that might work. Given that there are more of them to choose in IPSA, it seems to me that perhaps you could satisfy marginally more people than you could with the one person, and because this is much bigger than a Manitoba legislature, maybe that would be better.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349782234978233497824JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1245)[English]They have 57 members.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497825AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1245)[English]Yes, there are only 57 members.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497826Mark G.WattersJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC): (1245)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.It's good to have you both back.As you know, I come from Alberta, and we have a saying, “All hat and no cattle”. That is a saying that I think could very aptly apply to the NDP when it comes to transparency—“All talk, no action”. Certainly we're hearing all this talk today about things on their website. Well, it's disclosure that of course Parliament provides. On Mr. Julian's website, for example, it's buried way down at the bottom. When you look at the actions we're taking and the Liberals are taking, there's certainly proactive disclosure. I just wanted to point that out, that there is some level of transparency that comes with that, in terms of disclosing your travel and hospitality on a line-by-line basis. Hopefully, we'll bring them into that at some point. They seem quite reluctant for some reason. I want to continue my questioning in relation to expenses. My questions will be mainly for you, Mr. Watters, but, Ms. O'Brien, if there's something you feel you can add, please do. Mr. Julian had a question about a new independent agency, something like an IPSA, which, as we heard from the IPSA officials themselves, actually works quite a bit like the Board of Internal Economy that currently exists. I believe 21 employees are responsible for adjudicating the claims put in by members of Parliament. You indicated that essentially, if something like that were created, those individuals would just have to move over and basically replicate what they do now under a different organization.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34978293497830349783134978323497833JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1245)[English]That's right.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497834BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1245)[English]I take it from that comment that you essentially feel that what's being done now is quite sufficient, in terms of combing through the expense claims that are put in, that you feel they're being adjudicated in a fulsome way and that the process is quite sufficient as it exists now.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497835Mark G.WattersMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1250)[English]That's correct. I do.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497836BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1250)[English]The bottom line has to do with the kinds of things we've seen with the four senators who have had a lot of publicity recently based on some of the inappropriate expense claims that were made. IPSA was created in the U.K. as a result of some significant concerns that arose with some of the expenses being claimed by members there. I would assume you would feel that with the process we have, there's really no way we could see.... I know there are no guarantees in life, but there's really no way we could see, given the magnitude of expenses.... I suppose there is always the odd thing that could slip through, but we wouldn't see those kinds of things happening in our House of Commons because of the way our expense claims are adjudicated currently. Is that fair?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497837Mark G.WattersMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1250)[English]The answer to that, Mr. Chair, as I think was said earlier by Mr. MacKenzie, is that the U.K. model was built on allowances rather than reimbursement against receipt, and our system is built on reimbursement against receipt. So the chance of that happening here would be much lower. There'd have to be collusion and there'd have to be—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497838BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1250)[English]It would be significantly less likely.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497839Mark G.WattersMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1250)[English]—dummy receipts actually provided to us for reimbursement. It would be fraud, as opposed to a regime in which it's based more on allowances. There's a lot of history as to why that is the case in the U.K. There was a huge push to keep salaries low and keep allowances high, and the House and IPSA would talk to you about that if you were to call them back.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497840BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1250)[English]Sure.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497841Mark G.WattersMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1250)[English]The regime we have here is quite different. Even in the salary of a parliamentarian in Canada versus a parliamentarian in the U.K., there's a huge difference, and they're beginning to grapple with that in the U.K. The drivers are completely different.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3497842BlakeRichardsWild RoseJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)): (1900)[English] We'll call our meeting to order. We are here tonight in our special meeting still looking at the order of reference of Monday, October 21, and the study of the review of the Board of Internal Economy. We have a very special witness for you tonight.Some hon. members: Hear, hear!The Chair: Speaker Milliken, it's great to see you again. It has always been fun to have you at committee, and this is a whole different circumstance this time.We are waiting for former Speaker Fraser to join us electronically. There have been some technical difficulties, and when he jumps in, we may give him a few words to start off.Speaker Milliken, if you have an opening statement, we'd love to hear from you. Then we're going to ask you really hard questions.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination349361534936163493617349361834936193493620PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken (Former Speaker of the House of Commons, As an Individual): (1900)[English] I'd just as soon you go on with the questions, because I don't know what you want to hear from me. It might be better if you ask the questions, to save your time, rather than have me take it up with babbling.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndividual presentationInformation dissemination3493621JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1905)[English]I'm not casting judgment on the efficiencies of either Speaker Milliken or Speaker Scheer, but I know that certainly on behalf of everyone in our caucus, it is very, very good to see you again. You were always, in our opinion, an excellent Speaker.It is in that capacity, of course, that you're here. We're engaged in a study on whether or not the Board of Internal Economy should be replaced.I have one specific question. I'd like to hear your observations on that particular question. To clarify things, for the last couple of meetings, Mr. Julian has been trying to impress upon people that the board either has in the past or is moving towards more of a vote-centric type of decision-making process. We have heard from Clerk O'Brien and also from IPSA in the United Kingdom that they work on a consensus basis. My understanding is that the Board of Internal Economy for many years now has worked on a consensus basis. I would like to set the record straight so that we don't have the same type of, quite frankly, misinformation coming from Mr. Julian and the NDP.Beyond the consensus question, I would ask you an open-ended question. Do you think that Parliament would be better served by scrapping the BOIE and going to an independent, arm's-length body similar to what the U.K. has done?So there are two questions, one on consensus and the second on observations on whether the BOIE should be replaced by some other form or body.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493628349362934936303493631349363234936333493634JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonPeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1905)[English] I can't tell you that I know much about the replacement of the British practice there. I've read only minimal amounts about it, and I didn't know that was the thrust of what I was coming to address tonight. So I'm not an expert on that at all and I won't make much more comment.I have to say that, in my view, the Board of Internal Economy has done a wonderful job as the governing body of the financial side of the House of Commons. I say that having been a member, obviously, since I was Speaker. I don't think I was on the board before—to the best of my recollection, I don't think I was—so I had no familiarity directly with the way it worked. But certainly watching it function, as chair, for the 10 years or so that I was there, I thought it worked really well.The strengths were that because the meetings were in camera, you had almost no partisan fights, public ones, in the meeting that you would have had if the meetings had been open. Members didn't bother drawing on partisan differences. They said, “We have to fix problems that arise here between parties or with members and the board”, in terms of compliance with the rules that the board issued. And the rules were in the manual, very specific bylaws and all that stuff, that the board passed, so members were expected to comply with those—not just expected, it was demanded. The board officials who did the work reviewing members' claims were very thorough, in my view, in examining those claims and making sure there was no issue or problem in terms of compliance with the rules and bylaws of the board set out in the manual. Then the claims were paid. Members could appeal to the board if they felt they had been unfairly treated, and did, and we would listen to the arguments or review the letter, at least, the member sent, or whatever, and then look at the decision that had been made and see whether we supported it or not. Generally, there was unanimity in most cases, I think. Consensus was standard at all meetings. There were hardly ever votes while I was chair—maybe twice or three times. There were very, very few. It was almost always a consensus deal, and the decision was made on a whole host of issues.There was lots of criticism from the media that we weren't having our meetings in public. The minutes were always tabled in the House later. They didn't like that because they were too scanty in terms of detail. But the decisions of the board were in the minutes.Given the nature of the discussion, on mostly financial issues—the big thing the board is dealing with is money—you wouldn't expect that kind of discussion to take place in public, given the claims or sought-after allowances or exceptions to the rules or whatever that were sought by anybody on any issue that had come up. It wouldn't be something that should be advertised, in my view, in public. It wouldn't be in any corporation, that's for sure, so why would it be here?In the end, I thought the board functioned really well as a board of directors, if I can call it that, or a governing body for the House, in part because of the rules that applied to it in terms of having its meetings in camera, in terms of the appointments to the board, the people who were working there, and the fact that it was charged with responsibility for, in effect, financial oversight of the House. It did its work, in my view, very effectively. I don't know why there's a sudden press to change it. I'm kind of surprised at this because there hasn't been a scandal involving House expenditures on anything the way there has been in the other place. I don't mean to dump criticism on the other place, but I think our system has worked really well, and I think our rules have been very precise and quite specific. For that reason, I don't think we've had a problem with members misspending or getting away with something very often. It has hardly ever happened.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityIndividual presentationInformation dissemination34936353493636349363734936383493639349364034936413493642TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1910)[English]Let me ask you something that has come up before, and that is on the composition of the board itself.Madam O'Brien had mentioned that the composition of the board currently is that there are equal numbers of government members and opposition members on it, with the Speaker, of course, who's charged with, as you know, representing all members as the chair.Has that always been the case in your experience?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination349364334936443493645PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1910)[English] Yes.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493646TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1910)[English]Speaker, we're studying the Board of Internal Economy, and we have Speaker Milliken with us too.We've just started our rounds of questioning, and Mr. Lukiwski has already asked his round.Do you have any opening statement or any comments you would like to make?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination349365434936553493656JohnFraserHon.JohnFraserHon.JohnFraserHon.John-FraserInterventionHon. John Fraser: (1910)[English] First of all, thank you very much for asking me to appear in front of this august committee. I hope everybody is aware that it has been some years since I was Speaker of the House of Commons, but I've kept a pretty close interest in what is going on in the House of Commons and I am very much intrigued by the motion that has brought this committee together.I don't want to go back through all the history of the House of Commons and the history of the Speaker's office; I'm not going to try to do that. I've had the advantage of reading most of what Audrey O'Brien gave in testimony and also her abbreviated notes, and I do have the elements of the motion in front of me, which all of you know and I don't need to repeat.There are a couple of things I would like to say. First of all, things have probably changed quite significantly in many ways since I had the privilege of serving in the House as Speaker, so I do not speak with any intimate sense of what problems the Board of Internal Economy has had to deal with in recent years. But I am very intrigued that there are some who think that the Board of Internal Economy should either cease to exist or be transformed into a commission of some sort to make it more independent and to satisfy those who feel, understandably so, that there ought to be greater transparency in the activities of the Board of Internal Economy.I have to say that raises some very interesting questions: exactly what form would this new commission take, and who would be included in it? If it were independent and all the members of it were not related in any way to their duties as members of Parliament, what would that do to the sensitivity of such a commission? Who would appoint the commission? Is it the government? Is it the House of Commons? Who makes that decision, and what are the requirements for those who would serve on such a commission?Some of you may have answers to those questions, and some who have appeared in front of you may have given those answers, but I haven't heard them, for whatever reason. Those are clearly issues that all of you on the committee will have to deal with.I want to go back some years, because I did ask Audrey O'Brien, when she had research done into the history of the Speakership, if I can use that worn phrase.... I couldn't remember, in all the years I was there, any major problem we had in the operation of the Board of Internal Economy. For the most part, in fact, I don't ever remember a situation in which we had a serious difference of opinion. We always seemed to work things out among us—again to use an overworked term—on a consensual basis. One of the most important parts of the Board of Internal Economy was made up of members of Parliament. It was made up of both government and opposition members, and of course the Speaker had the duty to chair it. (1915) As far as my memory goes—and I have not been able to go back through the years and look at any minutes, so I don't have exact details in my mind—we seemed to function pretty well, and we didn't seem to come in for very much criticism.There's another point that I'd like to at least raise for your consideration, and that is, if we're going to have a commission that does what the Board of Internal Economy did or does, what's the role of the Speaker? Is the Speaker part of the new commission? To what degree are the obligations of the Speaker, which is fundamentally, as I'm sure you're all aware, first of all, of course, the administration.... Well, his first jurisdiction, of course, is the House of Commons, the rules and procedures, and order in the House, etc., but as I'm sure you all know, the Speaker's office and those around the Speaker have an enormous administrative responsibility, and also a responsibility for security, in conjunction, of course, with other people.Those are major responsibilities. I don't know right now whether the notions behind a commission are going to change dramatically the role of the Speaker, especially the two main roles that the Speaker, up until now, has had. The first, of course, is the House of Commons, and the second is the administration of everything on the Hill.The last thing I want to say is this. I pay attention to the media and to public comment about the House of Commons, and of course more recently the Senate, which I don't know very much about anyway, and I am deeply distressed at the degree to which so many Canadians seem to think that anyone who goes into public life is, potentially, at least, unworthy of their votes or unworthy of their support.Now, as I say, I'm speaking about many years ago, but my experience as Speaker was that for the vast majority of members I knew—and it didn't matter which side of the House they were sitting on—most of them cared a great deal about the country, first of all, and most of them were putting a tremendous amount of effort into trying to do the job they got elected to do: looking after their constituents and their problems, and dealing with the issues of legislation and committees and all that sort of thing.One of the things that a lot of people don't want to face up to is that there's a great variety of ability among the people we elect to the House of Commons. Some have never had an office in their lives, and some of them have never had a secretary or a staff. Some of them, on the other hand, have had very important administrative, entrepreneurial, and academic positions. So you get a considerable difference in basic ability. Some rise to the occasion. Some do the best they can, but they don't become outstanding.But all of this is part and parcel of the democratic election system we have, and I think I can say that in my experience, both as a member of Parliament and then later as Speaker of the House of Commons, most members of Parliament were pretty aware that their obligation was to the country, to their constituents, to the House, and to the public interest.Now, I don't know to what degree an appointed commission is going to be able to be sensitive to these things. I can't tell, because we don't know who would be on it, or how many people. (1920) Again I come back to this: would some of the duties of the Speaker on the administrative side be put off to the commission? Would others remain with the Speaker's office? But those are questions that I'm sure all of you on the committee are acutely aware need attention.I'm not particularly enthusiastic about an appointed, so-called independent commission, but I suppose I could be persuaded.The last thing I want to say is this. There's an old saying that before you change something, you'd better be awfully sure that you're going to come up with something better. There's another saying that goes with it that says if you're going to change something, identify what it is that is the cause for needing the change. That has to be more than just somebody writing a letter to the editor or some media person with a deadline to meet, knowing that criticism or something dramatic will get more attention than otherwise. I think this has to be kept in mind.The last thing I want to say is this. Instead of a Board of Internal Economy that meets on its own in camera, I suppose you could have a commission that meets in camera sometimes when it is appropriate and also sometimes meets in committee in private. But what I haven't seen yet in the discussion is whether we are going to have a situation where we have a commission and the members come, and then it's open to the media and questions from the public. Is it going to be a wide open arrangement? If it is, what happens when the members feel that some matters are delicate enough and appropriate enough to be discussed in camera? Are we going to get the same criticisms that we get against the Board of Internal Economy?Those are thoughts that I have. I don't want to go on too long, but I'd be very pleased to hear what members have to say and try to respond to any questions you might have. Again, I want to express my appreciation for being invited to come before you, and I apologize for being a bit late.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraIndividual presentationInformation dissemination349366834936693493670349367134936723493673349367434936753493676349367734936783493679349368034936813493682349368334936843493685349368634936873493688JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnFraserHon.John-FraserInterventionHon. John Fraser: (1925)[English]It's a big, wild country out here, and my instructions as to how to find this place were, by either my fault or somebody else's fault, not easy. In any event, Stephanie here finally got me on the phone, she brought me in front of you, so here we are, and I'd like to help in any way I can.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493690JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): (1925)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you very much, Speaker Fraser and Speaker Milliken, for being here today. I just found out, Speaker Fraser, that you're in Squamish. I'm glad you were able to find the studio, but I'm not sure why you were sent there. It's good to have you both here with us, and thank you very much for your contribution to Parliament and to our country. You have many years of service.I'm going to go first to questions to Speaker Milliken, and then I'll come back to you, Speaker Fraser.Speaker Milliken, you spoke of your past history with the BOIE. I'd like you to just tell us the parliament where you had the maximum number of parties around the table, because I think you were Speaker in a period when there was what some people called the pizza Parliament, when there were four or five parties. What was the maximum number of parties you had around the table?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination34936933493694349369534936963493697JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonPeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1925)[English]I think it was four.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493698PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1925)[English]Four.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493699PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1925)[English]Yes, the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberals, and the Conservatives.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493700PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1925)[English]You referenced two or three votes that were held during the period that you were on the BOIE as Speaker.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493703PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1925)[English]You mean in the BOIE?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493704PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1925)[English]Yes.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493705PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1925)[English]Did I? Okay.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493706PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1925)[English]That's the note I took. Perhaps I misunderstood.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493707PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1925)[English]It might have been. I can't remember, but there were some, yes.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493708PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1925)[English]Do you recall any vote where it was the government members on one side and the opposition members on the other?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493709PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1925)[English]There might have been one.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493710PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1925)[English]There might have been one where the government—Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493711PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1925)[English]Where it was an even split like that, yes, there might have been one. I can't remember for sure.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493712PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1925)[English]Okay.Now, as Speaker, you did reference looking for consensus and unanimity. In that kind of situation, even when there are four parties around the table, would you be looking to have some consensus across the aisle, where the government and the opposition, or at least one or two of the opposition parties, are in agreement?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination34937133493714PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1925)[English]Yes.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493715PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1925)[English]Okay. That comes to the issue of majority vote. I know the government members are a bit defensive on this, but we did learn from Madam O'Brien that there had been a recent move to the government basically having a majority vote around the BOIE. I'm wondering, with that kind of situation, would you feel—Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination349371634937173493718PeterMillikenHon.TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1925)[English]A point of order.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493719PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1925)[English]Mr. Lukiwski, on a point of order.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493720TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1925)[English]That was never said. I know Peter is trying to defend a position he has, but Madam O'Brien never said there was a move towards majority votes. Let's keep it clear on the record.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processFalse or misleading statementsGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers' remarksPoints of order349372134937223493723JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1925)[English]Madam O'Brien said there was a recent vote; it was a majority vote. It is true that I used the word “move”. But my point is, and I'll come back to you, Speaker Milliken, if we have a vote where a majority that is just on the government side establishes policy or a decision, do you see that as a precedent that makes it more difficult to establish consensus later on? Where you have a situation where a majority imposes or decides, then implicitly there is the fact that it could be used in the future. Would you see that as a negative precedent, or an unfortunate precedent?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination349372934937303493731JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonPeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1925)[English]No. Something like that can happen, but there's not a majority on the board. The Speaker is the chair, so there's only a possible equal vote among the parties. The Speaker may have to cast a deciding vote and decide one way or the other, but I don't remember being put in that position. I may have once, but that's the most I could say about it. As I said, I don't remember for sure.It was very rare—very, very rare.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination349373234937333493734PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1930)[English]Yes. But as you said earlier, your job as Speaker is to establish a consensus and to try to have that bridging between the majority—Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493735PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1930)[English]Try, yes. Sure.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493736PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1930)[English]—and the opposition.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493737PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1930)[English]But normally there wasn't an issue like that with the board. It was almost always agreed one way or the other. If it happened, it was only once in 10 years. It was just exceedingly rare. It was almost always a consensus or a majority, one way or the other.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination34937383493739PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1930)[English] Speaker Fraser, I'd like to ask the same question to you.Can you recall a situation? You, as well, were in a number of different situations as Speaker where there was a vote where the government was on one side and the opposition on the other. That was as opposed to, as you mentioned in your testimony, looking for a consensus and having sensitivity for the opposition and the opposition point of view.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination34937403493741PeterMillikenHon.JohnFraserHon.JohnFraserHon.John-FraserInterventionHon. John Fraser: (1930)[English] Mr. Julian, unless I were able to go back over all of the minutes over a number of years.... I might find a situation like that, but if there had been situations like that, I think I would have a pretty good memory of it. I can't recall any situation in which the discussion at the Board of Internal Economy became so two-sided, if I can put it that way, that there was need for anything except to try to find a way through it. I'll say this. There were times, of course, when members on both sides, both the opposition and the government side, might start off a discussion in which they seemed to have one position, and that position would be modified as they heard from each other. Of course, it is also the Speaker's task to try to make that happen, but it also happened, at least in my experience, because members around the table, while they might be able to have quite severe differences of opinion on the floor of the House, seemed to find ways to work things out. That doesn't mean they always started off a discussion in complete agreement, because I think that's asking for too much. But they were all there to do the job that had to be done, and as long as the decision didn't so upset one or two people, no matter what side of the House they were on, they would usually concede, “All right, we can live with this.” There is another problem with this, which I didn't get into in my earlier comments, and that is what do they do when members come along and ask “Well, what exactly did you say in these debates?” The members will later see the minutes or something and see the result of the deliberations. I don't have any particular answer to that. But it seems to me that people, being normal...there was probably some discussion by members of the Board of Internal Economy with some of their own caucus before they came to meetings, and there may have been some discussion afterwards.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination349374234937433493744PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): (1930)[English]Thank you, Speaker Milliken and Speaker Fraser. It's great to see the two of you here.I have some experience from the Manitoba perspective. I sat on the Legislative Assembly Management Commission, which operates in a similar fashion to the internal board here in Ottawa. When I reflect and I try to understand why it was that we moved in a certain direction in the Province of Manitoba, I can't help but apply some of that here in Ottawa. For example, Canadians as a whole want to see more transparency. They want to see more accountability. The issue of proactive disclosure seems to be talked about a great deal. When you look at the things the Board of Internal Economy does, are there things we can take out of the Board of Internal Economy that might appease the need to be more transparent and accountable?I'll give you a specific example. We have a commissioner in the Province of Manitoba. It's the commissioner who sets the pay and the pensions for MLAs. The Canadian public, as a whole, don't believe politicians should set their own pay or determine their pensions. Having that independent commission proves to be of value. The idea of movement toward more public meetings and not to have in camera meetings, may be an issue. Can we set up a subcommittee that deals with highly personal, in camera type topics that do come up but ultimately have to go back to the full committee in order to ultimately be approved?Can I get each of your thoughts with regard to answering those types of need? Are there some things that we can kind of hybrid away from the Board of Internal Economy, thereby giving more attention to those critical issues?Speaker Milliken, do you want to start off?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraIncome and wagesInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349374834937493493750349375134937523493753JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonPeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1935)[English] First of all, the rationale for the board meeting in camera is a very sensible one, in that they're dealing with mostly what I would call personal issues of claims for payment or whatever—that's a big thing for the board to deal with—and then policies for dealing with those things as well, because they do the bylaws and regulations that govern the way members submit claims and how they're processed and all that sort of stuff.That part isn't secret. The bylaws are all made public. They're all there for people to read, if they want to, and to see what rules govern members and the way they can make claims and how they're to be processed—all that sort of stuff. So I don't see that as a big issue. I know the media try to make it such, but it isn't. It has worked, and we've had very few problems with it over the years I've served in Parliament. To my mind, it's worked remarkably well. I'm not counting the Senate; I'm talking about the House, and that part has worked really well. I think it's because the rules are public. Yes, they're passed in private at meetings, but then they're made public, and so are the minutes of the meetings. So that stuff is not secret in that sense. The record of what has gone on is there.Now, sure, it's not a detailed record of who said what, but it does have the decisions the board made that are made public. And I think that's important. I'm not disagreeing with that aspect of the way the body functions, but I also think that in making decisions and reviewing complaints or reviewing cases that members have asked to be raised because they feel they were unfairly treated...it's reasonable for that part to be done in secret, behind closed doors. Why should the member make public the fact that he's unhappy with a decision that was made in respect of a claim the member advanced? I don't see why that's an issue. The question is whether the claim was correct or not, and the board will make its decision. Those decisions have been, in my view, well made over the years that I was there. I never heard complaints in the time before I was on the board, as chair, from any of the previous ones either. It was something that just didn't happen.I feel our system works very well, and I think it's important to bear that in mind. If we had people making false claims or there were a lot of claims that were not well regulated because our regulations were weak or not properly enforced, yes, but that hasn't been an issue, and it isn't an issue, in my view, with the House of Commons. That's why I'm a strong defender of the way our current system works and the way it has functioned. I think it's good, and I think it's served the House very well, it has served the members very well, and it has served the public of Canada very well.Salaries of members are not an issue the board decides; it's a government issue. The budgets are what set these things, and they are introduced by the Minister of Finance. The recent restrictions on budget increases for members for their salaries were done in the budget, as I understand it. That's my recollection. I don't think the board ever made a decision in respect of MPs' pay. They may have affected their budgets. If the Department of Finance, in its budget that the minister gives in the House, cuts the Board of Internal Economy's budget, you can only imagine where the cuts are going to fall. MPs' salaries are dealt with by the Minister of Finance in the budget, not by the Board of Internal Economy. The board isn't there just to look after members. It's there to look after the interests of the House of Commons. In my view, it's done a remarkably good job of it. And I'm not saying that because I was the chair; I'm just saying the way it worked, the way the members worked around the table, to me was extremely good.It was quite non-partisan. One party would say, “Our member is asking for additional payment for this or for that, but we don't support it”, and the others say, “We don't support it either”, and that was the end of it. That's the way the board works, in my view. It's mostly consensus, and it was very effective for that reason.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraIncome and wagesInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493754349375534937563493757349375834937593493760KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnFraserHon.John-FraserInterventionHon. John Fraser: (1940)[English] I'll be very short.Speaker Milliken, I think, got to the nub of the thing. Salaries and benefits are determined by the government in the budget, not by the Board of Internal Economy. That, however, may not transfer over to the question of expenditures on any particular trip or activity the member might be in. That could lead to discussion.I agree with Speaker Milliken when he says there are some things that are sensitive enough that, in fairness to a member of Parliament, they should not be dealt with in the public domain.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIncome and wagesInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349376334937643493765JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): (1940)[English]Thank you, Chair.Speaker Milliken, whom I know best in this whole thing, it seems to me, having sat here through this, that we have people who have a solution for no problem.When I heard the IPSA people talk about the issues they had that brought forward the IPSA program—which seems to me to fit very closely with the BOIE, other than that IPSA is an independent body—they were all the same things: they hold their meetings in camera, they have their minutes, and so on. But what we found out is that prior to their making those changes, they had a system whereby any expense claim of under £250, or about $400, could be made and was automatically paid without any type of receipt. Would you agree that such a system does not exist here and that our receipts are scrutinized in a manner that is much more comprehensive than that?I think that explains why they are where they are, and it probably explains the difference in the two systems.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34937683493769349377034937713493772JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonPeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1940)[English]I'm sorry, I don't have enough of the details to answer that question. I don't know whether we demanded receipts or not. I suspect so, but I just don't remember. You'd file a claim, and I don't know what was attached to it; my staff did all that. But I assume they attached receipts or that there was some evidence—a boarding pass or whatever it was. I don't know; I guess they attached that stuff. I'm sorry.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493773DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1940)[English]That's fair enough. But if in fact those receipts are submitted—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493774PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1940)[English]Yes.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493775DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1940)[English]—and if the claims were then somehow made public, does that fit the transparency model that you would expect?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493776PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1940)[English]Yes, because the amount that members paid out for travel and all of that stuff was made public.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493777DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1940)[English]Yes.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493778PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1940)[English]It still is, as I understand it. There's no question about that. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493779DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1940)[English]My other question would be, when you headed up the BOIE, did you find that MPs were less partisan during in camera meetings than they are in televised meetings like today's?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation dissemination3493780PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1940)[English]Absolutely. That's why I think it's important to keep that work in camera; otherwise we'd have very partisan divisions in the board that would be seriously counterproductive. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation dissemination3493781DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxfordJohnFraserHon.John-FraserInterventionHon. John Fraser: (1940)[English]You started off, and I was very taken with this, saying that maybe the proposed solution isn't there because there isn't really a problem. Again, I haven't been around there recently; Speaker Milliken has, and we have a new Speaker as well. But I come back to what I said a few minutes ago, and that is that if you're going to change things, you had better know what the problem is that you're going to change. You also asked whether members were less partisan in private meetings of the Board of Internal Economy. I can't refer to specific meetings, but over a number of years I am convinced that most of the members, most of the time, when they knew they were not in the public eye, treated each other in a courteous and often helpful way. I certainly do not remember any narrow partisan exchanges in all the years I was there. I think I would have, because as Speaker you're sitting in the middle of it.What would happen if, for instance, tomorrow the media came in to all of the Board of Internal Economy meetings? I think it's inevitable that somebody, sooner or later, would choose to take the opportunity to make some points, and somebody else would take them on, and you'd have a partisan dispute going on. I think that is much less likely in a closed meeting.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationPartisanship349378634937873493788DaveMacKenzieOxfordJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): (1945)[English] Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Speakers, for your attendance today. This is all very helpful. Let me say, just by way of a little assistance, that IPSA, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, the British system that has been set up—this is from our library analyst—in a nutshell has three main roles: ...it regulates the system of costs and expenses, sets MPs’ pay and pensions, and administers and pays MPs’ salaries, business costs, staff salaries and expenses. IPSA is fully independent from Parliament but does respond to written questions from MPs, and publishes all Freedom of Information requests.As some of us would see it, that's the ideal, the gold standard, and the question is whether we feel we're going to go there or not. I might just also say that, like some others here, I have sat on a Board of Internal Economy—at Queen's Park, but as you know, the rules there are very consistent with ours and it is similar in the way it functions—so I am very familiar with not only what goes on outside but what happens inside BOIE. Speaker Milliken, I jotted down that you said the BOIE for the most part did a wonderful job, that it functioned really well, that there were no partisan fights, and that it worked very effectively—things such as that. I certainly wouldn't disagree; I think it has served us well. But that's the whole point: one of the Speaker's most important roles is to protect the rights of members of Parliament. This is about the issues of the rights of the public, and I would contend that we don't have to prove that the BOIE is broken to justify going to a better system.Yesterday, the Auditor General told us: In my opinion, governance can be strengthened by having an independent body that would either advise the Board of Internal Economy or be given the responsibility for all matters related to Members' expenses and entitlements. Regardless of the role of such a body, it is important that Canadians are confident that its membership is independent and that the members have been chosen in a non-partisan manner. And of course our guests from Britain advised us as to the system they had set up and how it works. Here is my issue. Every party talks about transparency and accountability, but you can't just talk the talk; you have to walk the walk. That's the difficulty with staying where we are right now. The public views this, and rightly so, as part of—to use an expression—“the old boy network”, and you can't blame them for feeling that, when it is us deciding on things about us and for us. That doesn't necessarily mean that there has been anything wrong. For a long time, the notion was that we'd just have a few good chaps go in and do a good, competent job. Well, good chaps sometimes turn out to be not so good, and competency often is not so competent. Yet there is no accountability, because it's all us; it's all in-house. The issue I would put to Speaker Milliken, because I quoted you, but certainly to Speaker Fraser, if you wish to comment, is.... And Speaker Fraser, you said that you could be convinced. I would put the question to you: do you really think we need to prove that the BOIE is not working and not functioning and is effectively a failed body, in order to justify going to a better system? If we can show that there's a better system that meets the public needs, and we have something to draw from—a standard, which is Britain's, in the Westminster mother ship.... They went through horrible scandals and came up with this model. We're in the process of changing everything, and we have a motion on the floor that says we should look at that model. I'm just asking, do we really have to prove that BOIE is broken before we can justify going to something that meets the current, modern era and public needs of accountability and transparency?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination349379134937923493793349379434937953493796349379734937983493799349380034938013493802349380334938043493805JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC): (1950)[English]Thanks, Mr. Chair. I sympathize, because that happened to me the other day, so I know how it feels. But unfortunately, it's my opportunity now, and I appreciate that. I want to go back to Speaker Milliken and some of the comments you were making earlier. You were talking about there having been a number of cases—and I can't remember the number you said, but it wasn't a large number—in which you had to look at a member's expense claim when they were questioning the decision that had been made about their expenses. How often did that occur? Would it be something that—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493808349380934938103493811JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonPeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1950)[English]I couldn't tell you. I don't remember. It happened from time to time—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493812BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1950)[English]Yes, but—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493813PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1950)[English]—but how often, I couldn't—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493814BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1950)[English] A few times a year or—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493815PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1950)[English]Yes, a couple of times a year.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493816BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1950)[English]Something in that neighbourhood? Maybe a few times a year.Maybe I'll ask Mr. Fraser if he recalls during his time as well. Can you give us some examples, obviously without giving personal information or people's names, of what type of thing that would have been? Would it generally have been something where they just weren't able to provide documentation, or was it something where there was a rule that was in place and maybe in an instance where the rule itself just didn't make common sense in the situation? I know I can think of one, and I don't think it went to the Board of Internal Economy for me, where there was a snowstorm. I think it's 100 kilometres to be able to claim a hotel room in your riding and I was 88 kilometres from home and in a terrible snowstorm. I would have been leaving there at 10 p.m. and having to be back there at 7 a.m. the next day in the same community, so I was able to have an exception made. It was actually a cheaper thing to do, the hotel room, than the mileage anyway. Was it more something like that, where common sense kind of dictated that the rule needed to be bent in that case, or was it lack of documentation? What would it have been?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493817349381834938193493820PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1950)[English]I suspect it was things like that. I'm sorry, I just don't remember. It was usually something where there was some excessive expenditure or something had been incurred that wasn't allowed under the existing rules and they had been disallowed and they appealed.Usually we backed the decision that was made by the employee of the board who had reviewed the thing for the reasons that were given in that, but occasionally there might have been an exception. I'm sorry, I just don't remember the cases.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34938213493822BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1950)[English]Sure.Speaker Fraser, basically the same two questions: how often did you see those kinds of things come forward, and can you give us any examples, or maybe just even a broad generalization of what types of things they may have been that would have come before you in terms of members looking at their expenses and questioning the decision that was made by the staff of the board?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34938233493824PeterMillikenHon.JohnFraserHon.JohnFraserHon.John-FraserInterventionHon. John Fraser: (1950)[English]It's getting to be a long time ago, but I don't remember that being a big issue at all.I just wanted to say something to Mr. Christopherson. When I said that there's an old saying that you don't look for a new solution unless you've seen the problem, I don't want him or any of you to think that I don't think there's any room for improvement. I think there could be.What I've raised is how are you going to do it, and to what degree are you going to change the responsibility of the Speaker and of those members who would have been on the Board of Internal Economy? For instance, if you had an independent committee to check all expenditures of members of Parliament, and that is what they did and nothing else, that might work. But when you get into the whole question of whether or not you think the Board of Internal Economy ought to support the plans of the public service department in its renditions of new buildings or in accommodation adjustment and that sort of thing, you don't need an independent committee to do that.So there may be some things that an independent commission could do that would meet the very things that Mr. Christopherson was talking about, and that is that the public gets more upset about the misuse of public money than about many other things. If that would solve it, then perhaps the committee on which you're all working could come up with a solution.My point is that you don't start coming up with a whole new commission to take over everything that has already been done unless you can point at the problem. In fairness to Mr. Christopherson, he did point out a specific problem. I think that might be something that could be done.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination34938253493826349382734938283493829BlakeRichardsWild RoseJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25474AndréBellavanceAndré-BellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BellavanceAndré_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): (1955)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Mr. Fraser, I would like to remind you of your last years as chair of the Board of Internal Economy, from 1993 to 1994. At that time, the Conservative Party and the NDP were not yet recognized. They had two and nine MPs, respectively. They certainly were not on the BOIE. Do you remember the two parties complaining about not being on the BOIE and not being sufficiently informed about what was being discussed there?I'm going to relate a short anecdote about what we experienced on our side. I had no problems in the first seven years I was an MP because our party was represented on the Board of Internal Economy. But in 2011, when the board looked into a matter involving the Bloc Québécois, I asked to attend the meetings as an observer, but my request was denied.For the sake of greater representation of all members of the House, when it comes to their own political party or, at the very least, when some files affect them, meaning almost all of them, should space not be made for MPs who are members of a party that is not recognized or who sit as independents?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of unrecognized parties3493834349383534938363493837JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnFraserHon.JohnFraserHon.John-FraserInterventionHon. John Fraser: (1955)[English] First of all, I don't remember the circumstances to which you refer. That doesn't mean they didn't happen.Your specific question has to do with what happens to those members of a party who don't meet one of the rules in the House of Commons on how many people have to be there before they are recognized as a party. For instance, Elizabeth May is all by herself. That's just an example.I don't in principle have any particular objection to finding some way to accommodate that situation, but I'm not going to try to give you, this afternoon, the exact way of doing it. I was very conscious, as Speaker, of the Bloc especially, because there was a good number of you, as you will remember. I know that one of the things that concerned me at the time was that we had to make sure that members of the Bloc got an appropriate amount of time to ask questions and to take part in the discussions in the House. In principle, that could probably be carried over to the Board of Internal Economy as well.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination34938383493839349384034938413493842AndréBellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaAndréBellavanceRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25474AndréBellavanceAndré-BellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BellavanceAndré_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. André Bellavance: (1955)[Translation]When Ms. O'Brien was here, she said that the board was able to adapt to changing needs. Do you remember the main changes that took place in the 10 years you were chair of the Board of Internal Economy, particularly with respect to transparency? What changed the most from your first to your last year as chair of the board?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493843JohnFraserHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (1955)[Translation]I don't know that there were many changes. Perhaps more regulations were made public, but I think it was already that way when I started my mandate as Speaker of the House. Perhaps more documents were published, but I don't know if that's true, I don't know the details.Meeting-related documents were published after the meetings were held. It was the same when Mr. Fraser was chair of the BOIE.I think that's all. I don't think there were many procedural changes or changes in Board of Internal Economy publications during my term.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination349384434938453493846AndréBellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71401NycoleTurmelNycole-TurmelHull—AylmerNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/TurmelNycole_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): (2000)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Mr. Speaker, I'm going to ask you the same question as my colleague, I'd like to make a comment first.You spoke at length about minutes, which were public. In your opinion, BOIE minutes are no different than the minutes of most companies, insofar as they do not say much. With regard to transparency, independence and the impression of the public and of journalists, that adds to the current mistrust.The Auditor General said in his presentation that he was very much in favour of creating an independent body. He felt that such a body would help show that there is some openness and help dispel this mistrust or this impression that as MPs, we are both judge and jury. I would like your opinion on that.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493849349385034938513493852JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonPeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (2000)[Translation]I think it's unbelievable that he suggested something like that. According to his report on our figures and other things like that, everything is completely in order. He doesn't think our activities pose a problem.Another Auditor General looked into the accounts of the Board of Internal Economy over a number of years. The Auditor General does this review every 10 years or something like that. I don't know all the details. The figures did not pose any problems. They were organized and presented well.The public does not have a problem with what the House is doing. The press might have raised this issue because it thought that if there were problems elsewhere, there might also be problems in the House of Commons. But there are not, and the Auditor General proved it.In my opinion, I don't think decisions on the issues reviewed by the Board of Internal Economy need to be made differently. The board has done its job very well, and its decisions are fair and comply with the legislation and its own regulations. MPs do not submit many unacceptable claims, according to the board-adopted regulations. There are currently no complaints about these regulations.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493853349385434938553493856NycoleTurmelHull—AylmerNycoleTurmelHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71401NycoleTurmelNycole-TurmelHull—AylmerNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/TurmelNycole_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Nycole Turmel: (2000)[Translation]Mr. Milliken, we sort of had the impression that the Auditor General saw his capacity to investigate and conduct audits as fairly limited. Since he is the one saying that, it carries a little more weight than what journalists say.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493857PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.PeterMillikenHon.Peter-MillikenInterventionHon. Peter Milliken: (2000)[Translation]Yes, but the auditor asked to do audits more than once every few years. There is another auditor who does audits every year, and his decisions are acceptable, too. There was no indication of any problems. So, what is the problem here?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493858NycoleTurmelHull—AylmerNycoleTurmelHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (2005)[English]We'll start back up.Mr. Taylor-Vaisey, thank you for joining us today. Do you have some opening comments? Tell us about your role, and then we'll ask you a bunch of hard questions.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination34938643493865JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey (Vice-President, Canadian Association of Journalists): (2005)[English]Thanks. I'm not a former Speaker of the House, and you get me for a whole hour.Board of Internal EconomyCanadian Association of JournalistsGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3493866JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2005)[English] Nevertheless, thanks to the committee members for inviting the CAJ to express our views. Briefly, as some background on our organization, we are Canada's largest national professional organization for journalists from all media, representing approximately 600 members across the country. We have two primary roles, one to provide high-quality professional development to our members and the second is public interest advocacy, which I guess is why we are here today. As you know, we are here to provide our organization's perspective and a working journalist's perspective—I am a working journalist; I work for Maclean's—on your study of the Board of Internal Economy. In my remarks today I really have two themes. The first is parliamentarians' responsibility to be transparent and the second is journalists' responsibility to report in the public interest. Today I won't provide you with specific recommendations related to the particular composition of any re-imagined Board of Internal Economy. That's not my expertise. But I will emphasize the value of a more transparent board to the public—of course, the public being the citizens who ultimately hold politicians to account.There are two caveats to my remarks today. The first is that we ought to recognize the steps the board has taken over the years to enhance transparency and improve it. When the Clerk of the House, Audrey O'Brien, testified at this committee earlier this month, she outlined the many steps the board has taken in a good direction: the board's website is more robust than ever; meeting minutes are posted online, and I believe more quickly than they had been before; and members' expenditure reports that are online do outline in some detail how parliamentarians spend their budgets.The second caveat is that we are sensitive to concerns that matters normally reserved for in camera debate ought to stay behind closed doors. Of course, there are legitimate reasons for in camera sessions, as members of this standing committee or any standing committee know and are well aware of. Neither of those caveats, however, suggest that the board cannot and should not be more open, in our view. We think openness should be the rule, not the exception.In her testimony, Ms. O'Brien suggested that the benefits of public meetings would be mostly illusory. She said, “I don't think, if the meetings of the board were to be held in public, this would improve the situation. It might improve the perception of the board.” And she added that meetings conducted with open doors would “drive the actual discussion underground” because parliamentarians would be loath to discuss matters candidly and with less overt partisanship. We are absolutely understanding of those concerns, but, frankly, we don't think that is sufficient reason to close the doors on the board's meetings. If the tenor of debate around the table changes for the worse and is taken safely underground, as she put it, in our opinion that's a failing of MPs that they need to address among themselves. The public shouldn't be barred from meetings because parliamentarians need closed doors to get things done and to get along.Ms. O'Brien also said that the committee's deliberations are “of mind-numbing ordinariness”, and former law clerk Rob Walsh, testifying at the committee on November 7, said the meetings are “boring as hell”. Interesting as that may be as a comment, the entertainment value of board meetings is really of no importance to journalists, nor the broader public. I have no reason to question Ms. O'Brien's or Mr. Walsh's words, but our job is to witness events and speak truth to power, not to take people of influence at their word and eventually read fairly sparse meeting minutes whenever they are posted online.The public knows precious little of what happens at board meetings. They know nothing at all about when or where the board will meet. They only know that meetings occur “approximately every second week when the House is sitting”. Approximation is not precision, which I think the public should expect.Mr. Walsh made several recommendations to this committee. He suggested that board meetings “be held in public with its agendas made public the day before, subject to the usual limitations for privacy”, and further he mused that the board could establish subcommittees that would meet privately and present reports publicly at public meetings. That sounds to us like a step in the right direction.The committee has asked previous witnesses about the board's treatment of proactive disclosure, namely, whether or not there is enough public disclosure of MP spending. I don't have time during this statement to address that point fully, but I will say that greater and more specific disclosure would help journalists better understand how public money is spent. Not every expensed item, of course, is a matter of public concern, but we'd like the public to make that decision on their own. In closing, we understand how far the board has come, but anything short of open meetings means the public is effectively cut out of a forum that administers over $400 million of public money each year, and we support open doors to allow us to scrutinize that administration.(2010) Thank you again for inviting me. I'm happy to take any questions you have, which as you can probably understand is kind of a bizarre thing for a journalist to say to a room full of politicians.Board of Internal EconomyCanadian Association of JournalistsGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493868349386934938703493871349387234938733493874349387534938763493877349387834938793493880349388134938823493883JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (2010)[English]Thank you very much.Thank you, Mr. Taylor-Vaisey, for being here.I'm assuming the reason you're requesting more transparency is because we're talking about taxpayer dollars. You wouldn't be asking for the same level of transparency, say, for a private sector company. Am I correct in saying that?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493886349388734938883493889JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2010)[English]Absolutely. Sure.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493890TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (2010)[English]Okay. I have a couple of questions along that line.Number one, I will refer to some of Mr. Christopherson's comments when the Speakers were both here. He pointed to IPSA—and I hope I'm not mischaracterizing David's comments—as perhaps a better system. He stated that the public really shouldn't accept, or doesn't accept, MPs governing themselves and setting their own rules when it comes to pay and benefits.From a transparency standpoint, which is your main concern, IPSA told us that they started having their meetings in public but then quickly went to in camera. That's how they do all their meetings now, and they listed several good reasons for that. Madam O'Brien and both Speakers Milliken and Fraser said that in camera would be better as well, because there's a more frank, open, and frankly more productive discussion. Your point was that they can still do that in public because if partisanship came into the situation it would be the fault of the MPs. I think what we're trying to do here is to make sure that taxpayers' dollars are treated respectfully and properly. I'm not sure, given the fact that all decisions are made public, that the rules and bylaws concerning spending of MPs are public, and that all of the decisions, as I said before, are made public, how having meetings made public would enhance the benefit to the public. Given the fact that there could be problems about partisanship, because that's just the environment we're in—shame on us perhaps, but that's the environment we live in—I don't see how transparency and the benefit to the public would be enhanced.I'd like a comment on that.Secondly, and on a separate issue, if it's the fact that you're more concerned about transparency because of taxpayers' dollars, would you be advocating for all crown corporations to have all of their meetings in public as well? We're still talking about taxpayers' dollars there.Board of Internal EconomyCrown corporationsGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493891349389234938933493894349389534938963493897NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2015)[English]Sure.On the first question, I would return to the notion that openness should be the rule, not the exception. If a meeting quickly goes in camera for legitimate reasons, then a meeting goes in camera for legitimate reasons. If it doesn't come out of the in camera session until the committee decides to adjourn the meeting, then so be it. But I think it should be coming at it from the standard that everyone is allowed in until there's a legitimate reason to remove people who shouldn't be in the room.On the second question, I'm not sure I have an answer that would give much respect to the question. Off the top of my head I'd be guessing, so I don't know if I can address the crown corporation question.Board of Internal EconomyCrown corporationsGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349389834938993493900TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (2015)[English]Again, I go back to how the public's interest would be better served by having meetings in public. As both Speakers stated, as did Madam O'Brien, all of the rules and bylaws governing spending of parliamentarians are already public. The board has to adhere to those rules and bylaws. The decisions made by the board, which govern any requests or claims or any financial information, are published.Are you suggesting that somehow the public would be better served if the meetings were made public and journalists and others could observe if the results were the same as they would be at an in camera meeting? You were saying that gives them more confidence that everything is on the up and up.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34939013493902NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2015)[English]I think confidence is an issue for sure. You took the words out of my mouth in your last sentence.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34939033493904TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (2015)[English] But here's where I have a problem. When I say “problem”, I don't think there's a problem now with how the BOIE has been operating. It's certainly moving to greater transparency, and I think that's a good thing. I really do. Madam O'Brien outlined many of the steps they're doing. In other words, rather than lumping a number of categories together and getting a final total, they're breaking it down individually. At least two of the three parties have gone to voluntary disclosure of their MP expenses as well. Third, as you've heard, the BOIE doesn't set salaries or pensions. That's set arbitrarily. They're basically talking about the financial administration of the House—which, as Audrey O'Brien said, can get pretty boring—and MP expenses.Would your main concern be on getting more transparency in terms of the expenses to members of Parliament, the elected officials, or do you think the public is truly concerned about all of what I would perhaps incorrectly call the minutiae of the financial administration of the House?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349390534939063493907NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2015)[English] I think the answer is both. Whether or not it's the minutiae of the House or whether or not it would be boring as hell, or whether or not it would be mind-numbing, I just think the notion is that the public should, as its starting point, be able to listen to those things or hear those things.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493908TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (2015)[English]So you think it's important that the public knows how they got to the decision rather than just the decision, even if all rules and bylaws were....Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493909NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2015)[English]Absolutely. As it stands, the public can read the minutes, as sparse as they may be, and see those decisions. You'd think it would be useful if they could hear the deliberations.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493910TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (2015)[English]Would it be helpful if more detailed...I wouldn't say transcripts of all discussions, but if more detailed minutes were provided? For example, you know as well as I do that you only have so many column inches, and I would find it very difficult to believe that even if the meetings were made public there would be almost a verbatim transcript of all of the discussions that went on. There would be some editorializing, I'm sure. There would be some compactness of reporting. So I'm really not sure we would get to the point where the public would be better informed just by hearing how individuals perhaps got to a consensus, and then the decision, than they are better served now by just seeing what the decision is.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493911NickTaylor-VaiseyJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (2015)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.Thank you, Mr. Taylor-Vaisey, for being here today. I just wanted to mention the good work of the Canadian Association of Journalists. Recently the Canadian Association of Journalists granted the Code of Silence Award to the Conservative government, and I want to quote association president Hugo Rodrigues, who said that the Harper government was the overwhelming choice of the CAJ's 600 members across the country. He said, “The death grip on information has long frustrated journalists in this country, but it may now be reaching a point where the public at large is not only empathetic, but shares it.” I'm going to ask a series of questions. The first is, do you feel that the public has a greater and greater concern about the secrecy of the current government and, by extension, of course, the secrecy around the Board of Internal Economy decisions?Secondly, we now have on the other side, on the side of good, the Auditor General, who this week said very clearly that his preference was that there be an independent body “given the responsibility for all matters related to members' expenses and entitlements”. He said, “...it is important that Canadians are confident that its membership is independent and that the members have been chosen in a non-partisan manner.” You have two examples, of course. The Code of Silence Award is on one side. On the other side, you have the Auditor General very clearly expressing his preference for an independent body.Very specifically, then, do you think the public shares that increasing concern around secrecy, whether it's the general government direction or MPs' expenses? And do you not feel it would be important to have independent oversight, like the Auditor General has so clearly stated as his preference?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493914349391534939163493917349391834939193493920JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2020)[English]I'm not sure I can say something like the public is more concerned now than ever about transparency. I think the public has always been concerned about transparency. There are issues with every government. Right now there are issues this current government is facing that people like me are reporting. So there's a sense, because people have generally short memories...no offence to human beings, but we sort of do. Right now the Harper government, in some people's eyes, is an object of concern, and is the worst ever, or something, but I wouldn't feel comfortable confirming that myself.I think independent oversight is never a bad thing.Perhaps you could repeat that question.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493921349392234939233493924PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (2020)[English]The Auditor General said it's important that Canadians are confident that the membership of the oversight body be independent and the members are chosen in a non-partisan manner. He gave two options, but we questioned him, and he said his preference was to have independent oversight. This is a body given responsibility for all matters related to members' expenses and entitlement—so no more self-policing. What would be established is an independent body, the Auditor General having enormous credibility with the public in this regard. I think that's something this committee obviously will have to follow very strictly.Do you not feel that is the type of approach that needs to be taken for credibility?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34939253493926NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2020)[English]I'd rather not comment on whether or not an independent body or independent oversight is more or less appropriate. That's not really my expertise either.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493927PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2020)[English]I'm a journalist who doesn't like to take opinions, I guess, but I would say if there is a forum or an approach to that forum that allows for comfortable non-partisanship, if we can call it that, where people are comfortable not being partisan, then that's the kind of thing a journalist would love to see, because it would mean if it leads to an open meeting, we could attend that meeting.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493929PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (2020)[English] Absolutely.Can you spell out to us what measures you feel would enhance accessibility to MPs' expenses, so we're establishing that public trust and confidence the Auditor General has very clearly stated needs to happen?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34939303493931NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2020)[English]Measures that would make sense to....Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493932PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (2020)[English]Measures that enhance accessibility to MPs' expenses. We talked about independent oversight, of course, but what about other measures that you think would enhance that accessibility to MPs' expenses?I'll give you an example. Every one of our members of the NDP caucus has a direct link from our website that people access locally, because that's the website they get in their materials, their community bulletins, ten percenters, neighbourhood bulletins, so they can go on to directly access MPs' expenses. We've been pushing, of course, at a variety of levels to enhance the transparency and accessibility of expenses. Are there other measures that you think need to be taken?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349393334939343493935NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2020)[English]The members' expenditure reports currently online I think are useful. Obviously, there is a certain level of detail there that either me writing a story or my neighbour who is curious about their MP can access. I think the more detailed it is, the better. There's some criticism or concern about disclosing too much—for example, disclosing a pack of gum that's been expensed. That can lead to embarrassing stories that are characterized as “gotcha” journalism. To be fair, I think there are unfair stories that can be written about things that are expensed. Again, I would repeat my original statement that I think the public is the judge of how much disclosure is too much. I think the answer to your question is that in an online form, as much disclosure as possible of MPs' expenses is ideal.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493936349393734939383493939PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (2025)[English]When we talk about accessibility, so that the public can actually access it.... I've been posting my expenses for seven years. Constituents in Burnaby—New Westminster, as in all the 100-odd ridings of the NDP, can go directly on their MP's website and access the expenses. We've been pushing for more transparency, and doing it in a way that we're not comparing apples to oranges or having selective partial disclosure, but having expenses that everyone can access and that people can compare. From a constituent standpoint, I know that every year as expenses come out, my constituents ask me questions. We're pushing now for quarterly reports, and that's going to start happening early in the new year, which is good. Those are all issues around accessibility that are important.My question then is, that type of accessibility, going beyond journalists, actually allowing constituents to access those expenses, is fundamentally important, is it not?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349394134939423493943JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2025)[English]Sure it is. Absolutely. Something being easily—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493944PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (2025)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I find it very interesting, the NDP pushing for more transparency and accountability. I hadn't witnessed that first-hand when we asked for the New Democrats to participate in proactive disclosure. I'll continue to hold my breath. Maybe that might be one of the first things on the agenda, whatever that new body might be, because of the hesitation and reluctance of the NDP to get involved in more proactive disclosure.I do have a few specific questions I would like to ask.Do you think it would be in the public's best interest if we actually had performance audits conducted on a regular basis? By regular, I mean every three years we would actually have performance audits conducted on MPs and how they're spending the money, done by the Auditor General.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493946349394734939483493949JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2025)[English]Absolutely.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493950KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (2025)[English]What about the idea that we look at the Auditor General looking at ways in which they can provide more detailed audits on how those tax dollars are being spent? Is that something else you would support?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493951NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2025)[English]Yes.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493952KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (2025)[English]I understand you make reference to the rule versus the exception. There is this other independent body, IPSA, on the other side of the ocean. In your opinion, is there a difference if it's IPSA in camera versus the current system in camera?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493953NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2025)[English]I'm not overly familiar with the IPSA system.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493954KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (2025)[English]But in principle, if we change the system so that it's not a group of individuals on the Hill going in camera, it's some other group that does its meetings in camera, are they both problematic in your opinion?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493955NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2025)[English] I think they are both problematic. If their approach is to go in camera first by default, using basically the same set of rules, then I'm not sure it matters who's behind those doors. The point is that the public is not welcome.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493956KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (2025)[English]What about the idea that we virtually put it into law that the Board of Internal Economy has to meet in public, with some possible exceptions—there might be issues related to security or staff responsibilities, but with odd exceptions—and maybe even require unanimous consent of all the members? How would you respond to that?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34939573493958NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2025)[English]That makes sense. That sounds like what Mr. Walsh was suggesting to the committee: having two subcommittees, I believe it was for finance and for administration. They could then deliberate outside of those doors and come back.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493959KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (2025)[English]But what we would be seeing here is that the Board of Internal Economy would be meeting in public. It would always be open to the public to participate. What Mr. Walsh was referring to, and I'm definitely open to the idea with respect to the Board of Internal Economy, is that it meet in public, almost without exception. It would almost be the law of the land that it would be meeting in public. But then Mr. Walsh brings in a new idea: that we might establish a subcommittee. That subcommittee might deal with those issues it had to deal with—examples might be security or personnel issues—but then would report back to the Board of Internal Economy or whatever that other group might be, and the discussion would continue before it could be ultimately passed or accepted, but it would occur in public. What do you think of that?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349396034939613493962NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2030)[English]That makes sense to me. If you have conversations that are going to be in camera anyway at the subcommittee level, then let it happen. Then to bring those to a public forum, or rather a publicly accessible committee, makes total sense.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493963KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (2030)[English]I'm not sure how long you've been a journalist. One issue for me for many years, and I've raised it with Speaker Milliken, is the issue of pay and pensions. There's the expectation or public perception that politicians should not be directly or indirectly setting their pay and pension.In Manitoba they have established a commission. Do you have any thoughts regarding that issue, or could you provide some thoughts on it?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34939643493965NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2030)[English]I'm not sure I can comment on behalf of the CAJ about the direction of pay and subsidies.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493966KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (2030)[English]What about providing your personal opinion, if you're comfortable in doing that?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493967NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2030)[English]Sure.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493968KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (2030)[English]Do you feel it is appropriate that money, whether it's the Minister of Finance or the Board of Internal Economy involved, be shuffled between the two of them? Is this something that's appropriate at this level, or should it be done independently—much as occurs in the case of Elections Canada with the boundaries redistribution, for example?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493969NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2030)[English] As my personal opinion, I'm not sure there's a public outcry right now about how politicians set their salaries. Every time a legislative chamber increases salaries, of course, it is a news story for a few days, but I'm not sure there's any public movement to change that system.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493970KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (2030)[English]With the idea of proactive disclosure, we're saying that Canadians have a right to know where you're flying from and to, and that you should be listing how much you've paid and your hospitality expenses and so forth, and that we're putting it on the Internet. Is this something that you think all parties should have to do eventually ?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493973JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2030)[English]I think it makes total sense to do that. Of course, as I've said, the more detailed the better. The more the public understands exactly how its money is being spent, the better the understanding and the better it is for Parliament.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493974KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (2030)[English]Should we have to wait until the law or regulation is changed to do that, or do you think we should be able to do it on our own?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493975NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2030)[English]I don't think anybody should wait to do that.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493976KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30314BradButtBrad-ButtMississauga—StreetsvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ButtBrad_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC): (2030)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.Thank you for being here tonight.One of the things we're seized with as a committee is looking at making recommendations. If we do actually recommend to replace the BOIE with something else, do you have a preference? Do you think that whatever might replace it is better or worse if we maintain the membership of elected members of Parliament, rather than independent people from the public who might be appointed by some agency—the Parliament of Canada, or whatever? Is there a value in having MPs on the Board of Internal Economy? At the end of the day, we as elected members of Parliament are directly responsible for these expenditures and for the way the House of Commons works. Do you have a preference as to whether these be independent individuals or continue to be elected members of Parliament?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493981349398234939833493984JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2030)[English] Our concern is less with the composition of the board and more with the way the board deliberates—whether it's in private or in public.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3493985BradButtMississauga—StreetsvilleBradButtMississauga—Streetsville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30314BradButtBrad-ButtMississauga—StreetsvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ButtBrad_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Brad Butt: (2030)[English]Is the main concern of journalists and reporters the lack of detail in the expenses? We can all do what Mr. Julian does, which is take last year's report, which the House of Commons has already produced, and upload it on his website. It's not real-time data; it's not what he spent money on last week. It's last year's report.Are you folks looking for more real-time, direct...? For example, when I flew from Ottawa to Toronto this week, do you want to see the cost of that on a website somewhere in real time? Is that the greater level of transparency that journalists and reporters are looking for? Or are you satisfied with what we're seeing now, which is that the expenses are being reported? There's a time lag, and it could be of a month or two months or even, in the case of the member's annual expenses after they've been done, several months after, for the previous fiscal year. What kind of transparency improvements are you looking for around individual MPs' expenses in real time?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34939863493987NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2035)[English]Real time would be unbelievable. I suspect that would be quite a change to implement. Having said that, I don't think it's any journalist's expectation.... I'm inadvertently speaking on behalf of a lot of people I haven't spoken to specifically about this, but I would suspect that many journalists don't mind the current system whereby there is quarterly reporting, because the point is that it be within a reasonable amount of time that these things are being reported. It's more about the detail of the expense, not the frequency of the reporting.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34939883493989BradButtMississauga—StreetsvilleBradButtMississauga—Streetsville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30314BradButtBrad-ButtMississauga—StreetsvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ButtBrad_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Brad Butt: (2035)[English]My last question is about in camera aspects. You would agree that there are certain items that have to be discussed in camera: a legal matter, a personnel issue, something that is extremely sensitive. As I understand it, and I'm not on the Board of Internal Economy so I don't know this specifically—I've read some of the minutes of the meetings—there are often many issues at these meetings that are very sensitive and that have to be in camera. I know your line was that it's better to be open, but it sounds to me as though many of the items dealt with at the Board of Internal Economy, regardless of what changes are brought forward, are still going to have to be in camera. They are sensitive personnel matters, and legal issues are involved. It's great to say that you want maximum transparency, and I think we all want to see as much transparency as possible, but there are some fiduciary responsibilities in that “in camera” definition, and the Board of Internal Economy is the one committee of the House of Commons that deals with those very sensitive matters. You're not suggesting that we throw those wide open or throw caucus meetings open to the media and the press as well. I assume you would respect the fact that some items have to be dealt with and maintained in camera. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349399034939913493992NickTaylor-VaiseyJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson: (2035)[English] Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. Thank you very much for your attendance today. I'm going to start with another quote from the Auditor General, from yesterday. He said: In particular, we noted that members of Parliament hold positions of trust and have responsibilities to their specific constituents and to Canadians in general that are considerable. In my opinion there are three fundamental elements that contribute to the fulfilment of these responsibilities. They are transparency, accountability, and good governance. I'd just like to paint a picture for you and get your thoughts on whether you think it would be an improvement or not over what we have, and on any other holes in it that you see, or if perchance there are parts of it you like. Right now, all the work of the BOIE is, for the most part, done in camera. You've acknowledged that most reasonable—if I can use that word—people will acknowledge there are some matters that do need to be in camera. We can articulate what those are: certainly people's medical records, legal circumstances, staff issues, and things like that, which really don't belong in the public domain because those people have rights. What we're talking about is the potential for an organization, similar to what they've done in Britain, that would take all those issues that relate to MPs' expenses and running our offices and all the areas you're looking for, the line items and everything, and put them in this stand-alone agency.Now, I've heard you say you really don't have a lot of thought as to who is making the decisions. I find that a little surprising, simply because there is an issue of arm's length. In terms of good governance, there are reasons that arm's-length bodies are created, and we're looking at this as an extension of that. One of the problems is that in BOIE debates, discussions, there can be partisanship. There won't be with people who are chosen from the public and there are criteria and it's a public application. The whole process of hiring these folks, actually, or appointing them is in law, and they actually have the regulations for that. That would be a stand-alone body. They have no partisan interest. They have a stand-alone mandate and that mandate is to answer in this case to the Canadian people—the British people, in their case—on their monitoring and oversight of MPs' expenses and related matters. You've acknowledged those in camera things. They started out in public. It's interesting. I think Tom mentioned they did start that way, and then they went in camera, which speaks to the issue that reasonable people will see times that you need to be in camera, and then they issue minutes. So they're in camera, not secret meetings. However, on the flip side, by taking those things out of BOIE, I would suggest to you that it leaves a lot of other areas that are wide open to be public matters because we're debating them the same way as we debate anything. There are only certain times when you'd need to go in camera—security, and things of that nature—but for the most part, for the operation of the House and the building, there is not a lot of secrecy there. So it would actually, in the model I'm painting for you, provide the BOIE to have more of their meetings open, and to have a stand-alone agency that's accountable to the people directly and overseeing our wages, expenses, and related matters.What are your thoughts on that picture?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349399534939963493997349399834939993494000349400134940023494003349400434940053494006JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2040)[English]Well, if the picture you're painting leads to a meeting that the public can attend, then I like at least that part of the picture. I'll just make one point of clarification on the composition of the board and my not having a preference, really, on who fills it. I just mean that from the perspective of the CAJ and from the journalist's perspective, transparency isn't at stake in the same kind of way. I won't get too academic, but if you have people behind closed doors, it doesn't matter to me who they are, the issue is that the door is closed. That was my rationale there. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34940073494008DavidChristophersonHamilton CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (2040)[English] Okay. Mr. Taylor-Vaisey, I'm going to challenge your profession a little bit here. I can understand completely what you're saying, and if I were in your profession I would probably be asking for the same thing. You're a journalist. You want to know. You want to gather information. You want to print information. You want to broadcast information. But I ask you to take, perhaps, a little self-critical look, because much of the information that is published now, frankly, is simply not reported upon. Peter is talking with great pride about how he publishes, and has for seven years, all this information. Those are summary financials that are published with expenses for every MP. It's open to the public. It's open to journalists. I haven't seen, outside of one or two stories every second or third year, much concern or examination from journalists. I gave the example a couple of meetings ago, and I will again—Kevin doesn't like this because I'm going to be picking on my friend, Ralph Goodale. It's quite clear in the financials on the travel expenses. Ralph and I both live in Regina, Saskatchewan. I live in Regina Beach; he's in Regina proper, but we both fly out of Regina to Ottawa and back. We both attend the same number of sessions of caucus. I'm here from Monday through Friday. Ralph is usually here Monday through Friday, but, amazingly, last year his travel expenses were over three times mine. His were about $122,000 and mine were $38,000. Do you know something? We never saw a story on that. If all of this information is here, and if you're suggesting that the public is clamouring for this information—and maybe I'm mischaracterizing your words—why aren't you writing stories about the information you have now?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34940143494015349401634940173494018NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2040)[English]As a mini newsroom, this is the funniest-looking newsroom I've ever come across. That's a good question, though. I don't want to speak for journalists who may have found interest in that story about discussing expenses between two MPs. Maybe it's a worthwhile—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34940193494020TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (2040)[English]But in general. I gave you only one example.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494021NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2040)[English]Sure. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494022TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (2040)[English]Much of the information is perhaps not as much as you'd like to see. There is information out there now in more detail than there ever was before, but I haven't seen a whole bunch of stories about it.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494023NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2040)[English]I think that's because most of it is not newsworthy. Some of it might be, and that's why it's important for it to be there for the public and for journalists to see. I would never suggest that every airline ticket is going to be a news item. The answer to your question is simply that there aren't a lot of news stories about expenses, relatively speaking, compared to the amount of information that's out there, because most of it is not extremely newsworthy. If it is newsworthy, it's our judgment in newsrooms to publish it. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34940243494025TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (2040)[English]I go back to a point I made earlier. If all of the rules and bylaws are made public, so you know exactly what constraints we as MPs have—what we can and cannot do, in other words—and if the board adheres to those rules and bylaws and if the decisions made are published, why isn't that important then? As you said yourself, a lot of this may not be newsworthy. If it were, you would already know about it. If there were problems like we saw in the U.K., you'd know about it and you'd report it, but there haven't been. I'm trying to get my head around why it is so important to be able to actually sit in a meeting to hear the discussion between members who reach the same decision that is published right now and that you are not reporting on.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34940263494027NickTaylor-VaiseyJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25474AndréBellavanceAndré-BellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BellavanceAndré_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. André Bellavance: (2045)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you for being here.As a former journalist, I can understand this concern about transparency. I can understand it even more now that I belong to a non-recognized party.As I said earlier to Mr. Milliken, in the first seven years I was an MP, my party was represented on the Board of Internal Economy. I trusted my whip, who reported what he could to us. Not all the discussions were systematically made public, even for party caucuses.Now I am in exactly your position, even though I have been an MP for nine years. I don't know much about what has happened in the past two years. The Board of Internal Economy brags about transparency, but even the MPs, particularly those whose parties are not recognized or who are independents, are suffering from the lack of transparency. This is especially true for journalists, even though they in some way represent the public. But the money being spent is taxpayers' money, who deserve to have watch dogs—pardon the expression—check what is going on and how the money is being spent. Yes, there is a lack of transparency, internally and externally.However, although Mr. Milliken said that there were no major changes in his 10 years as Speaker, I have seen a change. More information is available now, online for example, but there is much more on each expenditure.Would you be satisfied if, rather than indicate a bunch of expenditures and the amount an MP spent on travel, we said what the trip was, and where the MP went and when, for example? All that information is submitted to the auditor anyway. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have a problem with it, but the 307 other MPs should do the same. It shouldn't be up to each individual to decide what information to provide.What additional information would be useful to you in doing your job?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34940303494031349403234940333494034349403534940363494037JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2045)[English] I think, if I can use the members' expenditure reports as a guide, it would be more detail about each line item. I wish I had one right in front of me so that we could go line by line and talk about what value there may be to each. But I would just say more detail. There is more detail there, of course, than there has been in the past, but with more detail breaking down salaries and purchases, we would know what people were buying. So just greater detail—that's really what it comes down to for us. It gives us a greater sense of a politician's judgment when they're spending public money.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349403834940393494040AndréBellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaAndréBellavanceRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25474AndréBellavanceAndré-BellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BellavanceAndré_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. André Bellavance: (2045)[Translation]Mr. Lukiwski gave us an example earlier. But if this story about Ralph Goodale had happened in Quebec, it would have certainly been in the newspapers. I'm convinced of it. For us, the media report on details of MP expenditures at least once a year.Far be it for me to tell you how to do your job, but I would still like to point out that every MP's reality is different. I myself am not one of the biggest spenders in Quebec: out of 75 ridings, I rank about 44th. Having said that, I don't want to judge the others who have higher expenses. Since my riding includes 40 municipalities and covers 3,000 km2, I have not one office, but three. So I need employees who drive two hours to get from one constituency office to another to work.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34940413494042NickTaylor-VaiseyJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71401NycoleTurmelNycole-TurmelHull—AylmerNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/TurmelNycole_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Nycole Turmel: (2050)[Translation]Thank you.I'm trying to understand what you expect of the Board of Internal Economy. As you can see, everyone is in favour of transparency. But how we are achieving that transparency is not as clear. There have been some changes at the Board of Internal Economy, and there will be more changes in how our expenses or budgets are posted on the site. That should help.You also noticed from our discussions that our position has not changed much. The current government does not seem to want an independent board or any real openness within the committee. But that is what you are after: openness and the possibility of knowing what is going on.There are minutes. The former Speaker, Mr. Milliken, said that the minutes were published, that they were very clear and that that should suffice.As a journalist, you have to work with BOIE representatives. Do you think you have enough information? If we maintain the status quo, what additional information, be it minutes or BOIE reports, would help you do your job and meet the public's needs?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34940483494049349405034940513494052JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2050)[English] I think—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494053NycoleTurmelHull—AylmerNycoleTurmelHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71401NycoleTurmelNycole-TurmelHull—AylmerNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/TurmelNycole_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Nycole Turmel: (2050)[Translation]I'm sorry for interrupting you, but I want to clarify that the status quo is not what we want.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494054NickTaylor-VaiseyPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (2050)[Translation]No, not at all.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494055NycoleTurmelHull—AylmerNycoleTurmelHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71401NycoleTurmelNycole-TurmelHull—AylmerNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/TurmelNycole_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Nycole Turmel: (2050)[Translation]I wanted to make that clear. We would like the submissions to be fully independent and open.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494056PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2050)[English]As it stands, I think the status quo, if it were to endure.... This is not ruining Canadian democracy. I don't think the status quo has been disastrous. Our opinion is we can improve things. I think that's the answer to the first part of your question.As to the second part, I'd say that what we'd like to see in the minutes would be similar to what we'd see from a standing committee. We'd like to see as much detail as we can of conversations, where that's possible. It has been raised a few times, the question about there being legitimate times to go in camera. Of course, I would submit to that. But otherwise, as much detail of conversations as any member of the public can reasonably expect of a standing committee.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34940573494058NycoleTurmelHull—AylmerNycoleTurmelHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71401NycoleTurmelNycole-TurmelHull—AylmerNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/TurmelNycole_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Nycole Turmel: (2050)[Translation]MPs are currently trying to post their expenses on the sites. Do you think the information posted there is currently sufficient or do you expect to see the Board of Internal Economy officially post it on the site to look at the difference?Currently, journalists have to trust that an MP has reported everything, which is not necessarily the case, and that it is being done honestly and correctly. But you have no way of knowing if it's true or not.I would like to hear what you have to say about that.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349405934940603494061NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2050)[English]Sure. Right now, journalists and the public are expected to trust politicians and people of influence, people with power, that everything is going reasonably well, things are handled with care and that everything is above board. In a perfect world, that would be fine, but we don't want to have to trust the word of people who are talking behind closed doors. They may be honest with us, but we don't want to have to trust that.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494062NycoleTurmelHull—AylmerJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2050)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.It has been brought up a couple of times, but I want to go back to something that has been discussed a little bit previously and ask you a couple of direct questions in regard to it.It has been noted already during the meeting that both our party, the Conservative Party, the government, and the Liberal Party are currently moving toward posting more proactive disclosure—our hospitality, our travel expenses in line-item type status—so there's an ability to see where an MP has travelled, what was spent on that travel, hospitality type of expenses.I guess I would want to ask you, looking at something like that, would you see that as a move toward greater transparency, and would you see that as a positive step?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494065349406634940673494068JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2055)[English]Yes. If political parties compete with each other to be more transparent and post more things online that shed light on their expenses, that's something that I think the public would welcome.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494069BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2055)[English]Okay.If something like that were to be made mandatory so that all parties would be doing it, we'd have to obviously drag the NDP kind of kicking and screaming toward it. Despite their protestations otherwise, certainly there's no question that actions speak louder than words. They talk a little bit about accountability and transparency over there, but we in our government live that, we embody it. You look at our record and it's a move toward things like the Accountability Act, that kind of move. We're trying to bring them kicking and screaming toward that transparency.If something like that were to be made mandatory, so that all parties were doing it and it was a mandatory system, would that be something you would see as an improvement, something that would be greater transparency and something that journalists would appreciate?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349407034940713494072NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2055)[English]Yes.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494073BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2055)[English]Absolutely. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. Thank you very much for that, and I hope that we can bring them into that—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494074NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2055)[English] I don't really want to endorse the preamble, but I will confirm the spirit of it—Voices: Oh, oh!Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34940753494076BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2055)[English] I understand. Of course you have to be non-partisan, and of course you wouldn't want to endorse that, but certainly we would have to do that. We'd have to bring them kicking and screaming, and we hope to do that.An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]Mr. Blake Richards: Well, as I've said, to talk about something is one thing and to show action, like we've done, is another. Now—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349407734940783494079NickTaylor-VaiseyDavidChristophersonHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson: (2055)[English]We'll see when the votes come.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494080BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2055)[English]I just want to move towards the board minutes—An hon. member: You had your turn.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34940813494082DavidChristophersonHamilton CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2055)[English]Thanks, Mr. Chair.You talked about the board minutes themselves. Obviously they are now being posted and you are able to see some of the decisions that have been made by the board. As a journalist yourself, have you read those minutes? Are they something that you look at on a regular basis? Have you looked at them once or twice...?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament349408434940853494086JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2055)[English]The Board of Internal Economy minutes?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494087BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2055)[English]Have you in fact read them?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494088NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2055)[English]Yes, I've read them. I haven't been assigned a great many stories dealing with the Board of Internal Economy myself, so I don't regularly seek them, if that makes sense.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3494089BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2055)[English]Yes.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination3494090NickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2055)[English]But I have read them and seen them, back to 2011.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494091BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2055)[English]Okay. Now having done that, when you look at those decisions.... Try to be conservative in your estimate, I guess, but when you look at those decisions and you try to imagine what led to those decisions and the discussion, in trying to picture what may have been in camera types of discussions to arrive at certain decisions, what would you see—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494092NickTaylor-VaiseyJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2055)[English]—as the percentage of those that would possibly be in camera?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494094JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonNickTaylor-VaiseyNickTaylor-VaiseyNick-Taylor-VaiseyInterventionMr. Nick Taylor-Vaisey: (2055)[English]Offhand, I don't know. We'd have to look over them right now together.... I don't know them that intimately. I'm sorry.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3494095BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)): (1100)[English]Let's call the meeting to order. To the members, we are in public today. We even have some television cameras with us. We have two different hours of meeting today. Mr. Ferguson, the Auditor General, is here to join us in the first hour.Sir, if you have an opening statement, we'll let you go ahead with that, and then we'll ask you as hard questions as we possibly can.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation dissemination348838534883863488387MichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson (Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): (1100)[English]Thank you.[Translation]Mr. Chair, thank you for inviting me to participate in your examination of the administrative oversight systems, policies, and practices of the House of Commons, including the role of the Board of Internal Economy. With me today is Clyde MacLellan, Assistant Auditor General.[English]I'm pleased that the House of Commons and this committee wish to explore the practices of provincial and territorial legislatures and other Westminster-style parliaments with respect to administrative oversight; to consider modifications to the roles of institutions, such as the Office of the Auditor General in that oversight; and to propose any other necessary modifications to the administrative policies and practices of the House of Commons.[Translation]I would like to start by mentioning a few broad principles that I think the committee could consider during its deliberations. Before this meeting, I provided the clerk of the committee with a short paper that elaborates on these principles. I would also refer the committee to our June 2012 Report on the Administration of the House of Commons of Canada. In this June 2012 audit report, we mentioned that demands have been increasing for political and government representatives to be held accountable for their use of public funds.[English]In particular, we noted that members of Parliament hold positions of trust and have responsibilities to their specific constituents and to Canadians in general that are considerable. In my opinion there are three fundamental elements that contribute to the fulfilment of these responsibilities. They are transparency, accountability, and good governance.I believe that providing detailed public disclosure of members' expenses, and having clear policies and processes for those expenses, establishes an environment of transparency, and transparency is the foundation of accountability.In my opinion, governance can be strengthened by having an independent body that would either advise the Board of Internal Economy or be given the responsibility for all matters related to members' expenses and entitlements. Regardless of the role of such a body, it is important that Canadians are confident that its membership is independent and that the members have been chosen in a non-partisan manner.[Translation]I also believe that independent comprehensive audits, including financial statement audits, compliance audits, and performance audits, would not only strengthen members' accountability but would also enhance the public's confidence in the governance mechanisms of the House of Commons.The committee may therefore wish to consider whether the mandate of the Office of the Auditor General should be amended to include this role. The right to conduct such audits, at the discretion of the Auditor General, should be clearly described in statute. Because we regularly conduct all of these types of audits, the Office of the Auditor General has a unique ability to contribute, and we are ready and willing to take on this role.(1105)[English]Canadians expect members of Parliament to spend the moneys they receive for the functions of their office in an ethical and prudent manner and for approved purposes. Members are accountable to one another in the House of Commons and to the public for their actions. It is their responsibility to carry out their assigned mandate in light of these expectations. I therefore believe that the changes the committee will decide to make, while respecting the many unique aspects of the institutions, need to be significant enough that a reasonable person with a healthy degree of skepticism would be satisfied that the rules are being consistently applied and sufficiently monitored. In conclusion, members of Parliament must be properly supported in order to carry out their duties effectively. Refining the mechanisms that promote transparency, accountability, and good governance will enable members to fulfill their roles and responsibilities and meet the expectations of Canadians.[Translation]Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions that the committee may have.Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOffice of the Auditor GeneralThird party management348838834883893488390348839134883923488393348839434883953488396348839734883983488399JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): (1105)[English]Thank you very much.Thank you, Mr. Ferguson, for being here today.I guess I want to start off with, if we can, a comparison between the oversight provisions imposed upon the House of Commons versus those of the Senate. Obviously, most Canadians over the last several months have heard, read about, and probably been concerned about some of the controversy that we've seen in the Senate with some of the expenses being claimed by senators, which, at least on the surface, appear to be claims that should not have been made and certainly should not have been paid.I wonder if you would, for the benefit of this committee and perhaps anyone else who may be listening, contrast the oversight provisions upon members of the House of Commons versus the oversight provisions for members of the Senate, specifically for travel and hospitality. In other words, what documentation is required for travel and hospitality claims made by members of Parliament versus the documentation required with claims for travel and hospitality by senators?Accommodation and hospitality servicesBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentSenate and senators3488403348840434884053488406JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1105)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Before I turn it over to Mr. MacLellan, I think our comments in this vein would mostly be in the context of the two audits that we completed recently on the administration of the House and the administration of the Senate. For example, in the administration of the House of Commons in terms of expenses, while we noted that for the most part they were being processed properly, there were still some situations where documentation was missing and improvements needed to be made.I'll also turn it over to Mr. MacLellan just to see if he has anything that he would like to add.Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityHouse of Commons administrationInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament348840734884083488409TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreClydeMacLellanClydeMacLellanClyde-MacLellanInterventionMr. Clyde MacLellan (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): (1105)[English] Thank you, Mr. Auditor General. Just as the Auditor General indicated, in order to try to answer this question I have to relate back to the audits we did in 2012 on both institutions, keeping in mind that those were audits of the administration and not necessarily the governance regime of both chambers. It's very clear in those audits that we didn't audit the Board of Internal Economy in the case of the House, or the Standing Committee on Internal Economy in the case of the Senate. That said, we did have an opportunity to interact with how the administration plays its role in the oversight of expenditures, and what other types of bodies are present. That may be able to help in that regard. My perception on that would be that there are a lot of similarities, perhaps more than there are differences. In thinking about that type of question earlier this morning, one of the big issues I recall from those two particular audits was the nature of documentation that was present in the case of the Senate with respect to our being able to determine whether or not the expenses were incurred for the purposes intended. If you go back to the two different reports, we provided tables in those documents about the percentage of compliance with regard to our ability to determine whether or not those expenses met their intended purposes. That's largely for purposes of the role of members, in the case of this chamber, and in the case of senators in the case of the red chamber. The difference is that when we did that audit, in about 98.5% of the transactions we looked at we were able to conclude that they met that condition. In the case of the Senate, it dropped down to about 94.8%. That had a lot to do with the way in which documentation was kept vis-à-vis the role of the administration and individual senators, an issue that we didn't really encounter here. As it relates to policies and procedures, at a very macro level there were quite a bit of similarities and what you would expect to see in terms of proper authorization, proper documentation being required, proper approvals being necessary, and reviews by the administration. In both cases I think we got lots of comments that many members and many senators felt they were under a lot of scrutiny by the administration on how the expenses were being incurred. Yet we still found instances where the documentation was not sufficient in both cases, but we had a bigger struggle with that in the case of the Senate administration, which is why we made very specific recommendations in that report about that subject. Both groups have a committee. Here, the Board of Internal Economy, and there it's the Standing Committee on Internal Economy. At a macro level there are a lot of similarities in terms of the expectations, roles, and responsibilities of both of those organizations from a governance perspective. We looked at the roles of internal audit as being important in providing some kind of oversight to assist the particular boards, and we made recommendations in both cases. I hope that helps a little bit in giving you some clarity on those. But I would say that at a macro level they're very similar in the details, and a little bit of a difference that was sufficient for the nature of the recommendations we made. Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOffice of the Auditor General348841034884113488412348841334884143488415348841634884173488418MichaelFergusonTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1110)[English]It is helpful, and thank you for that. As a follow-up, you mentioned—and please correct me if I'm mischaracterizing what you said—that in the House of Commons there was 98.5% compliance. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34884193488420ClydeMacLellanClydeMacLellanClydeMacLellanClyde-MacLellanInterventionMr. Clyde MacLellan: (1110)[English]My comment was specifically to one attribute we were looking at, which was whether or not we were able to determine they were incurred for the purposes intended. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488421TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1110)[English]All right. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488422ClydeMacLellanClydeMacLellanClydeMacLellanClyde-MacLellanInterventionMr. Clyde MacLellan: (1110)[English]The overall percentage for the House of Commons was very high in terms of other categories as well, so your generalization is not unreasonable. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488423TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1110)[English]Thank you. What I'm trying to get at is that if we're looking at 98.5% “compliance”, to use that term, where all expense claims were justified—in other words, submitted properly, with supporting documentation, and the claims were determined to have actually been for their intended purpose, and thus accepted—are you still suggesting, sir, that there is a lot of room for improvement?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34884253488426JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1110)[English]Certainly it indicates that there is still room for improvement. When you look at the number of claims that go through and you apply a 98% success rate to it, it still indicates that there are a certain number of claims that need to have more scrutiny. I think that's important. So 98% sounds like a good success rate, but when you're dealing with this type of situation there is still room for improvement. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34884273488428TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): (1110)[Translation]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.I thank you, Mr. Ferguson and Mr. MacLellan. Your comments are very important for our report.[English]We have just come back from a constituency break week. I've been in my riding, which I think is similar to other ridings across the country. Canadians are very concerned about the Senate spending scandals and are concerned about what they have seen from both Conservative and Liberal senators and how they have acted. There is some real concern out in the public mind right across the country that enough is enough. We really need to put in place a really transparent regime.So the NDP brought forward their motion in June, and happily we were able to get the support of other parties to move towards ending the self-policing regime that exists, the Board of Internal Economy, which you made reference to.I noticed in your presentation that you referenced very clearly the point that governance could be strengthened by either having an independent body that would advise the board, or that this independent body could be given the responsibility for all matters related to members' expenses and entitlements.My question to you is very simple. I think in the public's mind they want an end to self-policing. They want an end to this perception that the MPs are policing themselves. What they would like to see is an independent body they can have confidence in.You provide two doors. Is your preference that this independent governance, this independent body, be given the responsibility for all matters related to members' expenses and entitlements? Do you not feel that is an important way of re-establishing the public trust that I think has been shattered with the Senate spending scandals?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentSenate and senatorsThird party management3488431348843234884333488434348843534884363488437JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1115)[English]Certainly, what we have done, Mr. Chair, is to indicate that we believe that some sort of independent oversight is important. We have indicated it could be advisory or it could be authoritative. Certainly, my preference would always be that it have some sort of authority, but that's not my decision to make. That's a decision for the committee to recommend.Again, I think, in general—and I tried to make the comment in the opening statement—at the end of the day what's important is that whatever change is put in place is going to be a change that a reasonable, independent person harbouring a certain level of skepticism will believe has been sufficient, so they can be confident that the rules and expenses are being appropriately monitored.I think the other thing that is important to remember is probably that the ground of this type of situation always shifts so that what people believe to be perhaps acceptable right now may not be what people perceive to be acceptable sometime in the future. So I think it's also important there be some mechanism to make sure that's all being monitored. And on that mechanism, again there should be some component that is independent or coming from the outside. My preference would be that it have a certain level of authority, but it could be advisory as well.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management348843834884393488440PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1115)[English]Thank you. I think that's a clear recommendation, and we certainly appreciate your reinforcing what I think Parliament directed this committee to do, which is to put into place an independent authority around MPs' expenses.You also referenced in your presentation an independent, comprehensive audit process, and we're certainly supportive of that. You're saying you are ready and willing to take on this role. I understand that's with existing resources, that the only thing needed to be put into operation to make that real would be changing the mandate, or adding that to the mandate.Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34884413488442MichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1115)[English]Certainly, an important component to that would be having a clear mandate so that we understand what our responsibilities and authorities are. Obviously, taking on this type of a mandate, if we did it within existing resources, would have an opportunity cost. But every audit we do has an opportunity cost, right? So for every audit we decide to do there are other audits we can't do because of that.However, we believe this would certainly be an important role, and if we were looking at priority areas of audit, this would be one that would come high on our list. So I think regardless of whether there were additional resources that came along with the mandate or not, we would consider conducting these types of audits important enough that we would be willing to take them on.Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34884433488444PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1115)[English]Mr. Ferguson, those comments disturb me a little bit, because we have seen fairly substantial cutbacks in support by the current government for the Auditor General's office. What you're telling us is that if we were to add an independent comprehensive audit of MPs' expenses, it would take away from important work in other areas. We've certainly seen with the F-35s and a whole range of other areas that we need oversight, particularly of this current federal government, of a whole range of expenditures.I gather that additional resources would be needed for you to continue the work you're doing while adding this function of providing an independent comprehensive audit of MPs' expenses. Is that not true? You would need additional resources so that you wouldn't have to cut back in other areas that are equally important.Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament348844534884463488447MichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1120)[English]Certainly, having the additional resources would allow us to take the mandate on and add it to everything else we're doing. If we don't have the additional resources, we will have to either reduce some of the other audits or see if there are any places to free up the time to do it. I don't think we could absorb the mandate entirely, though, without resources and without it affecting the other work we do.Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34884483488449PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1120)[English]That's an important point you've made. We've objected to the cutbacks the Conservative government has imposed on your office. I have a final question.Board of Internal EconomyBudget cutsGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOffice of the Auditor General34884503488451MichaelFergusonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1120)[English]There has been some push for having political parties put forward partial selective audits. Each party would provide a different framework and some additional information on MPs' expenses. But it wouldn't be a complete approach where every MP's expenses were subject to the same criteria. Do you agree that MPs have to do it together?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488453JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): (1120)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Our New Democratic friend was starting to play a childish game. Maybe the NDP should just take the initiative and do what the Liberals and the Conservatives are saying, which is to move forward and say that we're prepared to provide proactive disclosure.Anyway, it is about public trust. Politicians can only dream about having the type of public trust, Mr. Ferguson, that Canadians have in the Auditor General's office. What I have found is that quite often when we find ourselves in trouble, because of the way affairs have been managed, one of the offices we always turn to is the Auditor General's office. Once again, in the last number of months, we find ourselves in a situation where we're turning to the Auditor General's office to get some assistance, some direction.With respect to the idea that we need to undertake performance audits for the House of Commons administration, do you have any short thoughts you could share with us on performance audits, or the benefits of such audits?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityHouse of Commons administrationInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOperational reviews34884563488457348845834884593488460JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1120)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.In my opening statement, I identified three types of audits: financial audits, performance audits, and compliance audits. The first message is that not all audits are the same. That's important for everybody to understand.As to a performance audit of the administration, that's what we did in 2012. We did an audit of the administration of the House and an audit of the administration of the Senate. The purpose of these audits is to look at whether the administration is performing its function in an economical and efficient manner, looking at whether all of the support functions are operating the way they should.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityHouse of Commons administrationInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOperational reviews3488461348846234884633488464KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1120)[English]To the best of your knowledge, has that been the case? Has there been follow-through on that?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOperational reviews3488465MichaelFergusonClydeMacLellanClydeMacLellanClyde-MacLellanInterventionMr. Clyde MacLellan: (1120)[English]In relation to that question, we completed the audit. Typically, we allow a bit of time to pass before we do any type of follow-up. The unique relationships between the House and the Senate have operated on the basis of being invited back to take a look at particular issues. So in answer to your question, we have not followed up on those recommendations.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOperational reviews3488466KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1120)[English]That's right. So there's a need for us to invite you back.Performing more detailed audits of parliamentary spending seems to be what Canadians are wanting to see. Do you feel this is something the Auditor General's office would be able to provide—looking at ways we could perform more detailed reporting of our expenditures? Do you believe this would help out in furthering accountability and transparency, Mr. Ferguson?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOperational reviews34884673488468ClydeMacLellanMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1120)[English]In terms of expenses themselves, I think there are a couple of different types of audits that could be undertaken. One would be a compliance audit, which would be the standard: did the claims comply with the rules and were they processed properly?In terms of the question you're asking, that would be standing back and trying to do a broader audit of disclosure practices, making recommendations around those practices. It's certainly something that we could put an objective around and do an audit of. Usually in our performance audits we have to stay away from commenting directly on policy. We just look at how policy was implemented. In this instance, we would very much have to be given the mandate. If we were going to do that type of audit, it would have to include a mandate to be able to comment on policy. I'd have to make sure that we would be able to do that under our legislation, but that would be the thing we would need to consider.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentOperational reviews34884693488470KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1125)[English]It is about trying to say to Canadians that we want to reform the system. One of the things that seems to come up is this whole idea of in camera meetings, to the degree that the leader of my party wants to see legislation that would in essence make it a law that we could not have in camera meetings of the Board of Internal Economy, with the odd exception, such as when dealing with security or personnel matters.Are you able to comment on in camera meetings?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34884713488472MichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1125)[English]I'm not trying to insert myself into any political debate here, but with any type of committee or organization that needs to meet on these things, there probably needs to be some ability to meet publicly, meet privately, and meet in camera. All three of those tools have to be available. When I say “meet privately”, I mean not with the cameras on, but not under the rules of in camera. There would be minutes.Those three types of avenues would need to be available to any type of committee that had this responsibility: public, private, and in camera meetings.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34884733488474KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1125)[English]Currently there is proactive disclosure by ministers on such things as flights and hospitality. Have you ever had the opportunity to audit those things? If so, can you comment?Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyCabinet ministersGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488476JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonClydeMacLellanClydeMacLellanClyde-MacLellanInterventionMr. Clyde MacLellan: (1125)[English]The only work we do that's related to those types of expenditures is via the public accounts. I used the vernacular for that. In our office, that's the audit of the government's financial statements as a whole. As a part of that financial audit and all financial audits, we randomly select certain travel/hospitality expenditures for examination. We have never specifically targeted that group writ large for examination. But it's possible that some of those expenses, since they would be paid through a department, could have been a subject we looked at as a small sample in doing that particular work.Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyCabinet ministersGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488477KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): (1125)[English]Thank you, Chair.Have either of you conducted corporate audits?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34884843488485JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1125)[English]I did long ago.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488486DaveMacKenzieOxfordClydeMacLellanClydeMacLellanClyde-MacLellanInterventionMr. Clyde MacLellan: (1125)[English]Yes, for the first eight years of my career I worked for what is now Deloitte. I audited corporations, mostly private companies, in the Atlantic provinces. Since joining the Office of the Auditor General in 1991, I have audited almost every crown corporation that we do.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488487MichaelFergusonDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1125)[English]Thank you very much. I think you indicated there was 98.5% compliance, which would seem a pretty good number. Have you even done an audit that was 100%?Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34884883488489ClydeMacLellanMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1125)[English]It's difficult to say. Certainly we've looked at lots of samples where we have not found any errors, when we're selecting samples in different audits.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488490DaveMacKenzieOxfordClydeMacLellanClydeMacLellanClyde-MacLellanInterventionMr. Clyde MacLellan: (1125)[English]The short answer to that question is I don't think I can ever relate to 100% compliance, which I think is the point of your question.Mr. Dave MacKenzie: Yes.Mr. Clyde MacLellan: But on the issue of focusing on this 98%, we concluded in the report in 2012 that we found that the systems and practices were sufficient to meet the objective that we'd established. Keep in mind that as part of that audit we didn't look at the issues around transparency in terms of disclosure that you're debating today, or the issues around governance and oversight of the various aspects that you're looking at today.As the Auditor General mentioned in his response, even though the percentages are very good, the issue is that we had some concerns about documentation, even with respect to the House.Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488491348849234884933488494MichaelFergusonDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1130)[English]And I would agree with you that we should shoot for 100%.Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488495ClydeMacLellanClydeMacLellanClydeMacLellanClyde-MacLellanInterventionMr. Clyde MacLellan: (1130)[English]Yes.Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488496DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1130)[English]I know that in the corporate world, 100% is a pretty scarce thing to find in an audit. That's why you have an audit, to find shortcomings and to correct things.With ours, I don't hear a great deal from the corporate world demanding more transparency. Where I hear the complaints come from is inside the House and from the press. The corporate world seems to have an understanding that we're fairly limited in our budgets to start with. Each member's budget is something of the same nature, and you have to take into account the salaries and the rent from your constituencies. There's very little in there that is available for a member. There are some areas, but most of it is covered pretty well. Certainly, my experience with the administration is that they're very tight on mileage. You have to produce the information for them on travel. I hate the thought that we have a partisan game going on trying to depict this whole area as being one that's kept under wraps. For instance, the Clerk of the House testified that if the board meetings were held in public, the real discussions regarding expenses would then be forced underground, creating a new problem. I think what she was trying to tell us is that if you do them in public there's going to be political grandstanding, so the real negotiations would happen outside in the halls. Would you concur with that?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488497348849834884993488500ClydeMacLellanMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1130)[English]Again, all I can say is we certainly understand that for those types of meetings it's important that the committee have all three avenues open, to have meetings in public, private, or in camera, depending on the nature of the discussion.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityIn cameraInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488501DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71401NycoleTurmelNycole-TurmelHull—AylmerNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/TurmelNycole_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): (1130)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.With some restrictions, we feel it is very clear that committees should be open to everyone in order to demonstrate transparency. Thank you for your presentation. You raised several questions. I would like to go back to a point which concerns the procedure that affects the 98%. You talked about guidelines and criteria. Do the documents provided respect those criteria, or should our guidelines be reviewed so as to demonstrate that the activities we take part in really correspond with receipts? I am referring to what is going on in the Senate currently. Senators provide receipts, but are they really related to their mandate?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament348850634885073488508JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonClydeMacLellanClydeMacLellanClyde-MacLellanInterventionMr. Clyde MacLellan: (1130)[Translation]I will answer briefly.In my observations in the 2012 report, when I talked about compliance, this referred to examining documents, including receipts tabled by parliamentarians for a certain activity, in order to ensure that rules were being respected. That is exactly the matter we examined. We gave a 94% compliance rating for the Senate. We found that the expenses related to activities were justified and in compliance with the rules. However, in certain cases, it was difficult to come to a conclusion, either because the documents were not provided, or because some information was not in the receipts, such as the description of the purpose of a meeting, or because a reply was recorded, etc. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentSenate and senators34885093488510NycoleTurmelHull—AylmerNycoleTurmelHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71401NycoleTurmelNycole-TurmelHull—AylmerNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/TurmelNycole_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Nycole Turmel: (1135)[English]I have a minute and a half left.[Translation]I will try to be brief.In your document, in point 9, you discuss the role of the Auditor General. If there were an independent committee, should it play the same role, or, rather, have a different mandate in that regard? Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management348851134885123488513ClydeMacLellanMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1135)[English]In terms of the role of the Auditor General, that would be the role of an independent committee, which would be advisory or would assess certain situations and make decisions. That would be a very different role from the audit role. The audit role would be to come in after the fact to see if everything had been processed properly.If you sort of drew a line, the independent committee would be on one side of the line and the auditors would be on the other side of the line, so the roles would be very different.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management34885143488515NycoleTurmelHull—AylmerJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71401NycoleTurmelNycole-TurmelHull—AylmerNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/TurmelNycole_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Nycole Turmel: (1135)[English]I have 30 seconds.[Translation]To your knowledge, are there any models, in the provinces or elsewhere, of what you submit as being the role of the Auditor General? Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34885173488518JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1135)[English]In the paper we presented, we identified a number of different jurisdictions that have undergone these types of changes. Some of them have put in place boards. Some of them have given authority to their auditor general. There are a lot of different models, and in the paper, we tried to identify the significant ones that should be considered.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488519NycoleTurmelHull—AylmerJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1135)[English]Thank you very much, Chair.The real reason the committee is undertaking this study, frankly, is to see whether the current system works, whether it can be improved, or whether it should just be replaced.Based on what you saw during your audit in 2012, were there any of what we and the general public would consider to be egregious examples of misspending by members of Parliament? We all know what happened in the U.K. with their expenses scandals there, with some members claiming money to build a moat around their castle. We've seen examples, in the U.K. and in Atlantic Canada, where members were using expense money, taxpayers' dollars, to furnish their own homes with electronics or television sets or computers, that type of thing.In your audit, with the 1.5% non-compliance, did you find any example that you would consider to be as egregious as the examples I've just given you, or would they have been of a more minor nature? By that I mean, would they be mistakes made either inadvertently or administratively that could be corrected?Were there any specific examples you could point to that would demonstrate that members of Parliament are misusing or abusing their expense money?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentUnited Kingdom34885223488523348852434885253488526JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1135)[English]The direct answer to your question is no, we didn't see anything egregious. Remember, though, what we did was select a sample, and within that sample, even though it was a low percentage, we did find a certain percentage where the documentation was not sufficient to support a particular expenditure item.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34885273488528TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1135)[English]Had the documentation been sufficient, would you have had any problem with the claims that were made?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488529MichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1135)[English]It would have depended on what the documentation said, what the documentation was. That is why we indicated we had a concern with that. In a situation where we don't have all the documentation, it is difficult for us to say whether the rules were entirely complied with. Clyde, do you have a comment?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34885303488531TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreClydeMacLellanClydeMacLellanClyde-MacLellanInterventionMr. Clyde MacLellan: (1135)[English]I think you are asking if there were any seriously egregious types of situations, for which you used examples from other jurisdictions. As the Auditor General indicated, we didn't find any of those. If we had, we would have reported them.If documentation is sufficient to support a claim when we performed the work, we would be satisfied generally that it constitutes a valid expense, subject to it being reasonable, of course. If something were put forward that isn't for the purpose intended, we would not accept that type of transaction regardless of the kind of documentation behind it. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34885323488533MichaelFergusonTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1140)[English]Thank you for that.You've done “random” audits. I guess that would be the best term, if I'm following you. In other words, you have not done a forensic audit at any time, whether of members’ expenses or in the Senate. Are you recommending that if your audit capabilities were enhanced, you would like to see forensic audits of both the members’ and Senators' expenses?Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyForensic auditsGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament348853434885353488536ClydeMacLellanMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1140)[English]The normal audit practice would be to do financial audits, compliance audits, performance audits, those types of audits. If those audits indicate there is a particular problem, then you have to look at whether a forensic audit is required, but a forensic audit wouldn't be the first type of audit you would go to. You would go to performance audits, financial audits, and compliance audits. Board of Internal EconomyForensic auditsGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488537TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25474AndréBellavanceAndré-BellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BellavanceAndré_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): (1140)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Auditor General, your suggestions and observations are very relevant. Not that long ago, MPs and political parties wanted to make all decisions regarding the administration of their expenses behind closed door. Indeed, in 2010, when your predecessor, Ms. Fraser, asked to do an audit, the Bloc Québécois was the only party that accepted right away to divulge all of its expenses and be as transparent as possible. We can see that things evolved because I think that the population, as you said so well, no longer accepts that expenses be kept secret, since we are talking about taxpayers' money, their money. We are headed in the right direction. However, I have questions on how the transparent governance you allude to would function. Is it really necessary to create another organization? We are already sending of all our invoices and supporting documents to the controller's office. Would it be possible to be totally transparent and divulge as much of this information as possible, while allowing the Office of the Auditor General to have the legal right to perform audits, either once a year or twice a year, with the necessary means? I am wondering about this hybrid system to provide greater transparency. Currently, we are divulging information by work station and this is on the Internet. That is already an improvement compared to what used to be done, but it seems to me that we can still improve this by providing more details and by allowing you to perform audits. A statutory report would really allow for recommendations and modifications, if need be, on certain practices that may still need to be improved.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament348854034885413488542JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1140)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The model we are suggesting incorporates two aspects on the governance side. One is the aspect of independent audit. The other is the aspect of having some sort of independent body as well to help oversee the process.I would say that model is very much the same type you would see in a large crown corporation or in any other large corporation where, for example, you would have an audit committee. That would be a committee that we as auditors could interact with to make sure we're sending messages and they understand the messages, and they could help whatever board is responsible to figure out how to manage these types of expenses.The role of the independent body would be to help make sure that when we came in, our audit wouldn't find anything. That's where you want to be. You don't want to be in a situation where things are being processed and then you are relying on the audit to find things. You want to be in a position where the audit is really confirming that things are operating properly. That's why we think the system would be better if there were an independent advisory body on the side, processing things before the audit happened. So the two would be integral parts of improving governance.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management3488543348854434885453488546AndréBellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25474AndréBellavanceAndré-BellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BellavanceAndré_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. André Bellavance: (1140)[Translation]I am going to use them, Mr. Chair.According to you, this independent organization should be made up of representatives from the public, people who, of course, would have particular expertise. It is clear to all of us that in the current situation, with the Board of Internal Economy, it is difficult for parliamentarians to remove their partisan hats when they are discussing things together.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34885483488549JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1145)[English]We have indicated that we believe they need to be independent and they need to be appointed independently. I think you will find a couple other provinces where they have independent members sitting on a board. I believe in a couple of provinces the Chief Justice of the province appoints those people. So there should be a way to have independent people appointed.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management3488550AndréBellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): (1145)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Ferguson, for coming and also for your brief. Along with your remarks the brief is very helpful. It's essentially in accord with the NDP's motion to replace the Board of Internal Economy with some form of independent body, but also to draw from comparative experience on the whole transparency front and address the question of how we go about providing adequate disclosure of MPs' expenses.The Scottish and the Alberta models are mentioned specifically in your brief, and they're both of great interest to us. As I understand them, they go much further than the much vaunted, proactive efforts of one of the parties around this table, well beyond hospitality and travel, and they include supporting documentation. Have you had a chance to look at the Alberta system, which you don't directly recommend but you suggest we look at closely? Would you recommend that as a system that would work here?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management348855334885543488555JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1145)[English]We haven't gone into either one of them in any detail. What we did as part of preparation for this meeting was look to see what's going on in other areas. We identified those two as areas that we think would be of interest to the committee to look at further, but I can't give you enough detail on it to really go any further.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management3488556CraigScottToronto—DanforthCraigScottToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott: (1145)[English]What I would note is that it does include full supporting documentation, if I'm correct. That's something we would want to look at, which slides me quickly into the second question. I'm very concerned that whatever system is put in place and is applicable to all MPs have adequate support. You've emphasized that as well. My question is simply this: would the Auditor General's office be in a position to assist in figuring out what the adequate levels would be compared to what we have now by way of House support? It would have to be much greater than what we have at the moment, I would assume.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34885573488558MichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1145)[English]Mr. Chair, in that type of situation, we always have to balance off being in a situation where we come in to audit a process that we have recommended be put in place. We certainly would be willing to answer some questions and provide some things that we think need to be considered, but anything that we do would have to be within the way that we do our normal work.For example, we wouldn't be able to come in as a consultant and say, okay, here's the actual process that needs to be put in place, and then have to come along later to do an audit of whether or not the process is adequate. We'd have to make sure that we can maintain that independence.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34885593488560CraigScottToronto—DanforthCraigScottToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): (1145)[English]One minute? Thank you, Chair.Mr. Ferguson, it's good to be with you in a different circumstance. I have two quick things, Chair.One is that I think it's pretty clear, at least from the Auditor General—please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your comments—that his comments very much underscore the idea of an independent body, that we need to keep going in that direction. I'm not seeing anything or hearing from anybody who is saying that we don't need to or that it's a bad idea. To hear that from our Auditor General I think is the greatest endorsement you could have.The last thing I want to mention, Chair, in my own right as chair of the public accounts committee, which is responsible for all of the audits, working with the Auditor General on the audits that are done, is that these audits are things for the Canadian people. This has nothing to do, really, with internal government per se, and therefore in no way should we nickel or dime the Auditor General's budget. Whatever work we're asking his office to do beyond what he's currently doing, given the importance of the work he does and this, there should clearly be a top-up—separate money—for that. We're probably talking, I don't know.... I won't throw out a number, but it will be a lot smaller than most items we deal with. But given its importance, I urge this committee not to consider asking the AG to do more with less. If we want them to do more, let's make sure they have the money to do it. Thanks, Chair.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488564348856534885663488567348856834885693488570JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC): (1150)[English] Thanks, Mr. Chair.This is an important topic we're discussing today, no question. Obviously transparency and accountability are very important topics. That's why we as a Conservative government have chosen to voluntarily disclose some of our expenses. Give credit to the Liberal Party for that as well. It's unfortunate that not all parties have followed that lead, but certainly it is important that we do look at this. Having said that, I have some information here from when we heard from the clerk, Audrey O'Brien, about the current system. I just want to just go through that.You talked about the 98.5% compliance that you saw. I know you've had a number of questions about this already, and have certainly indicated that it seems to compare quite favourably with other corporate audits or those kind of things that you've been a part of. Having said that, Ms. O'Brien indicated to us that 21 staff are involved now in adjudicating members' expense claims, which seems to be a significant amount of resources put towards that to ensure it's done right and done thoroughly. She indicated that there were about 70,000 member payments on average in the fiscal year, and that in an average year, they also received about 20,000 calls or e-mails from members' offices. It obviously indicates there is a concerted effort on the part of members, or I'm sure at least the vast majority of members, to ensure that they're complying and that they're being thorough and doing a good job of reporting the expenses as they should be reported. She also indicated that 4,365 regret letters were sent on average in a year to members advising about some modification that was made to an amount claimed, which obviously indicates they're doing a pretty thorough job of examining those claims. I'll use myself as an example. Certainly we are very diligent. I have a great staff member who has a lot experience on the Hill who's very helpful in making sure my claims are done right. Of course, I'm also accused by my staff of being a bit of a micro-manager. I always ensure that I've combed through them thoroughly myself as well. One thing I will admit is that my signature is fairly erratic, and it doesn't often look the same from one day to the next. A number of times they've come back and questioned the signature to verify that it was in fact mine. Clearly that tells me they are looking quite thoroughly at these documents, and that's a really good thing to know. It gives me comfort, certainly, to know that the job is being done as thoroughly as it is. Let me use one other example from my own experience. I recall that one time an item that had cost $20 or $25—I can't remember the exact amount—had been purchased as a gift for an official visit I was making to a first nation. I guess the receipt that accompanied it didn't give sufficient detail from the store it was purchased from on what exactly it was, so that was brought back to me. Now, I'm assuming that probably in many instances, among the 4,365 letters, it would be something of that nature. I'm wondering, from your look at things.... You mentioned the 98.5%. So in that 1.5%, would it have generally been that kind of thing? You indicated insufficient documentation and that kind of thing. I'm assuming you wouldn't have discovered anything that would be of the magnitude of some of the things we've seen in the Senate. I guess the first question is—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34885733488574348857534885763488577348857834885793488580348858134885823488583JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1150)[English] As I've said a number of times on this committee, I would have been able to follow up except that I wasn't listening. No, I'm just kidding. With all due respect to Blake, I have a different series of questions, or a different view, anyway. Going back once again to my last line of questioning, the purpose of this is to try to find out whether or not we need to replace the BOIE, and that's really why we're here. The NDP is taking the view that we do need to. You've certainly made recommendations that we need at least some other independent body, whether it is to advise the BOIE or to replace the BOIE, that there needs to be an independent function. I can only surmise that you are saying that in your view, the BOIE, for whatever reasons, does not fulfill the functions of either transparency—and probably that's the priority you're talking about—or accountability in good governance. Otherwise, why would you think the BOIE, as we now know it, should be replaced?We've certainly heard examples. Mr. Richards was talking about how some of his claims were rejected because the administration couldn't determine whether or not it was actually his signature. I—and I think every MP at this table—could give examples where I've made claims that have come back to for further information or clarification, which again, as Mr. Richards points out, gives me confidence that the people who are examining our expense claims are doing their job and they're doing it well. Yet you're saying that in your view, the BOIE should be either replaced or strengthened. I'd just like to get comments from you as to, in an overarching view, why you think that's important. Is it that you just don't have enough confidence in the BOIE, or is it just not transparent enough for your purposes?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament348858934885903488591348859234885933488594JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1155)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. We certainly have not done an audit of the functioning of the board, and we haven't said that the board needs to be replaced. We have indicated that we think there would be a role for an independent organization to augment the process as it is right now, and that independent board could either have some authority or it could be advisory. We don't dispute that there are very diligent people working in the administration of the House of Commons, processing claims. We agree with that. We understand they're dedicated people and they're working very hard at the jobs they do. But again, for us this issue.... What we're doing is looking at governance structures in other places, and we're asking whether there are some good practices out there that should be considered by the committee. Whether you look at other government jurisdictions or at the private sector, we think that having a role for some sort of an audit committee, and a committee that has some independence, would be a way to help strengthen Canadians' confidence in the way members' expenses are being processed. That's really what we think the committee should be considering, whether there are ways to really enhance that confidence. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488595348859634885973488598TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1155)[English]—you're not advocating a replacement of the BOIE, just a strengthening of the system around it. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3488601JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1155)[English]We haven't said one way or another to replace the board or not replace it. Certainly, the functions of the board have to be done by somebody. How the board would interact with this independent committee is something that would have to be considered. We think some form of independence would be the important thing that needs to be added to the process. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management34886023488603TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson: (1155)[English]Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate that. Thank you again, Mr. Ferguson, for your answers. Just to pick up on the discussion that you were having, I think it's still fair to say that all the examples you've given in here—unless I've misread them—are actually examples of arm's-length independent agencies. I saw nothing in here that was a kind of beefed-up BOIE, but more what you've referenced. By that I mean—we've talked about Alberta, although you don't reference it here—the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia, which each have independent mandates, different from the BOIE, so that it's not MPs telling the country, “Okay, every MP's expenses are okay.” It's other people, arm's length from us, saying, “Yes, they're okay. These are the rules.” I would just ask you to comment on that. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management3488606348860734886083488609JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1155)[English]Certainly in the paper we provided the committee there are examples of those independent bodies. There are other examples as well, perhaps Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, where a couple of independent members have been added within the existing system. So there are both models out there.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management3488610DavidChristophersonHamilton CentreDavidChristophersonHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson: (1200)[English]You're really okay with both? You think they're both the same?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management3488611MichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichaelFergusonMichael-FergusonInterventionMr. Michael Ferguson: (1200)[English]Again, I think what we're saying is that there needs to be independence, both from the audit perspective and from the internal audit committee type of perspective. Whether that is advisory or it's authoritative, again, really, we can't make that decision, obviously. But what we feel is important, again for this committee, is that it's really about what people outside of this room think. As I've said, it's not just the reasonable person per se, but whether the reasonable person looking at it with skepticism thinks that any changes you put in place have gone far enough. That's what we're bringing forward.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management3488612DavidChristophersonHamilton CentreDavidChristophersonHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson: (1200)[English]Fair enough.I would just say that in responding to the rightful demand of the public to have more confidence, it's not going to come from our just painting up the existing system—and it's my opinion and I'm not looking for you to comment. But it really does need to be that independent body.Take a look at Great Britain. That's the best example of scandals that exist. They had a bigger problem than we do or did, and look where they went to solve it. I'm perplexed why we would think about going to anything less than, and I think it's going to leave Canadians perplexed. At the end of this process, if Canadians still don't think there's a process that holds us adequately to account, we have failed. It seems to me that we ought not be tinkering but go with the idea that we need a new, separate structure, find out which model works best or whether we should have a “Made in Canada” hybrid model that suits our particular needs.But I have to tell you, folks, this notion of doing anything that leaves the BOIE intact vis-à-vis MPs' expenses and our accountability is not going to fly. I hope that's not where the government's thinking of going with its majority, to drive us into that. That train's left the station and people expect us to be setting the same standard of accountability for ourselves that we set at the public accounts committee through the Auditor General for everybody else in government.Now will there still be some things that could remain in the BOIE's purview? That could very well be. I used to sit on the BOIE at Queen's Park and not everything is related to members' expenses. There are other matters that go there. There may still be a BOIE performing some functions. But the notion that they in any way, shape, or form would do the auditing and accountability function of what we're talking about here to me is going to leave Canadians saying, “You're still not doing what we need, and you're still not transparent enough”, in which case we will have blown all of this time.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34886133488614348861534886163488617MichaelFergusonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills (Director of Policy and Communications, Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority): (1205)[English]Chairman, I'm very pleased to be asked to appear before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs today. At IPSA we're very proud of what we've achieved over the past four years and I'm glad to have the opportunity to share some of our experiences with you.As you know, IPSA was created by the Parliamentary Standards Act in 2009 in response to the MPs' expenses scandal in 2008. Parliament decided that the scandal was so serious that the only way to restore public confidence was to take both regulation and the payment of MPs' costs and expenses out of Parliament's hands, to create an independent regulator.The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act in 2010 refined IPSA's role, giving it the power to determine MPs' pay and pensions as well, and creating the role of the compliance officer, which I'm happy to discuss further during questions. That independence is what defines IPSA. It allows us to take decisions about the rules we set, about the administrative services we provide, that we believe are in the public interest. We frequently consult, we always listen to all sides of an argument, especially when they are backed by evidence, but ultimately the decisions are ours.A second crucial characteristic of how IPSA operates is transparency. The House of Commons in the U.K. had begun to publish receipts before the last general election in 2010, but that was after resisting their publication in the courts and then, unavoidably, after the full details had been leaked to the media.For IPSA, publication of information about MPs' claims for business costs and expenses has been a priority from the start. We first published claims in November 2010, and have been doing so on a two-monthly cycle ever since. We also publish aggregate data for the preceding financial year, ending in March, every September. This transparency, as well as complying with the aims of the U.K.'s Freedom of Information Act, allows the public to see what their MPs are spending and to decide for themselves what they think of it. It means that there's strong accountability and better understanding of the financial support an MP needs to undertake his or her parliamentary duties.A third important element is how we provide support to MPs in carrying out their parliamentary duties. Quite unusually, we provide the payroll services, model contracts, and pay ranges for MPs' staff and, of course, we pay their costs and expenses. So we both regulate and provide those services.Our system is based on reimbursement on the provision of evidence. But we also pay some suppliers, like landlords, pooled research services, and stationery suppliers directly. This means the MP doesn't have to pay the money out of his or her account first. MPs also have access to an online rail ticket service and have a payment card that can be used for a range of transactions. What this means is that it's possible for an MP to now pay for up to 70% of claims by value through direct payment.We didn't have all of this from the start. IPSA moved from a blank sheet of paper on the chief executive's desk in October of 2009 to a fully functioning organization with an office, with an online claims system and a new scheme of rules, in time for the new Parliament on May 6, 2010, a really quick process.The Office of Government Commerce in the U.K., reviewing our implementation program, said we had achieved the impossible. There were certainly challenges operationally in the early days, not least because of the registration requirements before claims could be made, and the time needed by some MPs to get used to claiming online. Some MPs also experienced cashflow problems, and we addressed those in the short term through the swift introduction of an interest-free loan of up to £4,000.It was a learning process for both MPs and for IPSA. There were tensions. But over time most of these problems have subsided, and we have a system that works well. Most MPs and their staff are familiar with the rules and the IT system. Claims are generally paid within seven to nine working days of receipt. As I noted earlier, many of the high-value transactions can be paid directly by IPSA. Salaries are paid promptly and accurately, and every two months we publish the details of over 30,000 claims.(1210)In policy terms we keep an eye on how the rules are working, and we review them and consult every year. We're about to open a new consultation next week. But our focus has shifted in the last year or so to MPs' pay and pensions, where IPSA's powers were brought into force in 2011. We have run two consultations, the first an open exploration of the issues; the second a focused consultation on a proposed remuneration package that features a pay increase of about 9% to begin after the 2015 general election in the U.K., and a reform of MPs' pensions to bring them more into line with the rest of the public sector. Our board will be taking decisions independently later this year. So, to end, what are our priorities right now? First, it's to complete the work on pay and pensions. Second, it's to continue our preparations for the 2015 general election. We'll be doing that in cooperation with the House of Commons and with MPs themselves. And thirdly, we continue to look at ways of streamlining our processes to make sure we are maximizing value for money and delivering our services as efficiently as possible.I hope that gives you something to get the ball rolling. I welcome questions, Chairman, from you and from your committee. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488624348862534886263488627348862834886293488630348863134886323488633348863434886353488636JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1210)[English]I have a few questions. First, let's talk about the composition of your organization. How were the members of IPSA selected? Was it the governing party who selected all of the members? Did the opposition parties have a chance to nominate some members? Did you go through a selection process? Quite simply, how were you and others on IPSA selected and what kind of a vetting process was there?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488642JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1210)[English]Well, we have a board, which is enshrined in legislation, with five members. The chairman is Sir Ian Kennedy. We have an ex-High Court judge—this is required by statute—Sir Neil Butterfield; an auditor, Anne Whitaker. An ex-MP, Tony Wright, a well-known MP, was the ex-chair of the public administration committee, amongst other things. And then we have one other board member who doesn't have to have a particular role, who is Liz Padmore, who chairs a National Health Service trust in the U.K.Now, those have all been selected by open competition. Sir Ian was selected as chairman in 2010, and was appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. This is not a government appointment and it's not an opposition party appointment, but the Speaker was heading up that process. So Ian was selected then, and a number of other board members.They will have three-year terms and all decided not to apply again. So we have a new board, apart from Sir Ian, from the beginning of this year, the people I've just described. Again, they were all selected through open competition by a panel that was again chaired by the Speaker, John Bercow, and included our chairman and a number of other public figures with expertise in senior appointments.As for the other members of the team, initially, IPSA was, as I said, created extremely quickly, and our chief executive, Andrew McDonald, was a civil servant connected with the Ministry of Justice, which then had the policy responsibility for constitutional matters. So Andrew was appointed as interim chairman. The senior members of the team, including me, came by a number of routes. I personally was seconded from the Ministry of Justice. I've been there for three and a half years. Other directors since then have been appointed through open competition. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488643348864434886453488646TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1210)[English]Thank you very much for that. Is your organization audited on a yearly basis?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34886473488648JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1210)[English]It is, yes. It's audited by the National Audit Office and we are also often scrutinized by parliamentary committees. Our budget has to be agreed by a special committee, which is the Speaker's Committee for IPSA, again chaired by the Speaker, obviously, and that comprises MPs from various parties and some lay members as well.So they're not in the business of telling us exactly what to do, obviously, because we're independent, but they do agree to our budget. As I say, we're audited by the National Audit Office. We have been scrutinized by the public accounts committee, and we've had a number of other parliamentary committees looking at us over the last three years.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34886493488650TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1215)[English] Thank you.I would assume that, as in any new organization—as you say, you started with a blank sheet of paper—there were growing pains. What were the audit findings with respect to the administration of your organization? Did they have any specific suggestions on how you could improve your function? Were there any problems that they determined needed to be corrected?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34886513488652JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1215)[English]In our first year, quite quickly, we had the value-for-money review by the National Audit Office. Now, this is most unusual for an organization of our size in its first year, but obviously given the political sensitivities of what we do, there was a lot of interest in that.The National Audit Office, if I recall—I'm afraid I don't recall all the detail now—gave us a pretty good report, and we were very pleased with that. But it did make a number of suggestions. An example was how we validate claims. When we started—and you may not be surprised, given why we were created—those individual claims were checked two or three times to make sure we got it right. Over time we've streamlined that, and one of the things that the NAO has been very keen to see us doing is to use a much more risk-based approach to the validation of claims. So with the fairly bog standard claims with a low risk, you don't need to spend too much time on those, but what you can do is audit them later. And we're doing a lot more of that now, where our audit team takes a look at patterns and outliers and things like that, and that picks up some of the more unusual claims. But yes, we've been pretty heavily scrutinized. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34886533488654TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1215)[English]I'm curious. You may not have enough time to answer this fully, but if not, hopefully we can get back to it a little later.From the transparency standpoint, you mentioned that you publish the findings you have on MP expense claims. What do you publish and how to you publish them? At what level of detail do you publish all of the claims that are submitted to your organization?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34886553488656JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1215)[English]Apart from highly sensitive security-related claims and claims having to do with disability, where we just provide an aggregate figure once a year for all MPs, we basically publish everything. The way we do it is that we extract the relevant information from those claims and report that. What we don't do at the moment is actually publish the receipts themselves. We thought long and hard about that at the beginning and took the view that, firstly, it was an unnecessary and very expensive process because you have to redact a lot of information, because of personal information and that kind of thing, and that costs a lot of money. But also we were concerned because redaction is, to be honest, a mind-numbing process for the people who have to do it. There's always a risk that personal information could be missed. The way we do it cuts out that risk. We publish the information itself.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34886573488658TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1215)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Sills, for being here with us today. We're looking at an independent oversight of MPs' expenses, and we just had our very respected Auditor General of Canada come before this committee, and he said he very much would like to see independent oversight of MPs' expenses. So obviously we're looking at the types of models we could put into place for that independent oversight to bring an end to self-policing of MPs' expenses. I want to know this, just to start off. With the transition to IPSA, was there real resistance to having independent oversight of members of Parliament, and where did that resistance come from, if there was, and what was the character of that resistance? Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management348866234886633488664JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1215)[English]I think it's fair to say there was resistance at the beginning. It's a very different relationship, when you've got an independent regulator, from when it's done in-house. And although Parliament obviously did vote for our creation, I think there were a good number of MPs who weren't really that happy that we existed. The resistance, I guess, took a number of forms. One was that quite a lot of MPs didn't really want to have to submit their claims online. They were used to doing them in a paper-based system, and since this required more time and effort, we did have some difficulties with that at first.As I said earlier, we were heavily, heavily scrutinized for an organization of our size, and that takes up a lot of time for a small organization. And there was a certain amount of hostility, it's fair to say. One of the things we did early on was have a lot of seminars with MPs from different parties, and it's fair to say we didn't get a warm welcome.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34886653488666PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1220)[English]Fair enough.I'd like to talk more specifically now about how IPSA functions. Mr. Lukiwski just asked about the findings on claims, which is important. I understand that the minutes of IPSA meetings are made public. Are the meetings held in public? If some meetings are held in camera and some are public, what are the criteria for going in camera?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34886673488668JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1220)[English]We don't hold meetings in public. Our board meetings are private, but we do publish the minutes of those meetings. We don't routinely publish board papers, but under our freedom of information act people can ask to see them and then we will make a judgment about whether it's in the public interest to release those papers. We have released a fair number in the past.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488669PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1220)[English] You are subject to your freedom of information act. Is there an appeal process if IPSA chooses for whatever reason not to release that information?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488670JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1220)[English]Yes, there is. It is quite a complex process. It works in a number of stages. First, if we say we won't publish information, for whatever reason, the requester can ask for an internal review that has to be carried out by a senior member of IPSA who wasn't involved in the original request.If after that review we are still saying no, then the requester can take the issue to the information commissioner, which is the body that oversees freedom of information and data protection in the UK. If they are still not getting the answer they want, they can take it to a tribunal. Then it can work its way up the justice system. So there are a number of steps. People often ask for internal reviews. It is quite a frequent occurrence.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management348867134886723488673PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1220)[English]May I ask if you have had situations where it has gone to the information commissioner and then to a tribunal? How long did that process take to get access to the information?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488674JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1220)[English]There haven't been many, but there's one in process at the moment. In fact, it's a very interesting one. It relates to one of my previous answers, which had to do with somebody requesting to see some receipts. We said no. The internal review agreed not to show them. So the requester went to the information commissioner, who said yes. We are now appealing that decision.We have been to a lower-tier tribunal and we're about to go to an upper-tier tribunal. That hearing is going to be taking place later this year. So it could be an interesting outcome.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34886753488676PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1220)[English]How long has that process taken?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488677JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1220)[English]I think it's taken at least a year and a half.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488678PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1220)[English]My final question has to do with how the board makes its decisions. We have a Board of Internal Economy, which has in the past functioned by consensus. Unfortunately, it seems to be moving to a majority model now. Where there is some difference of opinion, does your board rule by consensus or is it a majority vote that decides?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488679JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1220)[English]I think the current board in particular is very keen to do things by consensus. It's been in place for nearly a year now and as the director I go to all the board meetings. It doesn't come down to a vote if there's a good argument. Directors coming from quite different backgrounds can have different views on matters. Having been advised by policy officials like myself, they work very hard to find consensus. If they had to vote they would, but we work through consensus if we can.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488680PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1225)[English]So you are not aware of any time when there's been a vote that has taken place?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488681JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1225)[English]I'm trying to think, but not a real “hands up because we can't decide this”. People work hard to find consensus. We've had votes in the past but not this time around.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488682PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1225)[English]Welcome, Mr. Sills.I have a few questions that I would like to get on the record. One of them is dealing with the process when members of Parliament say they want to be able to move in a certain direction and incur another expense. For example, with advertising, we don't think we should have a party logo on it. There would be a discussion and a decision would be made by the Board of Internal Economy, and then it's passed on. What role does IPSA play in regard to guidelines for what a member of Parliament can or cannot spend money on? Or is that brought to IPSA?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management348868734886883488689JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1225)[English]We have a set of rules that govern all MP's expense claims, and we consult on those rules. When they started we had extensive consultation, and we review them every year. As an independent body we then set them, and that's it, basically: they are the rules.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488690KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1225)[English]Are you approached by the House or any of the committees who say they would like you to consider extending that sort of a benefit of expenditure, or to change something?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488691JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1225)[English]We have regular discussions with all the parties, and other political figures. When we consult we always make the effort to discuss matters with them and seek their views. We also have a parliamentary group called the IPSA-MP liaison group with a number of senior MPs, which meets from time to time to discuss issues. There are plenty of ways of having those discussions.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34886923488693KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1225)[English]So the board would take it upon itself to meet with different caucuses, and independents, to get a sense of their feelings and thoughts.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488694JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1225)[English]Yes.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488695KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1225)[English]What sort of an appeal mechanism do you have in place? For example, what happens when an MP puts in a claim, he or she gets a response, and they are not happy with the response? Who do they appeal to?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488696JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1225)[English]In the first instance, they could ask for IPSA itself to review it. We have an audit team that would review the decision.If they are not satisfied with that, they can go to the compliance officer, who is independent of IPSA. He is appointed by the IPSA board but he operates independently. If an MP isn't happy that something hasn't been paid, then he or she can take it to the compliance officer. It's relatively rare, but it has happened.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34886973488698KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1225)[English]How often does IPSA meet?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488699JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1225)[English]The board?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488700KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1225)[English]Yes.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488701JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1225)[English]It's meant to meet once a month, but it quite often meets more than that. It has one formal board meeting a month, but we have been holding a lot of workshops because of a huge range of issues that we're dealing with at the moment. The board has in recent times been meeting two or three times a month, but that is unusual. It is generally one meeting.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488702KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1225)[English]Do you publish the minutes on the Internet? How does one gain access?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488703JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1225)[English]Yes, we do. They are published on our website.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488704KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1225)[English]As a committee, you don't meet publicly. Is there any sense that there could be a need or a justification to allow it to be open? Can someone come in and participate, or watch? What would the rationale be for not having it open to the public?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887053488706JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1225)[English]It's interesting. At the beginning there was talk of having cameras and so on, but we decided that we didn't think that was going to work. So what we do is to publish those minutes. For example, when we consult we'll always report back on the views of the public and the reasons for our decisions and so on. At this point in time, I don't think there's much appetite for actually holding public meetings.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887073488708KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1230)[English]One of the issues that has come up in the province of Manitoba—and I really believe in this—is that they have actually appointed a commissioner who sets the salaries and pensions of MPs. It's non-debatable, and it takes effect after the following provincial election. How precisely do you establish a member of Parliament's salary and pension benefits, and when does it take effect?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887093488710JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1230)[English]Well, we have the power to do that now. We've been consulting about that. We've already determined MP's salaries. These are backbench MPs, by the way, not government ministers' salaries. We said for the current year and the next year that they should get a 1% pay increase, which is the same as the rest of the public sector.The decision on what happens after the next election is what we're consulting on, and we will set the exact salary and the pension contributions, benefits, and so on. We are working on that at the moment. We have consulted very widely, but it will be IPSA's decision alone.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887113488712KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1230)[English] You have consulted. Do you have some sort of public meeting, or public input? How do you come to the conclusion?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488713JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1230)[English]We've consulted in all sorts of ways. We do it in the traditional way, with a consultation paper inviting responses; we have an online survey; we've done quite a lot of opinion polling. Last year we conducted a number of citizens' juries, which I know is something that has happened in Canada quite often, whereby you can really get to understand what the public are thinking, if you're with them for three to four hours getting more information. That was extremely helpful. Obviously we consult MPs. For something such as the pensions, we've worked a lot with the trustees of the MPs' pension fund. In fact, I personally am one of the trustees—IPSA has a member on the MPs' pension fund. We basically look for as many ways to consult as we can. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management348871434887153488716KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1230)[English]Through the committee and the establishment of the committee itself of IPSA, there are some mandatory positions, I believe. You said, for example, there's the High Court judge; I think you mentioned the auditor. Then it is left, is it, for the other three spots to be appointed by a hiring committee of the Speaker, which the Speaker would chair?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488717JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1230)[English]They're all appointed by open competition, but what the legislation requires is that we should have a High Court Judge, an auditor, and an ex-MP. It is not specified what the chairman's background should be, and it's not specified what the background of the other board members should be. But those three are there in statute.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488718KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1230)[English]Thank you. I'd just like to clear the record. I think somebody suggested that our Board of Internal Economy is moving to a voting system. That's not true. The Clerk of the House said that there has been one vote in eight years. It deals by consensus.Sir, I wonder whether you could explain to us a bit about what discretionary spending is available to the independent backbench MPs.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887213488722JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1230)[English]What discretionary spending is available? Well, we set budgets in a number of areas—staffing, office budget, accommodation, residential accommodation—and within those budgets' limits, as long as it's for parliamentary purposes, it's up to the MP what they claim. In that sense, they have a good degree of discretion about how they use their budgets. As far as individual claims are concerned, we obviously determine them.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887233488724DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1230)[English]Okay. Now would those claims that we are talking about be claims for travel within their ridings?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488725JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1230)[English]Yes, travel is another one of the budgets. That's not capped, because obviously an MP from Scotland—the other side of the country—and an MP from near to London are going to have very different travel expenses. They are done on the basis of an uncapped budget.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488726DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1230)[English]Then my question would be, if you had an MP who lived in the countryside and were to travel around in his riding—to various smaller communities, maybe—would you report his travel on an individual basis?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488727JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1235)[English]We do, yes. They can claim that, and the claims are published on the website.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488728DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1235)[English]Do they show to which community he travelled?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488729JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1235)[English]Yes. Each journey is listed. It's quite detailed.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488730DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1235)[English]Okay. And is the purpose of the journey listed?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488731JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1235)[English]I'm trying to remember. I don't think we do that for every individual journey. We just say where it was to.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488732DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1235)[English]Do you publish that?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488733JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1235)[English]Yes.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488734DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1235)[English] I thought I heard you say that you don't publish receipts.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488735JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1235)[English]We don't publish receipts, but on what we call constituency travel, the MP makes the claim. Basically, they have a mileage rate, and so they just say how many miles they've travelled, where from, and where to.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488736DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1235)[English]Thank you.And would you have a sense of the cost of setting up IPSA, or what it costs per year to run the program?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887373488738JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1235)[English]IPSA costs every year about £6 million. We're both the regulator and the provider of payroll and expenses. And of course, as an independent organization, you have to have all the normal overheads—HR, IT, and so on. So the total is £6 million. We dispense around £160 million of funding, so this is a relatively small proportion of the overall total.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887393488740DaveMacKenzieOxfordJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1235)[English]Would you know whether, in what we call a member's office budget, each MP has a capped amount to spend?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488742JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1235)[English]Yes, they do.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488743DaveMacKenzieOxfordDaveMacKenzieOxford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/891DaveMacKenzieDave-MacKenzieOxfordConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKenzieDavid_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Dave MacKenzie: (1235)[English]Would you know what that is?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488744JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1235)[English]It's around £20,000 to £25,000. It depends whether the office is in London or outside London. It's slightly more for London. London is about £24,000, and others are about £21,000.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488745DaveMacKenzieOxfordJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson: (1235)[English]Thank you, Mr. Sills, for your time today. It's been very helpful and very informative.In the creation of IPSA, was the vote unanimous in the House of Commons?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887483488749JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1235)[English]That's a good question. I'm not sure I can quite remember that. I think it may have been, or with very few in opposition, because I think all MPs recognized at the time, given what had happened, that it was important to create IPSA. Also, it went through extremely quickly. I think it was a couple of months at most for the whole process.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488750DavidChristophersonHamilton CentreDavidChristophersonHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson: (1235)[English]It's impressive.Another big question is, are the British people satisfied? Do they feel that their parliament has turned the corner and is rising to the level of accountability they expect?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887513488752JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1235)[English]That's a very good question.We do survey the public. Support has gotten better; it's just under 40%. The last time we surveyed the public, 40% of them thought things had gotten better. But of course, the stories are over. You may have seen, only yesterday, that an ex-MP pleaded guilty over expenses. That has nothing to do with the current Parliament, but an ordinary member of the public won't necessarily make a distinction. So I think it's fair to say that most members of the public will probably say things seem okay but that we're still not that trusting. There's a long way to go, I think.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management348875334887543488755DavidChristophersonHamilton CentreDavidChristophersonHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson: (1235)[English]Were there any further measures proposed that you didn't take that would have gone even further? You mentioned receipts as an example and said that you had decided not to go there. Was there anywhere else that you could have gone, that was looked at, and that you chose not to go to but may go to in the future to bring the rest of the Brits onside?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488756JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1235)[English]One things that is asked frequently is, why we don't just have an allowance for something such as accommodation in particular, to make it nice and simple but less transparent. We have considered this in the past but think the time is certainly not right for it at the moment. You'd lose the transparency, and that's the absolute key for us at the moment.We have refined our rules. Some of the rules on things such as accommodation for family members, for example, have been relaxed over the years. We're always open to change.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887573488758DavidChristophersonHamilton CentreDavidChristophersonHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson: (1235)[English]Thank you very much.You mentioned that the budget is about £6 million. I have two question, and you may not be able to answer. Do you have any idea how that £6 million compares with what was being spent before, when doing somewhat comparable work, but in house?My other question would be, is there any level of pay, and if so, what is it, for the members of IPSA, in terms of wheels within wheels within wheels?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488759348876034887613488762JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1235)[English]On the first one, the overall cost including expenses is still slightly below what the House of Commons used to cost. It's very hard for us to make a meaningful comparison between ourselves and the House of Commons administration, because of course they were part of a bigger organization, and so a lot of their overheads wouldn't have been as clear, because they would be in the wider organization. It's pretty difficult to say precisely what the difference is.In terms of the amounts we pay our board members, I'm afraid I can't remember them right now. They're on our website, and I'd be very happy to provide the information to your researchers.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887633488764DavidChristophersonHamilton CentreDavidChristophersonHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson: (1235)[English]That's fine; our researchers can find it very quickly.I'd like to follow up on a question Mr. Lamoureux asked, which I thought was really good, because it ties into the notion I had put forward earlier that there—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887653488766JohnSillsJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and AddingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): (1240)[English]While we're waiting, were you asking about the cost of administration now versus before, or were you asking about total MPs' expenses?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488777JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonDavidChristophersonHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson: (1240)[English]No, I was talking about the admin. In other words, how does £6 million to do this now compare to the cost of doing similar work prior? He said actually it's probably a little less, but it was difficult to do apples to apples.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488778ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and AddingtonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and AddingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Reid: (1240)[English]I wasn't sure if he was answering a different question from the one you asked.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488779DavidChristophersonHamilton CentreDavidChristophersonHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25489DavidChristophersonDavid-ChristophersonHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/ChristophersonDavid_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. David Christopherson: (1240)[English]I don't think so. I thought his answer made sense.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488780ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and AddingtonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and AddingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Reid: (1240)[English]Thank you, Mr. Sills. It's Scott Reid here. I just wanted to inquire about your description of your processes for meeting, which sound like they are somewhere between what we would refer to as in camera and open meetings. You say that you publish minutes of the IPSA meetings. I gather that you do not publish verbatim transcripts. Is that correct?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887853488786JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1240)[English]That's correct. We just publish a summarized minute.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488787ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and AddingtonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and AddingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Reid: (1240)[English]You said that under your open access law, or sunshine law, people can make a request to see further information, and at that point papers are released. When you say “papers”, do you mean reports that have been prepared for you, or do you mean that at that point the verbatim discussions are released?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488788JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1245)[English]It's reports, advice, and things like that; we don't publish verbatim transcripts.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488789ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and AddingtonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and AddingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Reid: (1245)[English]In circumstances, including in response to requests from the public...?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488790JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1245)[English]Yes, that's right. For example, if we're advising the board on changing the rules on something or other, if there's a paper on that and somebody asks to see it—because they've seen it referred to in the minutes—then we'll consider what we can and can't show them.Our assumption is to try to, if we can, actually provide the information. We just have to ask ourselves whether there is personal information in it, what impact it would have on what is defined as the effective conduct of public affairs, which is a key part of the Freedom of Information Act. But we don't publish transcripts; we don't have a transcript.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887913488792ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and AddingtonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and AddingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Reid: (1245)[English]One of the things that has concerned me with our own Ethics Commissioner, who I think is a very good person and does her best with the rules that we've given her, is that when she makes her rulings and decisions, they are frequently in the form of confidential advice to members, which means that it's difficult to establish a body of precedents. That, I think, is inherently a problem that exists in any decision-making process that is at least partly private. Is that a problem that you feel exists, or do you feel you have found a way around that?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488793JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1245)[English]I think it's quite important to distinguish between two things. I referred to the compliance officer, and he looks at claims and whether they should have been paid or whether they should have been made in the first place. He doesn't look at the conduct of MPs. That is handled by the parliamentary commissioner for standards, who is part of Parliament. I think some of what you were referring to is probably closer to that.On the compliance officer, though, what he does is that if a complaint is made against an MP's claims or he's looking at the appeal I referred to earlier, he'll first assess the issue, and that will be done privately. But if he decides to investigate it, then that will be made public. That's published on his website, that he is making an investigation into an MP's claims, and he'll publish the outcome as well.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887943488795ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and AddingtonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25474AndréBellavanceAndré-BellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BellavanceAndré_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. André Bellavance: (1245)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Mr. Sills, a first question comes to my mind. I am convinced that the population is asking itself the same question, and that when this happened, people in your country as well wondered how a system could have allowed such inappropriate expenses as home renovations, the purchase of electronic devices, etc.? How did MPs, ministers and even House personnel manage to fall through the cracks?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34887993488800JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1245)[English]There are two answers to that question.First, if you really wanted to know, in terms of the people who set the rules and so on, you'd need to ask people from the House of Commons rather than me. But I think the general answer is lack of transparency. It was a closed system for most of the time, and like any closed system, things happen, ways of doing things develop, so when they come out and are revealed to the public, the public recoils against them. That's essentially what happened. When the public saw some of the claims that were being made, they weren't happy about it. Transparency, though, is the key.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34888013488802AndréBellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaAndréBellavanceRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25474AndréBellavanceAndré-BellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BellavanceAndré_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. André Bellavance: (1245)[Translation]This type of expense had become acceptable for the office that did the audits, and I imagine that this had been going on for years.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488803JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1245)[English]I think so, yes. Some things were, but it's easy with hindsight. The vast majority of MPs would say, and I think we'd have to respect this, that it was allowed, that it was in the rules. For example, we could take the furniture claimed for accommodation. We don't allow that, as a response to the scandal. There were examples of MPs buying big flat-screen televisions and so on, but they were allowed, so if something is allowed and it's not published, then it's much easier to think it is okay and one is not doing anything wrong. But when it's exposed there's a different view.[Technical difficulty--Editor]Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34888043488805AndréBellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25474AndréBellavanceAndré-BellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BellavanceAndré_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. André Bellavance: (1250)[Translation]Mr. Sills, since IPSA took over the audits, do you receive a lot of claims that seem inappropriate to you? Have you had to refuse many expense claims from MPs or ministers, or have past practices been completely eradicated? Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488811JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1250)[English]I can't remember the exact percentage of the number of claims I turned down. It's a tiny, tiny amount. Again, you can see them on our website individually. We call them “not paids” and they are very few and far between. So yes, I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of MPs are complying very happily with the rules and are claiming things they need for their parliamentary business.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488812AndréBellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaAndréBellavanceRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25474AndréBellavanceAndré-BellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BellavanceAndré_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. André Bellavance: (1250)[Translation]May I continue, Mr. Chair?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488813JohnSillsJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott: (1250)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Sills, for being with us.Could I just go back to the discussion of the tribunal processes? Apparently there's one case that's still instream where you went to a lower tribunal. Did the lower tribunal affirm or reverse the information commissioner?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management348881634888173488818JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1250)[English]It confirmed the information commissioner, and we are appealing to a higher tribunal, essentially on points of law.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488819CraigScottToronto—DanforthCraigScottToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott: (1250)[English]That's what I wanted to come to next. As a matter of law, or policy mixed with law, what is the basis on which you're resisting the disclosure of receipts? Is it the fact that the whole system is designed around not uploading receipts and that this, therefore, would be an end run around it? What's the reason?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34888203488821JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1250)[English]I think there are two principal reasons. One is that we believe very strongly that all the relevant information has already been published, and the way we do it helps to deal with that risk, as I said earlier, of accidentally giving away personal information. The information commissioner disagreed with us and it was almost for things like, what's the colour of the heading, or did the MP scribble something on it? It's that kind of thing. It becomes quite an arcane argument about what constitutes information. I won't bore you with that now but that is the sort of legal issue.The other issue, which in many ways is just as important, is that this will be an incredibly costly exercise. It would cost at least a million pounds a year to have the redaction team that is necessary to take out all the personal information. We also have a backlog. We've got about 600,000 to 700,000 receipts now, and if we have to publish all of those, that would cost us, again, almost a million pounds. It would be a massive undertaking with very little public value.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management348882234888233488824CraigScottToronto—DanforthCraigScottToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott: (1250)[English]Thank you for that. That's extremely helpful.Could I go back to when you were set up? There obviously had to be a downscaling of the existing in-house administration and an upscaling of your new organization. Were the employees transferred over? In terms of the operational level, do you have the same set of employees? Were they moved over, and if so, was it on the same terms as their previous work?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34888253488826JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1255)[English]Yes, that's exactly right. Under employment law, people can transfer, and on their same terms and conditions. I forget the exact number, but initially probably around 20 to 30 operational staff from the House of Commons did transfer over. Obviously, some of those have moved on now, but quite a lot of them are still with us. The senior team on the whole didn't transfer. Most of the senior team is new, and in fact, to make one other point, I think the vast majority of those ex-House of Commons staff have now transferred over to exit terms and conditions.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488827CraigScottToronto—DanforthCraigScottToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott: (1255)[English]And those terms and conditions are comparable to those before? Are they somehow different from the rest of the civil service?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488828JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1255)[English]Yes, they are comparable, if not better.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488829CraigScottToronto—DanforthCraigScottToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott: (1255)[English]Okay, that's great.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488830JohnSillsJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott: (1255)[English]I have a very quick question. In terms of news coverage, now that you're four years in or whatever, apart from old scandals, and the MP who was just convicted, has there been any noticeable effect on the news coverage of this issue?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34888323488833JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1255)[English]Yes, we are still regularly in the news. It's often attached to a particular announcement we're making—pay and pensions, for example. When we proposed a pay increase, as you can well imagine there was a strong public reaction and media reaction to that. When we published the annual data on MPs' expenditures in September, that created a lot of interest this year. The interesting thing is that what we've found is the regular publication of expenses at a national level attracts very little interest now. But it does still attract interest at the local level. MPs find that their local newspapers do pick up on their expenses and often use that against them. That is quite painful for them.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management348883434888353488836CraigScottToronto—DanforthJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1255)[English]Thank you very much.Mr. Sills, I want to get back to a question or an example that my colleague Monsieur Bellavance raised before. It's with regard to the egregious examples in the U.K. of incorrect expenses for anything from flat screen televisions to the dredging of a moat, those types of things. You mentioned that it's because the rules and the policies of the in-house operation allowed that to happen. In Canada, in our Parliament, the rules and policies we have governing expenses for members of Parliament would never allow those types of expenses to be approved in the first place. Similarly, the in-house administration set-up that we have, the operation called the Board of Internal Economy, seems on many levels to be remarkably similar to your operation, inasmuch as they work by consensus, they do not publish verbatim transcripts of the meetings, and most of the meetings are not held in public. My question to you would be, if there were an in-house administration in the U.K. that operated in precisely the same manner that IPSA does, do you believe there would be a need for an independent outside operation, like IPSA, under any circumstance? Or do you believe that simply because you're independent, from a transparency standpoint, it is required to have an outside operation rather than in-house?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management348883934888403488841JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1255)[English]The question for you is always going to be what the problem is that you're trying to solve.In the U.K., parliamentarians felt the scandal was so big that we needed a wholly external independent operation. The question then is whether you can be truly independent if you're in-house. That's always the exam question, isn't it?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34888423488843TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1255)[English]Yes, and it's a very good observation.We've heard from our Auditor General that 98.5% of all expense claims made by members of Parliament are in compliance with the rules. Based on that, that's something our committee has to examine, whether there's a need for an outside operation, an outside audit, or I shouldn't say audit, but an outside independent operation to deal with members' expenses. That's just an observation.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management348884434888453488846JohnSillsJohnSillsJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1255)[English]Yes, that's exactly right. As I say, it's quite a turbulent process. Getting the legislation through, setting up a new body, establishing it, the transitional processes. So you do have to ask yourself if your problem is big enough to make that kind of change. I can't answer that for you, obviously. That's what you're doing in your review at the moment. All I can say is that I think our system now works extremely well, but it was created for a purpose, which was that we had a very big expenses scandal in 2008. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management34888473488848TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1300)[English]Luckily, so far at least, there hasn't been that similar type of activity in the Canadian Parliament. But your point is very well taken. It's our job to determine whether or not there's a need to go to the kind of system that you have created there. And let me say, based on what I've heard today, congratulations. It sounds as if you and your fellow board members are doing a job and you have solved a problem that had been occurring. Hopefully the job that you and your colleagues are doing will continue to represent the taxpayers well.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488849JohnSillsJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJohnSillsJohn-SillsInterventionMr. John Sills: (1300)[English]Thank you very much.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIndependent Parliamentary Standards AuthorityInformation disseminationThird party management3488851JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)): (1100)[English] Let's get started, please. This is the meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We are meeting in public today with video recording.We have with us today Mr. Rob Walsh, former Law Clerk of Parliament. Mr. Walsh, I haven't been with you in a long time. It's great to have you back before our committee.Mr. Gregory Thomas is also here today.We'll give you each a chance for an opening statement. Mr. Walsh, would you like to go first, and then we'll ask questions after that?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament34688043468805346880634688073468808RobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh (Former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, As an Individual): (1100)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chairman.In my time at the House as law clerk, I worked with and for the Board of Internal Economy. I saw it in its good times and in its bad times. I'm pleased to see the House take on this review of how its internal financial and administrative affairs are managed. In the course of its study, I would hope the committee would keep in mind two important considerations about the House of Commons. First, the House is where our democracy plays itself out between elections. Partisan politics is an inherent feature of the House and must be accommodated in any administrative restructuring. Second, administrative independence is essential to the constitutional function of the House and to its political credibility as a parliamentary institution.I expect what drove the House to launch this review is the recognition that Canadians generally are increasingly concerned about the spending practices of parliamentarians and want to see more transparency and accountability in the management of the internal financial and administrative affairs of both the House of Commons and the Senate.In my time at the House I found the board generally acted responsibly in its management of the financial and administrative business of the House. I attribute this to the fact that the House, as an elected body, is hard-wired, as it were, for serving the public interest and for accountability, though partisan interests or collective self-interest sometimes seem to influence the business outcome.From time to time, it seemed to me that a party's political agenda, some current political conflict, or the government's political agenda were allowed to interfere with the business of the board, and that caused matters to be unnecessarily delayed or left unresolved for protracted periods of time or simply not addressed. To some extent, this is understandable and unavoidable, but it should not be allowed to cause the board to become dysfunctional and the internal affairs of the House, as an institution, poorly managed.In my view, the public interest of greater transparency and the House's interest in more efficiency in its internal governance will be better served by establishing a more arm's-length relationship between the House and the board, but not by establishing an outside body as the governing administrative authority for the House. To this end, I would make the following suggestions, which in the interests of time I can only itemize here in point form; there are six of them: one, that the name of the board be changed to reflect its function in contemporary language—this is an obvious one; two, that the composition of the board not reflect party standings in the House but that the recognized parties in the House be represented equally on the board; three, that ministers and other House leaders, other than whips, not sit on the board, and that appointments to the board by made by each caucus; four, that board meetings be held in public, with its agendas made public the day before, subject to the usual limitations for privacy, but that the board establish two permanent subcommittees on financial and administrative matters respectively that would meet in private but present their reports publicly to the board for consideration and approval; five, that the board table its minutes in the House no later than the first sitting day immediately following the next board meeting; and finally, six, that at the end of each Parliament, other than those of less than a year, the Auditor General audit, or in some manner review, the financial decisions of the board and the spending of House leaders, members of Parliament, and each caucus, with enforcement measures in place to recover any funds found to have been wrongly spent.Thank you, Mr. Chairman.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons administrationIndividual presentationMembers of ParliamentPolitical programsThird party management34688093468810346881134688123468813346881434688153468816JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonGregoryThomasGregory-ThomasInterventionMr. Gregory Thomas (Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation): (1105)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.We thank the committee for inviting us, and we're grateful to the House of Commons for undertaking this very worthy initiative. We appreciate the initiative of the official opposition for moving this comprehensive motion and the initiative of the Liberal Party leader in coming forward with suggestions for more transparency. We also hearken back to the Federal Accountability Act of 2006, which we think provides a template. We think this is the most important scandal-fighting initiative ever adopted in Canada, and we think it provides a strong template for future reform.We applauded in 2006 the initiatives taken by the government in the wake of the sponsorship scandal, and our 84,000 supporters, who very regularly communicate with all of your offices, have a keen interest in seeing the practices of both houses of Parliament updated, modernized, and reformed. We'd like to play a constructive role with all of you in making this happen, and we have a few suggestions that follow on the initiatives of the Accountability Act.It's important to quickly review a couple of those important initiatives: the creation of the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer; the establishment of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; beefing up of the powers of the Auditor General and the Ethics Commissioner; and the expanded protections for whistle-blowers. I know it's all the way back to 2006, but it's important to remember that these key reforms that we take for granted today were initiated by this government as its first act in office. So what we're calling on the government now to do, and all parties in the House, is to continue to embrace the spirit of those reforms and bring some of those reforms home to the House of Commons. Perhaps, through your initiative, you can set a good example for your colleagues in the Senate as well.Board of Internal EconomyCanadian Taxpayers FederationDirector of Public ProsecutionsGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentOffice of the Parliamentary Budget Officer346881934688203468821346882234688233468824JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): (1110)[English]Thank you, Chair, and my thanks to Mr. Walsh and Mr. Thomas for being here.I'll start with Mr. Walsh. I have a couple of questions. One will connect to one of the six recommendations you made. I'd asked this question of Madam O'Brien when she was here. She rendered an opinion, but she was a little uncertain of the legal ramifications.My question was this: if the Board of Internal Economy, BOIE, held its meetings in public, would the members of that committee have the same privileges as members on a standing committee or members speaking in the House? In other words, would they have the immunity provided to most members? If not, it might be somewhat restrictive on members if all the discussions were held in public. You've identified a couple of ways to get around that by having subcommittees of financial and legal matters, and others that might be required to have meetings in camera. But first things first. From a legal perspective, would public pronouncements by members of the Board of Internal Economy be covered by parliamentary privilege or immunity?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraMembers of ParliamentParliamentary immunity3468827346882834688293468830JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1110)[English] Let me approach that question this way: the answer is partially yes. The committees of the House, such as this committee, are fully covered by privilege, regardless of what they're talking about.With the board, it would enjoy the protections and privilege according to what it's talking about. The privilege it would have the protection of is the privilege the House enjoys to administer its own internal affairs. It can administer its internal affairs publicly or privately, but if it's a matter within the ambit of that privilege of managing its internal affairs, then it would have privilege. I can only remind you of the decision in 2005 of the Supreme Court of Canada, where the House took the position that administering all its employees was within its internal affairs. The court said no, it didn't go that far. In other words, how the House might deal with the clerk as an employee is one thing, but how it might deal with somebody working outside on the grounds might be another. The court didn't really draw the line as to where the line is, but somewhere in there is a line. In a similar fashion, the board would have to address its mind to what is the ambit of internal affairs. My own hunch would be that, by and large, most of the business discussed by the board would be within that privilege. I would just add, if I may, that the absence of privilege, in my view, should not discourage the board from meeting publicly, insofar as the board is a body created by statute. It's not a parliamentary committee. Its responsibilities relate to the financial and administrative affairs of the House, which is a public institution. So, arguably, the matters it's discussing are not ones that need to have the protection of privilege, such as free speech, which of course is designed to enable members in debates to be able to speak freely and not to be impeded in doing so by legal considerations about defamation. The same, arguably, wouldn't apply to the board, so there may be less need for concern about privilege in a public meeting of the Board of Internal Economy.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentParliamentary immunity34688313468832346883334688343468835TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1110)[English]Thank you. That's helpful.One of the things that I was somewhat concerned about is that even though, you're right, all members have the ability for free speech and debate in the House or in debate, we are still governed by the sub judice convention, and I assume that same spirit would be reflected in any discussions held at the board.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentSub judice convention34688363468837RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1110)[English]That's correct.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentSub judice convention3468838TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1110)[English]Let's go into what dealings these subcommittees that you're recommending would have. In your experience with the board over the many years that you were law clerk of this Parliament, given that you're suggesting that the subcommittees deal with in camera discussions on matters that should be in camera, what percentage...? I don't want to make an unfair question for you, but I'm trying to get a sense of what you experienced over the many years dealing with the Board of Internal Economy. What percentage of the discussions and the substance of the board's discussions would be required to go in camera? How much would be in public? There's a perception that so much of what is done by the board is completely in camera. It's a secret, behind closed doors operation.So what are we talking about if, on a normal basis, we say it's going to be public except...? How much of the discussions on, say, a normal board meeting would be held in public as opposed to how much, in your experience, would be necessitated to be held in camera?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraMembers of ParliamentSubcommittees34688393468840RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1110)[English]Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could just back up on that question a little bit and explain what I said here. There is some talk out there that everything should be public, and then there's the other extreme, if you want to call it an extreme, which you have now, where everything is private. I'm proposing something in between. It is to have the subcommittees meet in private, all business, on all matters. That's to allow the members of the board sitting on the subcommittee to have a free and full and frank discussion without the glare of publicity upon them. In a sense, it's like talking about the House's administrative and financial dirty laundry, if you like. It's just not necessarily something the public is well served to hear about, and indeed wouldn't hear about, even if they were to go public.The report to the board, however, would be public and the discussion by the board about that report would be public, and a decision of the board, obviously, would be public.Now, I'll go back to your question about how much of the board business would be in camera. Frankly, it's virtually little, in the sense that you can use the same criterion for what goes in camera as you might use in a House committee, and that is, privacy concerns. Maybe the House committee sometimes wants to have an in camera business meeting to talk about their agenda, and the board might have usually gone in camera in the past to talk about its business agenda. But basically the point about public board meetings is that the financial and administrative business of the House as a public institution is arguably something the public should be able to watch being administered, short of all the nitty-gritty detail that goes into a lot of the considerations the board has to deal with, in which case, I think, leave it to a subcommittee to sort that out, and then they publicly report to the board and the board deals with it publicly.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraMembers of ParliamentSubcommittees346884134688423468843TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): (1115)[English]Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Walsh, and thank you, Mr. Thomas.I'm very interested, Mr. Walsh, in your proposal where you're talking about a more arm's-length relationship for the BOIE but still looking at it being internal. I'll come back to the issue of caucus representation, but I'd like you to take a moment to look at the possibility of something being independent...which is certainly what I think the public would demand. They don't expect that MPs will be policing themselves. That's something I hear about regularly in my riding. If you're willing to make the move to an arm's-length relationship, would it not be better to have in place an independent body that is policing MPs' expenses, for the simple reason that, for the public, they would get a sense that you have that independent, autonomous look at MPs' expenses, and it's not a group of MPs policing themselves?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentThird party management34688493468850346885134688523468853JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1115)[English]Mr. Chairman, if I may, I hear the member expressing a point of view that is sensitive to public expectations about the House—and presumably the Senate these days as well—but I think one has to look at this, frankly, in terms of what's best for the institution as a public institution and not simply to serve public expectations.That's what I've tried to do here by suggesting that some greater distance be between the board and the House. Right now the board, in its composition and structure, too closely parallels and mirrors the House; you know, it is the House in another hat. I think if other members had a role there, it might be helpful to give that distance.But I also suggest that the Auditor General, at the end of each Parliament, look at the spending practice of members, caucuses, House leaders, and in some manner give each Parliament a review that would be of interest to the public.More directly to the point...and this is hard to express, okay? I'm very jealous—if I may, not being a member of Parliament, still say that—about the democratic or political function of the House of Commons. As I said in my presentation, the House is where our democratic politics play out between elections. You have to be careful that you don't so regulate the House in financial administrative matters—and, as you are suggesting, Mr. Julian, an outside body—that you are in fact creating impediments to our politics being free to exercise itself in a robust fashion.Politics, as you well know—better than I, certainly—is an unpredictable activity, but it serves the public interest writ large. There is no public interest writ larger, arguably, than the political life of the country. I'd be very nervous of an outside body.Having said that, there's an intermediate suggestion that you have the board as I'm proposing it—I didn't include it in here because I wasn't sure there would be an opportunity or if it would be a welcome idea—but you have lay members, something that other boards have, as you know. They have a certain number of positions available for persons from the public to sit on the board.Now, you could arguably have here three public representatives on the board who don't outnumber the number of recognized parties in the House, appointed by the Speaker without consultation with the House leaders, on application from the public. A qualifying condition is that they have at some point served in an elected public office. I do believe, as someone who once held elected public office, there is no experience like sitting in an office to which you've been elected by the public. That teaches you something that no amount of theory can tell you. I think there's something to be said for all board members being cognizant of that.I'm not so sure I'd give these public representatives a vote on the board, because I think the responsibility for the House has to remain with its members. They're accountable. But these lay members, if you want to call them that, would have an opportunity to represent the public and speak to board members publicly at public board meetings about those concerns that they see the board ought to address more closely on behalf of the public.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentThird party management346885434688553468856346885734688583468859346886034688613468862PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1120)[English]Thank you, Mr. Walsh. That's an interesting second proposal. This is a lot of meat you're giving us to chew on.I'd like to follow up with two questions. One is that Madam O'Brien, the Clerk of the House, testified to us earlier this week that we've moved from what was a consensus at the BOIE to a situation where now there can be votes. That is disturbing to me, because of course in a majority Parliament that means the majority ends up getting its way. I'm wondering to what extent you'd be concerned about that as perhaps not being in the public interest, where you now have a vote that determines decisions, with the vote taken in a majority.Secondly, I'd like you to comment—just briefly, because I have only a few minutes left—around proposals like those we get from Manitoba and the United Kingdom, which are proposals that are independent. In Manitoba, of course, it's a commissioner who makes those decisions so that members aren't policing themselves.Perhaps you could answer those two questions: your perception of those independent models and the concerns that arise from Madam O'Brien's comments.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament34688633468864346886534688663468867RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1120)[English] Well, I obviously have enormous respect for the views expressed by Madam O'Brien, but I suspect that her suggestion arises out of the fact that she saw many times that the board wasn't able to move forward with business on a consensus model.I would tend to go against a vote regime. It's always available theoretically, but it seems to me that what's important with the board is that it get outside of its partisan politics and look at financial and administrative matters without being governed by the partisan differences between them. That's why I suggested that political parties be equally represented. Then you have to sit down and you have to come to a consensus more forcefully, because you don't have numbers on one side versus the other, which you would have in a vote.I would resist going to a voting system. I think consensus is the way to go. What I am proposing is with that in mind.Your second question was about...?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3468868346886934688703468871PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1120)[English]Manitoba and the United Kingdom.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3468872RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1120)[English]Yes. I'm not clear on what those models are off the top of my head, but the idea.... In mentioning that, and in your earlier question, you both times used the expression “policing” members. Now, in using that expression, you're loading the question, in the sense that you're suggesting members of Parliament need policing, that they can't be trusted to look after their affairs because somebody has to be the enforcer of the law against them.I don't share that view nearly as much. I didn't see in my time at the House a basis for taking that attitude. But I appreciate that public confidence is suffering in recent years and that some credibility has to be brought to the regime that shows that the members of Parliament are not simply serving their collective self-interest when they look at financial and administrative matters.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament34688733468874PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): (1120)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I want to pick up on the Manitoba example. I was present as an MLA representing the Liberal caucus when in fact we adopted the principle of the commission. I think it's actually worked quite well.The primary purpose of it was actually that we did not feel that MLAs—or in this particular case politicians—should be setting their own pay or determining what their pensions were going to be. We wanted to ensure that there was an independent appeal mechanism. There are individuals who are not a part of the recognized party system, so it was felt that it would be more independent by having a commissioner designate it.I'm wondering if you would acknowledge that there could be value to having that independent commissioner, who is actually appointed after an election takes place. Do you see any merit to that sort of a bringing in...? It appears to be working in Manitoba.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresManitobaMembers of Parliament3468880346888134688823468883JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1125)[English]Again, I don't know the Manitoba model myself, nor what the composition of that commission is. You were on it as an MLA—Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresManitobaMembers of Parliament3468884KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1125)[English]Yes.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3468885RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1125)[English] I don't know whether it is made up entirely of MLAs or—Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3468886KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1125)[English]It is.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3468887RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1125)[English]It is? Okay. Well, that itself is in principle acceptable, but when you identify pensions and pay, obviously those are two areas where one might think that members should not be deciding for themselves. The board takes care of a variety of other matters. To look at this question with the focus simply on those issues, I would suggest, is to consider the question too narrowly. That said, it may well be that those particular matters ought to be designated, perhaps by legislation, to an outside commission—those particular matters you mentioned. But there's a variety of other things the board does that require a much closer understanding of the institution and that necessarily have an impact on the workings of each of the caucuses, the parties. They need to be at the table discussing these things. With some outside voices there, you might find a balance, so that they're not quite so cozy in terms of serving their own interests.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament34688883468889KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1125)[English]Mr. Walsh, one of the interesting things that I thought you said was about the makeup of the Board of Internal Economy: no ministers. Did you also say no House leaders and no government House leaders? Is that universal? Is it your recommendation that the House leadership of the respective caucuses not be allowed to have membership on the committee?Board of Internal EconomyBoard of Internal Economy MemberGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3468890RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1125)[English]Other than the whips; I would think whips should be allowed to sit on the board. They don't have to, but they're eligible to sit on the board—but not House leaders and not ministers.Board of Internal EconomyBoard of Internal Economy MemberGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3468891KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1125)[English]Can you extrapolate as to why you think that would be best?Board of Internal EconomyBoard of Internal Economy MemberGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3468892RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1125)[English]In terms of ministers, it is to ensure that the board acts independently of the government. The House is an independent parliamentary institution. Obviously, the government is here politically with its majority and its ministers, and that's perfectly appropriate and that's our system of government.This is a statutory administrative body on financial and administrative matters. It represents a separate and as it were non-political assignment responsibility, but within a political context, so I think the government should, as it were, stay out of it in terms of ministers.Board of Internal EconomyBoard of Internal Economy MemberGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament34688933468894KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1125)[English] Finally, if I were to attempt to simplify your suggestion that we have these subcommittees, what do you think of the idea that anything that goes in camera has to go through the subcommittee, and that's only for a recommendation that would go before the full committee of the Board of Internal Economy, or whatever the name of that board might be?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentSubcommittees3468895RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1125)[English]I didn't want to go into too much detail of an operational nature, but I meant to suggest that financial administrative matters would first go to a subcommittee before arriving at the board, and the subcommittee would look at these matters that come to them in camera. Then their report to the board is public and the board's consideration and treatment of the report is public.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentSubcommittees3468896KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1125)[English]Mr. Thomas, I did want to get your thoughts. One of the initiatives we've been espousing has been that we want more transparent accountability, more of a proactive disclosure, similar to what ministers use in terms of issues like travel and hospitality. I'm not too sure if you're familiar with the proposal, but if you are, perhaps you could provide a comment. I know it's not all-encompassing, but do you think this is the right direction we should be moving toward?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3468897RobWalshGregoryThomasGregoryThomasGregory-ThomasInterventionMr. Gregory Thomas: (1125)[English]Yes. I think Mr. Trudeau's motion to institute proactive disclosure along the same model as was introduced by the previous Liberal government for ministers was a positive and necessary reform. We would have liked to have seen that motion adopted. It seemed like a no-brainer to us when he proposed it in the spring session.To be clear about what's going on with the proactive disclosure that we see now, we have spending by ministers disclosed proactively, then news organizations and citizens groups immediately file access to information requests, and then there's a lengthy procedure before documents are finally produced that give life to the disclosure. In the Bev Oda situation, it was a routine disclosure. She had been to London, England, and had spent thousands of dollars. It wasn't until access to information requests were filed and documents were produced that we got to the fact that she was occupying two hotel rooms simultaneously, ordering expensive orange juice, and driving a limo back and forth between the two hotels. And she blew enough money that week-end at an immunization conference to immunize 18,000 African children. So the proactive disclosure was a pale summary of what was really going on. We know that in the city of Toronto...and in the province of Alberta now, if you are interested in what Alison Redford is doing, where she is going, you can go online. You can click on a link to see what flight she took, you can see what she paid the taxi driver, you can see the tip she gave the taxi driver, where and who she ate with, what everybody ordered. You know, there are no expense scandals in Alberta anymore because it's all out there.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament346889834688993468900KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1130)[English]Thanks.I have simply a point of clarification here. If there's a difference of opinion about what we heard from Madam O'Brien, I'm sure the transcripts will bear me out when I say—despite what Mr. Julian was saying, Mr. Walsh—that Madam O'Brien was not advocating for more votes. She was a firm believer in consensus. In fact, if my memory serves me well, she said that during her eight years as clerk there has only been one occasion where it went to a vote. The Speaker is loath to have votes; they actively try to encourage consensus to be the model they follow. Let's make sure we're clear on that, and I think you will enforce that. My question now is to Mr. Thomas. You're saying that the Alberta and the city of Toronto examples of disclosure are what your organization would advocate, and I assume that is because of the further level of detail they provide, as opposed to what is currently being provided in the House of Commons. Am I correct in that characterization of what you've said?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament346890334689043468905JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonGregoryThomasGregoryThomasGregory-ThomasInterventionMr. Gregory Thomas: (1130)[English]Yes. We believe the current practice in Alberta is the gold standard in Canada at this point.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3468906TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1130)[English] Okay.I assume you're not as intimately involved or familiar with the workings of the BOIE as Mr. Walsh and Madam O'Brien are. I would point out to you that in Madam O'Brien's presentation two days ago, on Tuesday, she showed us how far the BOIE has come in requiring disclosure from MPs. When they started many years ago, the categories were very large, and almost all the information was lumped into single categories. Now they're starting to parcel out some of the information within each of those categories, so it's far more transparent than it ever has been.Are you familiar with how all of the government departments, not only ministers and deputy ministers but MPs, are currently providing their information? You've seen the financial statements, summary statements, for example, on travel and hospitality. You're thinking they don't go far enough. Is that your contention?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3468907346890834689093468910GregoryThomasGregoryThomasGregoryThomasGregory-ThomasInterventionMr. Gregory Thomas: (1130)[English]Yes. We're saying that there's a former—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3468911TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1130)[English]If I may, because we have only a couple of minutes, let's deal with the travel. As you know, there's a travel points system. Each MP is given 64 travel points, x amount for travel between his or her home constituency and Ottawa, so many special travel points and so many travel points for dependants, designated travellers, that sort of thing.If I am filing a report, in your Utopian world, your perfect world, saying that I'm travelling from my home constituency of Regina to Ottawa return, beyond stating the fact that it will cost x amount of dollars, what other information would be necessary to ensure the transparency you're looking for?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentTravel346891234689133468914GregoryThomasGregoryThomasGregoryThomasGregory-ThomasInterventionMr. Gregory Thomas: (1135)[English]Only the financial information. I don't think—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentTravel3468915TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1135)[English]That currently is being given. So you're okay with that.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentTravel3468916GregoryThomasGregoryThomasGregoryThomasGregory-ThomasInterventionMr. Gregory Thomas: (1135)[English]Yes. We think that each ticket.... If you buy books of tickets or whatever.... It's just so your constituents can figure out whether your flights are being booked in a responsible way and whether the individual flights are....Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentTravel3468917TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1135)[English]You may be right. But right now, I'd point out, it's fairly easy for constituents to find that out. I'm not saying this to embarrass my friends in the Liberal Party, but both Mr. Goodale and I travel the same route, from Regina to Ottawa and back, and in the last posting of travel and hospitality expenses, over the course of the fiscal year that was reported, my air travel was $38,000; Mr. Goodale's was over $122,000. So right now we're giving that transparency. If anybody wanted to ask Mr. Goodale why his expenses, for the same flights I took, were three times as much, they should be able to ask that.Board of Internal EconomyGoodale, RalphGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentReferences to membersTravel346891834689193468920GregoryThomasJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71401NycoleTurmelNycole-TurmelHull—AylmerNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/TurmelNycole_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Nycole Turmel (Hull—Aylmer, NDP): (1135)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Mr. Lukiwski referred to Ms. O'Brien's comments. She said that there had only been a vote once. However, Mr. Walsh, you said that the decision making is very slow with the way things are done now. That really is an obstacle.As we know, there's a part that involves expenses, but there are also special cases that come up that quite often slow the process.In your proposals and the steps you've taken, have you thought about creating an independent external committee that would also include MPs?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentThird party management3468923346892434689253468926JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1135)[English]Mr. Lamoureux just mentioned that the commission in Manitoba, apparently, is comprised entirely of sitting members of Parliament. In that sense, the representativeness is there. The head of that commission may not be a member of the legislative assembly; I'm not sure. It all depends on how you frame it, legislatively, setting it up. As it relates to your comment and question, and also to the previous comments raised by Mr. Lukiwski, I should like to draw attention to the fact that it's one thing to have disclosure of costs in terms of, as he mentioned, some flight costs, or how one spent money in a variety of ways, but that is only half the problem. The other half of the problem is, was what it was spent on within the parliamentary function of the member? Believe me, that is a nettlesome question sometimes when the issue of expenditures by members comes up for consideration, whether at the administrative level or later at the board. What is the parliamentary function of a member? What does it include? What does it not include? In the revisions to the bylaws done before I left the House, the definition of parliamentary function was looked at very closely. I think the definition was improved to make the boundaries clearer. That is the pierre angulaire of the bylaws, parliamentary function. Members are given resources for their parliamentary functions, not for other purposes. Some activities are clearly outside that, but some are borderline. As to various expenditures in the public scene, some might object to a certain tip here or an orange juice there or whatever; we all have different views on the value of a glass of orange juice. But was the occasion on which that money was spent part of a parliamentary function or was it not? That is the more difficult issue. I think you have to be careful that this is not handed over to outsiders who don't understand what you guys do on behalf of your constituents.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresManitobaMembers of ParliamentThird party management34689273468928346892934689303468931NycoleTurmelHull—AylmerNycoleTurmelHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71401NycoleTurmelNycole-TurmelHull—AylmerNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/TurmelNycole_NDP.jpgInterventionMs. Nycole Turmel: (1135)[Translation]Since I only have a minute, I'll try to be brief.Mr. Thomas, you spoke about protecting whistleblowers, but you did not expand on that. However, as we know, that protection doesn't really exist in the public sector. It's a major problem.Could you please tell us a little more about how we could help people working internally who want to disclose wrongdoing related to certain activities in order to help the public?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentWhistle blowing346893234689333468934RobWalshGregoryThomasGregoryThomasGregory-ThomasInterventionMr. Gregory Thomas: (1135)[Translation]Clearly, the protection given to public servants is not enough. That was really obvious in the case of Allan Cutler, who was the first whistleblower within the Department of Public Works and Government Services.At the start of the scandal, Mr. Cutler revealed all the activities of Chuck Guité and was persecuted because of that. It is not at all clear—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentWhistle blowing34689353468936NycoleTurmelHull—AylmerJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30314BradButtBrad-ButtMississauga—StreetsvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ButtBrad_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Brad Butt (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC): (1140)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.Thank you both for being here. Welcome back, Mr. Walsh. It's nice to see you.I have a question for each of you. I'll start with Mr. Walsh. You did say in your opening address that the reality is this is a partisan place. That is part of our role. Most of us are elected to serve under a political party system. Obviously we have loyalties to our parties, and we understand that.One of my concerns, and I would like you to comment, about all BOIE meetings being open, like most of the standing committees, is that the BOIE could possibly wind up becoming a very hyperpartisan committee, versus the way it has been operating, as I understand it, which is generally by consensus, generally by MPs of different political parties agreeing.I have a sense, and I would like your view on it, that one of the reasons why that has happened is that the meetings are not open to the public, televised, whatever, and that the partisan nature of it doesn't get as heated because the meetings are all in camera.Do you have any fear about the partisanship on whatever a revised BOIE might look like if all the meetings were open to the public?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraMembers of ParliamentPartisanship346893934689403468941346894234689433468944JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1140)[English] Well, if the scenario you're describing were to emerge in public meetings, it would represent a profound failure on the part of the board members to discharge their public duty in the public interest. Having said that, yes, the partisan atmosphere is the air that members of Parliament breathe; it's all around them. I'm suggesting that the partisanship could be handled at the subcommittee level, sorted out there. Then, when you got to the meeting of the board, there'd be no need for that sort of thing. Those issues might have been resolved.If I may borrow from what my friend Mr. Thomas has said regarding the Alberta disclosure regime, where having made all this disclosure becomes a non-issue, I would suggest to you that once you got into a public practice with board meetings...frankly, who'd want to see them? They'd be boring as hell. So the interest would shrink. But because they're behind closed doors all the time, the media is just breathless with questions because they think there are all kinds of things going on that they'd be terribly interested in. Frankly, I don't think that's true, but they do want to know what happens, and they want to know what the decisions of the board are, and those should be made public.I don't have the fears you're expressing, but I understand where they're coming from. I do think there's a place for partisan differences to be expressed, but in my regime I'm trying to allow for that at a subcommittee level, while allowing for public disclosure by having the actions of the board made public.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraMembers of ParliamentPartisanship3468945346894634689473468948BradButtMississauga—StreetsvilleBradButtMississauga—Streetsville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30314BradButtBrad-ButtMississauga—StreetsvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ButtBrad_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Brad Butt: (1140)[English]Thank you. That was very helpful.Mr. Thomas, is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation concerned about the level of transparency that currently exists regarding how members of Parliament are spending money, both in their office budgets and the ancillary hospitality and other things? Is the issue about the level of transparency, or do you have a greater issue with what the money is being spent on and the specifics of how an expenditure that I might make in my constituency, or here in Ottawa, directly relates to my role as a member of Parliament? Or is it a combination of both? I'm trying to come up with a system. I have no issue with full disclosure. I have no issue with that whatsoever. I'm trying to find out what the public is looking for. What are they not getting now that members of your organization, my constituents, and others want to know more about?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament346894934689503468951RobWalshJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31295BruceHyerBruce-HyerThunder Bay—Superior NorthGreen Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/HyerBruce_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Bruce Hyer (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Ind.): (1145)[English] Thank you, Mr. Chair.I have a small preamble. First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for your indulgence in inviting us to be here today. However, independents often need, not just today but more often, opportunities for input into all of the standing committee business, especially after we've seen the recent assault on independents' rights at report stage in the House. We really hope and expect that in the future there will be more and better opportunities like this one.We need to recognize that there is a difference between independents and the parties, but also within the group of independents and small parties. To have one person try to represent the interests of nine people is hard, to be candid. So I hope we can continue to deal with this in a better way.I thank both gentlemen for coming, as I have learned a lot here today. Mr. Walsh, I was most impressed with your delivery. It was knowledgeable, succinct, clear, and I actually understood it. That's a wonderful thing at these committee meetings when you understand what's going on. I like your idea that recognized parties have more equal standing on the committee. I think that's a great idea, especially given that we don't really have a majority here in Canada, unlike most western democracies. We have what I call a “false majority”, where you can get the appearance of a majority of the seats without a majority of the national electorate.I'm not asking you to comment on that, but do you have thoughts on how independents and smaller parties can best be represented on the Board of Internal Economy?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentMembers of unrecognized parties346895434689553468956346895734689583468959JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1145)[English]There are two points I would say in response to that, Mr. Chairman. One is that there's a certain commonality to be presumed, and correctly so, for the board's business—financial administration—between the interests of the independent members and the interests of every other member. You're all members. The Speaker is there to see that those interests are represented and fairly considered. That stands as a policy matter. You are there. You're not there in person, but you're there because you have the same function as others.The second point is to say that I think the Speaker has traditionally this responsibility to see that all members' rights are respected, such as they are. I think the avenue to the board by independent members is through the Speaker, or perhaps by some other member of the board, or indeed if there were to be so-called lay members on the board, through those lay members as well.There are a number of doors you might conceivably use to gain access to the board, but certainly the Speaker would be the primary one to see to it that an injustice perhaps is not done to an independent member by a decision of the board.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentMembers of unrecognized parties3468960346896134689623468963BruceHyerThunder Bay—Superior NorthBruceHyerThunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31295BruceHyerBruce-HyerThunder Bay—Superior NorthGreen Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/HyerBruce_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Bruce Hyer: (1145)[English]I do like your idea about lay membership. That may help improve the situation.My second question is to both of you. My budget is inadequate. It's been frozen since before I became a member. The PMO budget has gone up astronomically. I can't imagine how I could ever misappropriate any money from my budget. For several years I actually had to go over budget and spend out of my pocket in after-tax dollars just to do my job properly. So I'm not too worried about it.Building on that, aren't there dis-economies of scale here if we start to spend $10 to save $1? I'm finding now that the controls are quite adequate for parliamentarians, especially for a backbencher with a limited budget. I am concerned that we are going to make things more difficult and actually more expensive with the way we seem to be proceeding here.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament346896434689653468966RobWalshJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonGregoryThomasGregory-ThomasInterventionMr. Gregory Thomas: (1145)[English]On behalf of the Taxpayers Federation, we salute you for your principled stance on the gun registry, and we regret that you were not able to stay in your political party and represent your constituents. That is a travesty. Sorry, but I had to sneak that in.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament34689683468969JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonGregoryThomasGregory-ThomasInterventionMr. Gregory Thomas: (1145)[English]In this day and age, you can slap a document on a scanner, upload it to the Internet in no time, and your constituents can have a look at your expenses. A couple of senators and a couple of MPs are doing it. It's very beneficial. I can expand on a couple of these real-life examples.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3468971JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71538SadiaGroguhéSadia-GroguhéSaint-LambertNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/GroguheSadia_NDP.jpgInterventionMrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): (1150)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Canadians expect much more transparency from us. Ensuring accountability is essential. It's at the heart of what the House does. The possibility of an external body conducting audits seems to be a significant and coherent step. In fact, the Board of Internal Economy is both judge and jury.In your opinion, which main aspects should we consider and propose in order to move toward establishing an external auditing body?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentThird party management346897434689753468976JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1150)[English]I recognize the sensitivity about accountability, but that can be overstated, in a sense, as the previous member, Mr. Hyer, was saying, about counterproductive costs. In the area of accountability, we're seeing reports from the public service about how they're spending so much time meeting the rules that have come in with accountability that they're just not getting their job done. They're not doing what they could do in their jobs because they're afraid of all the accountability they have to document. There's a point when accountability can become counterproductive. But to go to your point about accountability relative to the business of the House, you are already accountable, and indeed, arguably, you will see some brush-off onto the House of Commons from events in the Senate in terms of accountability. It feeds the same appetite. It feeds the same desire by the general public to want to have a sense of controlling its elected members.On the other hand, you're sent here to do a job on behalf of your constituents and you've got to be given sufficient latitude to represent their views, and to do so without, as we say in a legal context, fear of reprisal or hope of advancement. You simply do your job, and be careful with accountability, so you don't end up undermining your function on behalf of your constituents as members of Parliament.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentThird party management346897734689783468979SadiaGroguhéSaint-LambertSadiaGroguhéSaint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71538SadiaGroguhéSadia-GroguhéSaint-LambertNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/GroguheSadia_NDP.jpgInterventionMrs. Sadia Groguhé: (1150)[Translation]Mr. Thomas, what do you think?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3468980RobWalshGregoryThomasGregoryThomasGregory-ThomasInterventionMr. Gregory Thomas: (1150)[English] We'd counsel against the creation of a separate auditing function for the House of Commons. We think the Auditor General can do a good enough job.We also favour total proactive disclosure on financial transactions and letting your constituents be the auditors. We take kind of a Libertarian approach, that members should be allowed to spend whatever portion of their budgets they choose on whatever they choose, as they deem fit, provided that every transaction is documented for the examination of their constituents.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentThird party management34689813468982SadiaGroguhéSaint-LambertSadiaGroguhéSaint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71538SadiaGroguhéSadia-GroguhéSaint-LambertNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/GroguheSadia_NDP.jpgInterventionMrs. Sadia Groguhé: (1150)[Translation]You were talking about some other legislative bodies or provinces that have a transparent system. In your opinion, which aspects of these systems would you recommend?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3468983GregoryThomasGregoryThomasGregoryThomasGregory-ThomasInterventionMr. Gregory Thomas: (1150)[Translation]Two examples are Toronto and Alberta. Citizens can use the Internet to find information on any member of Toronto's municipal council or any member of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta and look at the elected members' expenses. Technology these days makes it fairly easy to put receipts, documents and contracts on the Internet for that sort of audit.I would like to share a brief story about Mr. Rathgeber.[English]He put his phone bill on the Internet for his Ottawa residence and the bill went to his constituency office in Edmonton. The phone bill from Rogers had been on the Internet for five hours or something, and a constituent noted that this bill was addressed to the constituency office. Mr. Rathgeber had no entitlement to have his home phone in Edmonton covered by the taxpayers. He had to go online and say, “Well, actually, it's for my Ottawa place.”That's the level of scrutiny that members get from their political opponents and constituents, and it does a terrific job of policing those expenses.To Mr. Lukiwski's point—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34689843468985346898634689873468988SadiaGroguhéSaint-LambertJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC): (1155)[English]Thank you very much.Mr. Walsh, I think I understood this in your presentation and in response to some of the questions you were asked, but I wanted to clarify. Obviously you made a proposal of some suggestions that you felt would be helpful in terms of the Board of Internal Economy improving its operations. I think I also understood, in that you felt it.... In the premise of the motion that created this study we're undertaking is an idea that the Board of Internal Economy would be looked at as being replaced by some kind of outside body. My understanding, I believe, from what you were saying is that you don't really feel that an outside body is a wise idea to contemplate. Is that a correct characterization of your comments?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament34689933468994JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1155)[English]Yes, Mr. Chairman. That was the view I expressed. I'm not saying the world would fall apart if you did that. I just think it would put the business of the House and the operations of the House at risk, which would not be desirable.I personally am not prepared to throw in the flag and say that members can't be trusted to look after their business. They are accountable. If you just open up the windows a bit so that people can see what you're doing, it would become quite apparent.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentThird party management34689953468996BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1155)[English]One of the suggestions you had was this idea of members of the public...but you suggested that you felt they should be people who had an elected office previously. I assume the rationale behind that was looking to take some of the partisanship out of the board.If you would give me a yes or no answer to that question first, then I will proceed.Board of Internal EconomyBoard of Internal Economy MemberGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament34689973468998RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1155)[English]No. It was to diminish the partisanship, in the sense of allowing the public view that's not attached to a partisan interest being expressed. The elected office idea—and it could be school board, city, provincial, territorial, federal—was to sensitize the public lay representative to the context in which members of Parliament work.Board of Internal EconomyBoard of Internal Economy MemberGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3468999BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1155)[English]Okay. You may have addressed what I was getting at there. I wondered about them having elected office. You were indicating that it could have been a municipal office or a school board. I wondered. Obviously, with anyone who has sat in this parliament or in any of the provincial legislatures, there'd most likely be some level of partisanship.Board of Internal EconomyBoard of Internal Economy MemberGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament34690003469001RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1155)[English] I did suggest they be appointed by the Speaker, from applications, without consultation with the House leaders. So there's no input to the Speaker from the House party as to which ones should be selected. He makes his judgment. Board of Internal EconomyBoard of Internal Economy MemberGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3469002BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1155)[English]I appreciate your clarifying that.I understand that when you were law clerk from, I believe, 1999 to 2012—I do remember that you appeared before some committees that I sat on during my time in Parliament, certainly—you did sit in on meetings of the Board of Internal Economy during that time. Would you have regularly attended the Board of Internal Economy? Would your appearance there have been when there were specific legal matters, in that role of providing legal advice on legal matters? Would that have been the reason for you attending, or did you regularly attend?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament34690033469004RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1155)[English]I attended when there was a matter that had legal applications—certainly legal matters, but also other matters that had legal dimensions. As it turned out, I was there quite often.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3469005BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1155)[English]So you were quite often at the meetings. In terms of the meetings the board would have held in that time, what would you say the percentage of the meetings you would have attended would have been on those types of matters, roughly?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3469006RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1155)[English]It varied from one season to another.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3469007BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1155)[English]If you averaged it out over that 13-year span, what would you say it was?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3469008RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1155)[English]Fifty per cent.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3469009BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1155)[English]Fifty per cent of the time...?Often when you were there, I assume those would have been matters that then likely would not have been able to be dealt with in public meetings, that they would have been in camera types of meetings. You're suggesting that with the two subcommittees, they would probably be matters that would generally be held in camera in those subcommittee meetings, if it were to move to that model. Am I understanding that?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraMembers of ParliamentSubcommittees34690103469011RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1155)[English]As you know, Mr. Richards, clients don't take their legal advice publicly. But I have on occasion given legal advice publicly at committees like this when I was law clerk. So yes, it depends on the matter in respect of which the advice is being given, and it might be something that's better given to the subcommittee in private rather than publicly. There could be matters on which the board is comfortable in receiving legal advice publicly. It all depends on the matter that's the subject of the advice.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraMembers of ParliamentSubcommittees3469012BlakeRichardsWild RoseJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71625TedOpitzTed-OpitzEtobicoke CentreConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/OpitzTed_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): (1200)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to split my time with Mr. Butt because he had a question he wanted answered now. I'll just take the last two minutes.Go ahead.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament34690163469017JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonBradButtMississauga—Streetsville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30314BradButtBrad-ButtMississauga—StreetsvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ButtBrad_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Brad Butt: (1200)[English]Mr. Thomas, did you want to answer that earlier question I had about the level of transparency, what you're not getting now that you think you should be getting in the disclosure of MPs' expenses, no matter what the item happens to be? Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3469018TedOpitzEtobicoke CentreGregoryThomasGregoryThomasGregory-ThomasInterventionMr. Gregory Thomas: (1200)[English]Yes. Our view is that MPs should not be policed or supervised in the way they allocate their budgets. What may work for Mr. Richards in a humongous rural riding in Alberta might not work for you in Mississauga. And if Mr. Goodale wants to ride in the front of the plane or what have you, that's his prerogative. As long as those plane tickets are public and his political opponents can point out that he's spending almost triple what Mr. Lukiwski is spending to get the same job done and he can get re-elected, more power to him.As I outlined with the example of Mr. Rathgebar's phone bill, the constituents are fully capable of parsing all the data that Parliament can throw at them. We just want all the documents there: the leases, the employment contracts, how the member spends the money. Let the member be accountable for his or her decisions.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34690193469020BradButtMississauga—StreetsvilleTedOpitzEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71625TedOpitzTed-OpitzEtobicoke CentreConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/OpitzTed_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Ted Opitz: (1200)[English]Mr. Walsh, just in terms of the in camera versus in public on the board, the issue of liabilities is what I want to talk about right now, just quickly. If MP “A”, for example, appears before the board in public and accuses MP “B” of improprieties and improper spending, and he's wrong, what liabilities do you think that individual would then face? Is he immune from any form of prosecution, lawsuits or anything, for appearing before a board and giving testimony in that respect?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraMembers of Parliament3469021GregoryThomasRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1200)[English]I don't think the privilege of free speech that protects members from lawsuits or defamation would apply in most contexts in a board meeting. I've never heard a member do that in a board meeting, by the way. But to take your example hypothetically, were it to happen, no, I would not expect that the member in doing that would be legally protected under parliamentary privilege.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraMembers of Parliament3469022TedOpitzEtobicoke CentreTedOpitzEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71625TedOpitzTed-OpitzEtobicoke CentreConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/OpitzTed_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Ted Opitz: (1200)[English]So if it were in the public, it would be in the public interest even if that did happen? I know it's never happened.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraMembers of Parliament3469023RobWalshRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1200)[English]Every time a member of Parliament steps out of the House and talks to the media, he faces the same sorts of concerns, and presumably he or she is speaking to the media in the public interest but accepting that restraint. So it would apply at a board meeting as well.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn cameraMembers of Parliament3469024TedOpitzEtobicoke CentreTedOpitzEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): (1200)[English]Mr. Walsh, I was just wondering if you could give us the benefit of your insight into how the process of consensus worked or maybe changed over the time you were law clerk.I think people might have gone away from the last session with the false impression that consensus means unanimity, whereas consensus can mean different things. In some forums, it simply means that those who've kind of lost out in the discussion don't object and they don't force a vote.My understanding is that in the Board of Internal Economy a fair bit depends on the chair, who is the Speaker, about how consensus is determined. Is that correct? Has it changed over different periods of time?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament346902834690293469030JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonRobWalshRobWalshRob-WalshInterventionMr. Rob Walsh: (1200)[English]Mr. Chairman, I've seen three Speakers playing the role of chair of the board. They were each quite different from the others, and arguably some were more effective than the others. I don't want to go into comments about the various Speakers and their effectiveness. Obviously the chair of any meeting is in a position to bring a meeting to a consensus. Some are better skilled at that than others.To go back to your earlier point that consensus may just mean that a decision is taken with some people losing out and not actually having a vote, that is true. But what you're doing with that consensus regime is preventing anyone from having a veto, in effect—as in the House, where unanimous consent is required and one member can prevent that piece of business going forward.It's in the interest of every member of the board, in the consensus regime, not to act as if they have a veto and frustrate the finding of a consensus by the chair, because it will work against them as much as it will work for them. Even though some members might express objections to what's proposed, a consensus is found and the board moves forward without a vote. To use your phrase, that member would have lost out, but on other occasions the member manages to see a piece of business go through over the expressed objections of another member.It's the old saying: you pick the hill you want to fight on. I think Mr. Lukiwski referred to Clerk O'Brien mentioning one occasion where a vote was taken, and it may be the same occasion I recall being at a board when that happened once. It was recognizably exceptional at the time. I'm not saying there weren't others, but I remember one time when it happened. Generally, the board worked well with consensus.The problem, however, is that if they bring their political conflicts into the room, that makes life more difficult for the board in getting on with business.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament34690313469032346903334690343469035CraigScottToronto—DanforthCraigScottToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott: (1205)[English]I was just wondering if I could ask a question of Mr. Thomas.Mr. Thomas, last session the chief financial officer indicated that he felt that the proposal that MPs emulate the current ministerial disclosure approach would actually be a regression. He felt that we had evolved to the point that we had more sharply tuned and appropriate categories here in the House, so far.Then you proceeded to tell us something that I think is very important, which is that if one uses that regime, at the moment we don't have the same rules in the House that apply to ministers in terms of people being able to go and make access to information requests. There's nothing about the regime proposing to use ministers that includes the full disclosure you cited as part of that regime.I just want to make sure that we're on the same point here, that the proposal coming from the Liberal Party ended up producing line items with not the same level of disclosure that you get with ministers.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3469036346903734690383469039RobWalshGregoryThomasGregoryThomasGregory-ThomasInterventionMr. Gregory Thomas: (1205)[English]That's right. The guts and the really effective element of proactive disclosure at the ministerial level is the ability under the Access to Information Act to get the documents. A refinement on the Liberal proposal would be proactive disclosure of the source documents, as it's done in other jurisdictions now.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3469040CraigScottToronto—DanforthCraigScottToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott: (1205)[English]That squares the circle.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of Parliament3469041GregoryThomasJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)): (1100)[English]I will call the meeting to order today. We are sitting in public and are starting our study of the motion presented to the House on the Board of Internal Economy. We start off with our best witness, Madam O'Brien.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures3465284AudreyO'Brien//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1100)[English]We're so happy to have you here today. Before we start, I want to point out that it's job-shadowing day on the Hill for those of you who don't know. That's why there are some young people in the room. Dylan, wave. He is job-shadowing me today. I feel sorry for him, going home tonight after having spent the day with me, but even a bad example is an example. Voices: Oh, oh!The Chair: I was going to have him chair, but after I heard how you acted last week when Kevin chaired, I thought maybe I should take over again. Madam O'Brien, we'd like you to start with an opening statement, as informative as you can make it, and as I know it will be. Then we'll have a round of questions from our members—and we have some committee business to do at the end of the meeting, if there's some time left.Madam O'Brien, please introduce the people with you today and tell us what we need to know.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures34652863465287346528834652893465290346529134652923465293AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1100)[English]Thank you for that very kind introduction, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you.[Translation]Honourable members, good morning. I would also like to say good morning to the guests of honour who are here shadowing some members today.[English]I am joined today by Mark Watters, the chief financial officer of the House of Commons, and by two people who have devoted themselves to the cause of making me look smarter than I am, Suzanne Verville, my chief of staff, and Kori Ghergari, who is with the corporate communications directorate.This morning I'm delighted to be here to have a chance to discuss with you the role of the Board of Internal Economy. As Clerk of the House, I am Secretary to the Board of Internal Economy. I want to state at the outset that I'm here today as the Clerk and Secretary to the Board, but I don't speak for the current Speaker, Speaker Scheer, or past Speakers, or for the current Board of Internal Economy, or for any board members. I'm basically here in my capacity as somebody who's been Clerk for over eight years. I've been a parliamentary official for over 33 years, so eyes may glaze over and you may think, “She's here to defend the status quo”, which is not actually the case, but you'll find out more as we go along. I paid a great deal of attention to the terms of the order of reference that you have, and was struck by the fact that in the very first phrase you have the term “full transparency” and you mention the concept of accountability. That seemed to be a good place to start discussing things this morning.I want to look, in the first instance, at the disclosure measures already in place and to the web presence that we—and when I say “we”, I'll be referring to the House administration and the Board of Internal Economy—have on the Internet.I think it's important to realize that in the sometimes quite heated discussions of the past weeks and months, there has been a certain amount of confusion when people are talking about what is disclosed or isn't disclosed. It's been my experience over these 33 years that one has to take everything one hears with a grain salt. I think this morning it'll be useful to see exactly how the board has approached this whole question of disclosure, particularly in the 40th and 41st Parliaments. What I'd like to start with, then, is the Parliament of Canada website, to show you what's available to the public if one were to google the Board of Internal Economy.[Translation]If you search for "Board of Internal Economy"…[English]you are brought right away to the main page of the parliamentary website, parl.gc.ca. The board section is also accessible from the main page of the Parliament of Canada website. There's permanent access under the “House of Commons”. Under the “What's New?” rubric you'll find such things as the newest information that has been posted—statements, media advisories, and so forth. In the package of information you have been given, you will find copies of what I am presenting, together with copies of certain statements that have been issued by the board. All this is available on the web.The section “About the Board”, starts with introductory comments on the nature of the board, including its legislative foundation in the Parliament of Canada Act and its membership. It's important to note that the board's membership consists of the Speaker, who acts as its chair; two members of the Privy Council, who are appointed to the board by the government; the leader of the opposition and his or her representative; and additional members appointed in numbers so that the total result is an overall equality of government and opposition representatives. Of course, that's not counting the Speaker.The current actual membership, in terms of individuals, is made up of the government House leader, Minister Van Loan; the chief government whip, Minister Duncan; the Honourable Rob Merrifield;[Translation]…the House Leader of the Official Opposition, Mr. Cullen; the whip of the official opposition, Ms. Turmel; and the whip of the Liberal Party, Ms. Foote.[English]At its meeting of June 3, 2013, the Board of Internal Economy decided to post its minutes on parl.gc.ca retroactively to the start of the 41st Parliament. Board minutes continue to be tabled in the chamber, which is a practice that has been in place since the 34th Parliament.(1105)The board meets about every second week when the House is sitting, and, of course, legendarily, it meets in camera. The meetings are in camera, and the board operates largely by consensus, so the board minutes are not in extenso in respect of the discussion that has gone on but are simply records of decision. The board frequently considers confidential matters, including legal issues, issues related to labour relations, and issues related to security.The exact timing for the tabling and posting of board minutes will vary because it depends on the scheduling of the board's meetings. Time was, when you had three board meetings—let's call them A, B, and C—you would have meeting A take place and the minutes from meeting A would be approved in meeting B. Then they would come back to meeting C to be approved for tabling. As of yesterday, the board, I am happy to say, agreed to do away with this belt-and-suspenders approach. So there will be approval of the minutes from meeting A at meeting B, and then they will be ready for posting. They don't have to come back to a third meeting, which might well mean another two-week delay.Depending upon the matters being discussed, however, some minutes are tabled to coincide with the tabling of other information such as the Public Accounts of Canada—or, one thing that everybody is familiar with, the main estimates. The board considered the main estimates yesterday and made certain decisions. Those minutes, though, will not be available until the President of the Treasury Board tables the main estimates in the House in April.There are some additional features of the minutes. There is a subject index that's available to facilitate access, and there are hyperlinks in the minutes themselves, which will direct the user to useful information on many subjects that are referred to therein.I'd like now to turn to the bylaws of the board. As you know, the Board of Internal Economy is enshrined in the Parliament of Canada Act, and it is from this statute that the board derives its authority to establish bylaws. (1110)[Translation]In general, the by-laws established by the Board of Internal Economy form the basis for all decisions on internal economy and governance in the House of Commons as an institution.[English]These bylaws are the foundation of governance. They form the basis of policies and guidelines regarding the resources that members have access to for carrying out their parliamentary functions, and they grant authority to me, as Clerk, reporting through the Speaker to the board, to execute the directives of the board through the administration of the House. The four bylaws are the “Members By-law”, which, as you can tell by the title, refers to the members and definitions of such things as parliamentary functions, etc.; the “Committees By-law”, which talks about how committees are funded and how they carry on their work; the “Governance and Administration By-law”, which is basically, for me and the administration, the important bylaw that delegates to us certain authority from the board to act on its behalf in executing its directives. Finally, there are the rules of practice and procedure of the board, which are basically the standing orders that the board has set up for itself in terms of how it is going to proceed. These are legally binding on members and they take precedence over any administrative manual or general policy decision.The bylaws date back to 1993. From 1993 to 2010, they were revised from time to time on a case-by-case basis. But in 2010 the Board of Internal Economy agreed with a recommendation to proceed with a comprehensive review of the bylaws, a project to update and consolidate them. The revised bylaws were approved by the board on November 21 and December 5, 2011, and they came into force on April 1, 2012. The revised bylaws were posted on the Parliament of Canada website on April 2, 2012.The document that gets, I suppose, the most attention with regard to disclosure and web presence are the Member's Expenditures Reports. But I also want to point out, because this is not necessarily all that well known, that the audited finance statements for the House of Commons and two administrative planning documents are also available online. The board believes strongly that an annual external audit of the financial statements is a key component of sound management practices. Once again, the audit for 2011-12 of the House of Commons' financial statements has resulted in an unqualified audit opinion. The auditor is of the opinion that financial statements present fairly the financial position and the results of operations of the House. The auditor's work included gathering evidence about the amounts and disclosures made in the financial statement and assessing the risks of error, fraud, or misstatement. The auditor also evaluated the appropriateness of the accounting policies that have been selected, as well as the estimates made by management. The audited financial statements for fiscal year 2012-13 and the Report to Canadians 2013 will be posted online a little bit later when the board has had a chance to consider it. The board approved the report yesterday at its meeting and we expect that the financial statements audit will be forthcoming.There is a section[Translation]…which consists of a FAQ section, which was given considerable thought. Another section covers the media, allowing the Board of Internal Economy to issue media advisories and statements from time to time, especially on the website.[English]So media advisories and statements that are issued by the board are also available online, as well as the FAQs—frequently asked questions—on various subjects.[Translation]The Board of Internal Economy designated two spokespersons to interact with the media. These spokespersons work closely with Heather Bradley, the communications director for the president's office. The two spokespersons are the NDP whip, Nycole Turmel, and the Chief Government Whip, the hon. John Duncan.[English]Minister Duncan and Madam Turmel are the spokespeople for the board and, again, there you'll see the balance that is kept in terms of the approach of the board in its communications. The board speaks with one voice. These spokespeople respond to questions related to the board--if there are any asked during Question Period, for example--and they also respond to inquiries from the media, working, as I said a little earlier, with the Speaker's director of communications, Heather Bradley.Now let's come to the whole question of the members' expenditure report, which has been the subject of a great deal of public discussion and discussion in the House in the past little while. The “Members' By-law” provides that the Speaker of the House of Commons, on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy, ensures the publication of the members' expenditure reports on the Parliament of Canada website. These have been posted online since 2001-02 and you'll see on the slide that you have PDF versions from 2001-02 to 2008-09. I'd like to call up the 2001-02 report and, for those of you who may be frustrated with the degree of disclosure that we now have, you could perhaps console yourselves that we have come a very long way. The 2001 report, which I remember as being the subject of great controversy at the time, is pretty thin gruel when you look at it now. There are a number of headings. There isn't very much explanation. There are two pages of explanation at the beginning of these. None of this, of course, is interactive; you can't select groups of people, or regions, or any of that kind of thing.Starting in 2009-10, the board agreed to a recommendation for extensive improvements to the reporting format of the individual member's reports, displaying the data in easier to understand columns and rows and providing for a more detailed explanation of each aspect of the report. Improvements have continuously been made with each tabling of the report.(1115)[Translation]It wouldn't be a committee meeting if I didn't tell you that, unfortunately, we have a little technical glitch. For reasons I can't figure out, the computer that lets us see the French version can't connect to the Internet. So there may be some inconsistency between what we will see in English and what we will on the other computer, while we try to access the Internet. I'm sorry. We practised this yesterday, but unfortunately it was in another room. We will do better next time. Here we go.[English]I'll tell you some time about my James Thurber parallel to me and technology, so you'll understand that I come from a long way off.Back to the MERs, the members' expenditure reports, and looking at the summary report of members' expenditure report as well as the reports by individual members, we'll call up 2012-13. You'll see at the beginning of this there's a very extensive discussion of the entitlements—the allowances and services—under different rubrics so that users can understand better what members are entitled to, because, of course, this is a finite set of entitlements. It's not a case of members being able to go back to the board to ask for something more after the fiscal year starts if they find that they have been a grasshopper rather than an ant in terms of managing the resources that are given to them.You will see a comprehensive introduction on the resources provided to members and you see, of course, the individual reports and the summary of reports. There is a report-generating tool that allows the user to select a single member or a group of members by name, by province or territory, by constituency, or by party and to group them together for presumably comparative purposes. There is also a rollover feature that allows the user to read the description of the category of expenses from the online report.The board decided in November 2011 to further the detail of disclosure by displaying each type of traveller's expense on a separate line. There are four types of travellers that are permitted to use the resources: the member himself or herself; the designated traveller, the person designated by the member, who is usually a spouse or partner, though sometimes a parent or a sibling; a dependant; and, of course, an employee. Along with displaying each type of traveller's expenses they also display the number of regular, special, and U.S.A. points that are used. One regular point is basically one return journey between Ottawa and the constituency: a half point to go and a half point to come back. There are 25 points out of the total of 64 that are allocated as special. They allow the member to travel from the constituency to any other place in Canada. Four of those can be used for travel to the United States, but only to Washington, D.C., or New York because of the presence of the United Nations.There's also a further change in the 2012-13 report that presents secondary residence expenses separately from members' accommodation and per diem expenses. As I mentioned earlier with regard to the format, we started off in 2000 and 2001 with PDFs with a print feature that automatically included the expanded explanation. We now have the expanded explanation for each column and expenditure category, and the XML format we have for the 2012-13 reporting period allows the analysis of report data in spreadsheet software. On October 23, 2013 the Board of Internal Economy issued a statement on measures it was going to take in order to improve this reporting further. Where you had both contracts for services and full-time employees listed as one total, under the employees' category the enhanced disclosure format will now break that down into contracts and employees' services. There will be employees' salaries and service contracts.Similarly, members' accommodation expenses will be separate from per diem expenses. Currently members' accommodation expenses and per diems are in the same line.Similarly, we will subdivide the hospitality category into events. Those are usually the summer barbecues, the winter skating parties—those kinds of things—protocol gifts, and meetings.The special point disclosure is also going to feature more information because the regular points, as I said earlier, are basically simply travel between the constituency and Ottawa. Special points are different. They are travel to another destination. So, the details of the use of all special travel points will be disclosed. You will have the information about who the traveller is, the destination, the dates of departure and return, the reason for the travel, and the total transportation cost. As I said earlier, there are 25 special points available. A maximum of four are for travel in the United States. The others are for travel within Canada.(1120) I should say in talking about this disclosure that I hope the committee won't mind if I sound a bit of a cautionary note about trying to make too close a parallel between disclosure of members' expenses for travel and disclosure of ministerial expenses for travel. I sometimes worry—in fact, I worry a lot—that such a parallel can lead to false conclusions. A minister's office, naturally enough, looks at travel and logically sees that concept as so many separate trips. You have a separate trip. You're going somewhere with x number of people accompanying the minister. The minister is going for a particular reason: depart and return. There will be accommodation in hotels. There will be transportation. It makes a nice little package.Here at the House, we don't tend to think of members going on trips; we think of them as travelling, which is basically travelling between the constituency and Ottawa. When they go to the constituency, they're going home, so there's no accommodation there. When they come back here, it's to accommodation they've set up in Ottawa, usually apartments. It's not usually hotels, as they tend to be very expensive over the long run. So that becomes a false kind of parallel.The other thing is that members who are in Ottawa at the House are given per diems because they're in travel status. So the parallel is not infallible. It is true, though, that members can be accompanied by their designated traveller or dependants or employees. That information is disclosed in the MERs.The good news today—I don't want to steal the board's thunder, but I checked with them yesterday, and they told me that I can tell you—is that there are two more documents that will be available. They are actually public documents that will be posted in the near future. The Members' Allowances and Services manual has been a public document for a long time. It was available, for instance, for the media to consult in the library, and there was the director of communications in the Speaker's office with her long-suffering cut-and-paste of bits of information that she would send in answer to questions. But this will be posted on the web, as will the public registry of designated travellers. That will be available.I thank you for bearing with me. Many of you may well be attuned to what has been on the web and what's available as disclosure. I thought it would be useful to do that, because I've been troubled by some of the discussion I've seen that seemed to me not particularly well informed in terms of what is already available.Now I'd like to turn to the question of governance. From my point of view, it is in the governance structure that you see the notion of accountability embedded. You can see the schematic here that shows the Canadian parliamentary system.(1125)[Translation]For our discussion today, we'll talk about the House of Commons as a legislative body, of the 308 members of Parliament and of the House of Commons administration. I'll focus on these three aspects in a minute.[English]If we define the House as the democratic institution at the heart of the Canadian parliamentary system, then we come up with certain realities. It is independent. Its independence is guaranteed by the law of parliamentary privilege. It is made up of 308 members, soon to be 338 members. It is the House of Commons as a collectivity that is the institution.These members are independent of each other and of the House itself. Certainly most of them will belong to a caucus. The caucus will have its own internal ways of operating and supporting its members. But for our purposes in the administration, each member is considered to be an individual who has been elected by Canadians to support, to represent, his or her constituents. Therefore we bring to that member, as an individual, the full support for the work they do in their parliamentary functions.The House of Commons is independent of government. In order to have that principle mean something, it is, of course, self-regulating. Here again we note that the Government of Canada laws, acts, and policies—for instance, the Financial Administration Act or the guidelines of the Treasury Board—do not apply to the House. That also is something that, if it is taken out of context, can lead to misunderstandings. This is not to suggest that this is the wild west and that anarchy rules. The point is that it's the Board of Internal Economy, finding its legislative authority in the Parliament of Canada Act, that basically drafts the framework within which the work of the House of Commons is carried out. We have, for example, the Financial Administration Act. It doesn't apply to us, but we conform to the usual stewardship and, as I mentioned earlier about the accounting or auditing of the financial statements, the appropriate principles for a stewardship of public resources.Similarly, the House of Commons develops and applies its own policies and procedures to support effective stewardship of public resources. For example, the Canada Labour Code, part III, has not been promulgated to apply to the House of Commons, and yet we have made a point of having our human resources directorate developing, in consultation with the unions, health and safety policies that are as robust, if not more, than the provisions in the code itself.Ultimately, the House of Commons is accountable to the people of Canada because, of course, the general election that everybody has to submit to now on a fixed calendar is where that accountability...where the chickens come home to roost.I won't talk very much about the House as a legislative body because that's really not germane to our discussion this morning, except to say, of course, that the governing authority there is the House. The House sets the Standing Orders that define how deliberations will unfold.The Speaker, elected by secret ballot of all members, is the presiding officer and makes decisions on points of order and questions of privilege, and your own committee of procedure and House affairs has the standing mandate to look at the Standing Orders and, of course, to look at such questions as these which go to the very heart of the administration of the House.The legal framework for the House as a legislative body encompasses the law and custom of Parliament, of course, including the applicable provisions of the Constitution and the law of parliamentary privilege. And, then, of course, there's the Parliament of Canada Act itself, which is understood to be a constitutional statute, covers the operations of Parliament, the privileges and powers of the House of Commons and the Senate, as well as the Library of Parliament, and the administration of both Houses and of the Library.It is in dealing with the House as a legislative body that the Speaker and the Clerk bear responsibility for procedural matters. I'll be returning to this briefly later in the presentation.The governance that interests us this morning, I think, is the governance structure for the 308 members who constitute the House of Commons as a legislative body and a collectivity, and their work, the carrying out of their parliamentary functions in their constituencies and committees or associations, in caucus, and of course in their offices, and the administration of the House, which is basically the bureaucracy that supports members in their parliamentary functions.As I mentioned earlier, the Parliament of Canada Act is the statute from which emanates the board's authority for this governance. It establishes bylaws, and the bylaws regulate the use of parliamentary resources that are made available to members.The decisions of the Board of Internal Economy are final, and the Members' Allowances and Services manual is where those policies are gathered together, that is, the policies approved by the board to be executed by me as the head of the administration and the people I work with.In your information package we have included an overview of the history of the board.(1130)[Translation]The board's research section prepared this overview for us. I'll spare you the summary of the entire history, but I would like to mention a few dates and point out that the concept of internal economy goes back to 1868.[English]There, in 1868, there was An Act respecting the internal economy of the House of Commons. The internal economy was put in the hands of the Speaker and four commissioners, all of whom were privy councillors who were members of the House.In 1886 that act was integrated into a new act, which was called an Act Respecting the House of Commons, and it had a section on internal economy. Basically, that remained unchanged for 86 years.In the 1960s and 1970s there were various studies of the organization of the House of Commons. In 1964-65 there was a Special Committee on Procedure and Organization. In the 1970s there was a lot of concern and debate about this whole idea that the membership of the board was limited to ministers and that the members had no say. In 1974 the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections also did a study relating to that.In 1979, in November, the Report of the Auditor General, which had been undertaken at the request of the then Speaker, revealed that there were significant vulnerabilities, and not to say significant “vacancies”, shall we say, in the whole administrative structure of the House and in the way the stewardship of public resources was being handled.That led to a flurry of changes, which brought in a bureaucracy that was similar to and based largely on how the public service was organized at the time. There was, for a brief time, someone called an “administrator”, who was ostensibly in charge of the administration of the House. That led to the confusion, you can imagine, in which there was a Clerk and an administrator and a Sergeant-at-Arms, who were like co-deputy ministers. They did not get along nearly as well as the Trinity. I can tell you that from being the actual chief of staff to the Clerk at the time. In 1984, the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons was created. That was chaired by the veteran MP James McGrath, and it became known as the McGrath committee. Really, it undertook an ambitious series of studies of both procedural principles governing the House and of the principles underpinning the management of the House and its committees. It tabled three reports, all of which elicited government responses but none of which was adopted. At the same time, I think it's important to note that the McGrath committee was really the intellectual cornerstone for the development of the House into the institution that we know today. For instance, it's there that you will find the roots of the way in which the Speaker is now elected by secret ballot without domination by the parties and so forth, the notion of private members' business—all kinds of ideas. It was a tremendously creative exercise, and it really can be regarded as the touchstone for where we find ourselves today.In 1985, Parliament adopted the Parliament of Canada Act, which consolidated three acts: the House of Commons Act, the Senate Act, and the Library of Parliament Act. It replaced commissioners by a Board of Internal Economy chaired by the Speaker with, as members, the Deputy Speaker; two privy councillors; the leader of the opposition or his or her nominee; and two members of the opposition, at least one of whom comes from the official opposition. That change was made specifically to give a voice to all members and to give an equality of voices in the representation to the government and the opposition. In 1986, Parliament passed the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, whereby it created the Board of Internal Economy as the employer of record for some...well, now we're about 1,800, if we count part-time staff. The board is the employer of record for those staff people in the House of Commons who report through the services to me. It sets the terms and conditions for the unrepresented employees as well as the negotiating mandate that we take to collective bargaining with the unions. In 1989, another special committee was created, this time chaired by Deputy Speaker Marcel Danis. (1135)[Translation]This committee also looked into how the Board of Internal Economy was set up.In 1991, Bill C-79, Parliament of Canada Act amendments gave the Board of Internal Economy the authority to control how MPs spend their budgets and use parliamentary resources.[English]It's important to realize that it was the 1991 amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act that gave to the Board of Internal Economy the authority to establish bylaws that would govern the spending of MPs' budgets by MPs and their use of parliamentary resources. For instance, in the case of travel, the money comes from a central fund of the House of Commons. It was also that bill that provided that the Clerk of the House of Commons become the secretary to the Board of Internal Economy. It was then that the bylaws of the board were drafted. These were approved at the end of March 1993 and were tabled in the House for the first time on April 19, 1993. In 1997, you may remember, there was a proliferation of opposition parties in the House, and in order to deal with the composition of the board—to accommodate this larger number of opposition parties—Bill C-79, An Act to Amend the Parliament of Canada Act, addressed that composition, adopting a formula that would allow for the future configuration of parties but maintain the very important principle of the equality of government and opposition representation. If you're especially interested in the history of the board, there is that brief history prepared by the Table Research Branch in your briefing material. There's also a very useful article that I found, which was written by two of the Library of Parliament analysts who have extensive experience in the House. I believe James Robertson was once the analyst for this committee, and James Robertson and Margaret Young contributed this article to the Canadian Parliamentary Review, the winter issue, in 1991-92. I think it provides a helpful explanation of the circumstances surrounding the board's creation. I realize this kind of history may seem tedious, but we get to the place where we are because of certain circumstances and because of certain influences, and it's important, I think, to realize that there's been a tremendous amount of thought that went into the creation of the board and the ameliorations that we've seen over time.It's the board—and it's been discussed in this respect in the newspapers and in the media—that provides members and House officers with their entitlements, allowances, and services to support their parliamentary functions. This is all detailed in the Members' Allowances and Services manual.The basic principle that underlies the approach of the administration and informs my work as Clerk of the House is that each individual MP is directly accountable for the use of parliamentary resources that support the work in their offices as they carry out the parliamentary functions entrusted to them on their election. From that individual accountability of each MP flow the independence and the flexibility enjoyed by each MP to manage the budget allowances and services provided to the MP in those functions.Thus, you will see that the “Members By-law”, as the name suggests, lists and goes through extensive definitions and establishes the framework within which members are to operate. It gives an enormous amount of independence to individual members, because the fundamental principle here is that it's up to the member to judge how he or she will represent his or her constituency. That freedom is required so that the members can set their priorities and decide what assistance they will require to achieve them.As I said earlier, each political party determines how it will support its caucus members, but from our point of view, we look at each individual MP as an independent entity. Each MP is the employer of record for each person hired on staff or on contract, because it's the individual MP who sets the terms and conditions of employment for staff and then decides on deliverables and the value of the contract that they may sign. It's the individual MP who decides where the staff will work, whether in the constituency or on the Hill, and what their responsibilities will be. The individual MP decides how many constituency offices he or she will need to lease, where the offices will be located, and how they'll be staffed. And it's the individual MP who decides how to shape the relationship with the constituency and how he or she will communicate with citizens.Generally speaking, these fundamental decisions determine how the MP will decide to allocate his budget. Once staff has been hired and office space has been leased, a significant portion of the member's office budget, the famous MOB, has already been committed. The MOB is allocated to each member each fiscal year, and the member is personally liable for any and all expenses incurred above those allocations.The expenditures are processed by Finance Services—and Mark will be telling you a bit more about that in a little while—and are captured in the member's expenditure report, so that every dollar that is spent within members' budgets is reported on. These expenditures are then further captured in the Public Accounts of Canada.But along with this central role of being responsible for the resources that are given to members, the board has a wider role. It examines and approves the annual estimates of the House, that is to say, the main estimates and the supplementary estimates. It approves and controls the budget expenditures of committees of the House and of International and Interparliamentary Affairs. The committee envelope is given to the Liaison Committee, which then distributes it as requests come to it from the standing and standing joint committees. Similarly, the Joint Interparliamentary Council, which is chaired by the chair of the Senate internal economy committee and the Deputy Speaker of the House, is the council that is set up to deal with the envelope of money that is given to interparliamentary associations. (1140)As I said earlier, the board is the employer of record of the staff of the House of Commons, and in being that employer of record, it conforms with the terms of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act. It approves salary scales for non-unionized employees. It authorizes us to negotiate the renewal of collective agreements with unionized employees, and it ratifies those agreements after those negotiations are done. We currently have about 1,800 employees, including those who are not represented, and the unions. There are seven bargaining units of which four have bargaining agents.The board also, of course, governs the security of the House of Commons precinct. In security and other matters, for example, the long-term vision and plan for the renovation of the parliamentary precinct, the board partners with its counterpart in the Senate for the management and security of the precinct.I have been talking about the framework for the 308 members. I'll just say a few words about the framework for the administration. You've noted the “Members' By-law”, which governs the allowances and services available to each member. The “Governance and Administration By-law” delegates to the Speaker and the Clerk the authority to oversee the administration, and it in turn is responsible for executing the directives of the board on various issues.In the governance structure in the organigram that you see before you, the Board of Internal Economy is at the very top in deciding on budget and policy. Those policies are then left to the Speaker who operates something like a minister in a government department, and I operate as the equivalent of his deputy minister in the House of Commons. Two people in my office report directly to me. One is the director of internal audit, and the other is Suzanne Verville, who is my chief of staff and the director of corporate communications. On the last line there, there are the six senior officials who are the heads of services. They report to me on their different responsibilities and we sit together as the Clerk's Management Group. I preside over meetings of those six people. You have the Deputy Clerk, who is in charge of procedural activities. The Sergeant-at-Arms is in charge of security and the physical plant of the building, and in so being he's obviously working with Public Works and Government Services on the renovations. There is the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, who provides advice on legal issues as well as running the legislative services that draft private members bills and amendments to government bills. Then you have the three senior people who one would find in any organization: the chief information officer, who is responsible for the network of the campus and for all of our technology; the chief financial officer, Mark Watters, who is with me today; and the chief human resources officer, Pierre Parent, who is the person in charge of staffing and all of the related human resources policies.I said earlier that the Speaker and I have two distinct areas of responsibility. There is the parliamentary role and function, which is basically the part of the job that comes with a uniform, so I'm wearing it today because we'll be in the House this afternoon for question period. Then there is the administration role and function that we play, and that's, of course, of more interest to you here this morning. The Speaker is the chair of the Board of Internal Economy and I am its secretary. He oversees the administration, which I am directing, and he appears before this committee to defend the estimates. You have from time to time gotten into discussions with him on the study of main estimates and supplementary estimates.So it's the same thing, the same division of labour for me. Time was when the Clerk of the House really spent much more time on procedural matters, but really most of my time now—I'd say 85%—is on administrative matters. I am very well supported by the six heads of service who are the experts in those various fields, but I do think it's particularly useful to have the Clerk as the secretary to the board and as the person responsible for administration overall, because I think the needs of a legislative assembly are different from the needs you might find in another public sector formation—an agency, a crown corporation, or a department—and certainly vastly different from the needs you would find in a corporate situation. (1145)So as part of the Clerk's Management Group, I report directly to the Speaker and have regular meetings with him on various issues. The group, that is to say, the meeting of the six people, the heads of service on that bottom line of the organigram, is chaired by me. The chief of staff, Suzanne Verville, and the director of audit, Jennifer Wall, attend those meetings as observers. We make recommendations to the Speaker and the board regarding the administration of the House. It's the CMG, Clerk's Management Group, that is responsible for setting strategic directions, priorities, and expected results for the House of Commons administration, for ensuring that we have the financial, material, and human resources necessary to carry out our mandate, which is to support members in their parliamentary functions, as well as to support the legislative body that is the House. It sets the direction for the development of policies for our own internal regulation. Of course, we ensure appropriate monitoring so that there is compliance with the approved policies and directives.I should say, for example, that the performance audit of the Auditor General, which was done some two years ago—it took so long I sometimes forget, taking two years to do instead of one—looked at the structures and the systems that we had in place for ensuring compliance with the directives of the Board of Internal Economy. They were content with what they saw. They did make a few recommendations, which we have happily taken on board and acted upon. Basically, for us, it was a very helpful exercise.When I mentioned earlier that the CMG, Clerk's Management Group, sets the administration's strategic objectives, maybe it's useful to just mention to you the following. Because members are elected in general elections on a regular basis—and in the Commonwealth, for instance, Canada has one of the higher turnovers of members in each election—it's inevitable that the job, the responsibility for carrying the institutional memory, rests more with the administration than it would in other circumstances. I know it is common for people to have a very long career at the House—not just to spend a certain amount of time at the House. So I feel, as the Clerk, and I know my predecessors felt the same, that we have a culture that has a very special responsibility for safeguarding the institution, the independence of the institution, and for ensuring that we are not only applying the highest standards of public sector governance, as we say in that fourth objective, in this parliamentary context, but that we're ready to respond to changing needs, because each Parliament is different. The composition of this parliament, for example, which is more diverse and far younger than most of the previous parliaments, means we have to be ready to deal with the various challenges that come up there. We like to pride ourselves on the fact that we do that. We are very flexible and prepared to change, as I say, to respond to needs.We also feel responsible for enhancing ongoing services, for instance, communication with citizens, communications with constituents. Now that people are using websites and other kinds of approaches, we are always looking very carefully at what tools we make available to members.Finally, we want to promote greater understanding and support for the advancement of legislative institutions. In that respect, we are often asked by other jurisdictions to come to visit on studies. The U.K. people have come to look at how we are set up. We have a lot of visitors from the Commonwealth, and right now there's a study program that's in train for senior parliamentary officials (1150)[Translation]…from French-speaking countries who are there not only to share their experiences of governance in their legislative institutions, but also to learn how we meet the challenges. One of the most impressive things that emerged from these exchanges and studies is how similar the challenges an administration faces are, be it the Walloon parliament of Belgium, in Kenya, Senegal, Nunavut, British Columbia, Quebec or here, at the federal level in Canada. The context is particular because of the geography and culture, but the challenges are essentially the same. We're fascinated by that.That is how I see the role of the Board of Internal Economy.I'll turn things over to my colleague and friend, Mark G. Watters…[English]who is the chief financial officer. Then I'll come back for one final kick at the can and we'll be happy to take questions.I should say that Mark is a career public servant, and I think of him as “my” but it really is “our” renaissance finance guy. He has extensive experience and came to us[Translation]…from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration two years ago.[English]He previously worked with a government agency, the Canada Council, and with[Translation]…the Public Service Alliance of Canada.[English]As well, he worked with the Office of the Auditor General. He really has a phenomenal breadth of experience. He's going to be addressing other aspects of your study.Accommodation and hospitality servicesAudits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyClerk of the House of CommonsFinancial Administration ActGovernanceGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of CommonsHouse of Commons staffIn cameraInterparliamentary delegationsLabour codeMedia and the pressParliament of Canada ActParliamentary Employment and Staff Relations ActTravelWeb sites346529434652953465296346529734652983465299346530034653013465302346530334653043465305346530634653073465308346530934653103465311346531234653133465314346531534653163465317346531834653193465320346532134653223465323346532434653253465326346532734653283465329346533034653313465332346533334653343465335346533634653373465338346533934653403465341346534234653433465344346534534653463465347346534834653493465350346535134653523465353346535434653553465356346535734653583465359346536034653613465362346536334653643465365346536634653673465368346536934653703465371346537234653733465374346537534653763465377346537834653793465380346538134653823465383346538434653853465386346538734653883465389346539034653913465392346539334653943465395346539634653973465398346539934654003465401346540234654033465404346540534654063465407346540834654093465410346541134654123465413JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters (Chief Financial Officer, House of Commons): (1150)[English]Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.I do have a statement that I will go through. We have copies that are available both in French and in English for members of the committee to consume, either during or afterwards.Thank you very much for allowing me this opportunity today. I would like to share with the committee the results of our work in examining the governance structures of other jurisdictions and, in the first instance, our findings in provinces and territories in Canada.I'd like to highlight three provinces where the regimes either are the most different or are thought to be the most different, starting with the Province of Manitoba.In Manitoba, there are 57 members in the provincial legislature. In this area, a commissioner is appointed within six months following a general election. The mandate of the commissioner is to decide on the appropriate salaries, allowances, and retirement benefits for members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and to make regulations for implementation and decide on the disclosure regime.The Speaker is responsible for approving member expense claims and does so through the staff of what is called the Members' Allowances Office, the staff function, the MAO. Members may appeal any decision made by the MAO directly to the commissioner, whose decision is final.Again within six months following an election, the director of the MAO prepares a compliance report, which describes any administrative or interpretative issues that have arisen in the administration of allowances and also verifies whether the amounts paid were in compliance with the Legislative Assembly Act and regulations. The report is then audited by the provincial Auditor General, who expresses an opinion, and both the report and the opinion are tabled by the Speaker in the Assembly and posted on the Web.Moving to Nova Scotia, where 51 members make up the assembly, a body that is also called a commission has replaced the legislature's Internal Economy Board. The commission, however, is no more independent than the current governance of the House of Commons. Membership in the commission is similar to that of the Board of Internal Economy of the House.Under this regime, the clerk administers members' expenses and members appeal decisions to the commission—essentially to the board. All members' expenses are disclosed. Twice yearly, individual member expense statements are publicly disclosed. On a monthly basis, data regarding member purchases is extracted from the financial system and posted on the legislature's website. It's really a dump from the financial system that's simply put on the website, so it's fairly difficult to comprehend.In Newfoundland and Labrador, with 48 members part of that legislature, the governance body is also called a commission, the House of Assembly Management Commission. This commission is chaired by the Speaker, and the clerk is responsible for member expense administration. The makeup of the commission is similar to that of the Board of Internal Economy, with representation from elected parties. Once every general assembly, an independent committee is established to inquire and report on salaries, allowances, severance payments, and pensions paid to members. All member expenses are disclosed. Again, similar to Nova Scotia, twice yearly an individual member expense statement is prepared, which summarizes expenses by category.Mr. Chair, it's important to also appreciate the environment in which these three legislatures operate. The average number of sitting days for these is 63, 54, and 47 respectively. The House of Commons sits for 27 weeks, or 135 days, making the difference I believe significant. In addition, in terms of travel, our parliamentarians' travel is quite extensive and on the national scene. In 2012-13, members collectively used almost 12,300 points. This represents 12,300 round trips and the expense claims that go with those trips. The volume that the House of Commons deals with is impressive.In terms of other provincial and territorial jurisdictions, all other jurisdictions have the equivalent of the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy. Most jurisdictions have some form of public reporting, and the frequency of reporting varies. I wanted to highlight those three that were the most different or thought to be the most different.In terms of other Westminster-style parliaments, the Clerk and I travelled to London to review the model adopted by the U.K. As members may be aware, the model in the U.K. is quite different and boasts an independent arm's-length agency for members' expenses. The reforms were adopted following the leak of an unredacted copy of an expense report for all parliamentarians. Journalists had begun to point out a large number of alleged abuses of allowances and expenses. There was, as you can imagine, significant political fallout, and the reforms were adopted. I'd like to summarize those for you this morning.(1155)In the U.K., the model that's been adopted is that an independent body has been created to oversee and regulate members' expenses. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, IPSA, as it's called, was created in 2009. The agency was created to address the member expense scandal. At the time, the House of Commons did not have a very rigorous finance function, and existing rules were not being enforced. There were internal proposals to increase transparency and compliance, but these could not be put in place in time once the political storm had been unleashed.IPSA's main role is to regulate the expense system, which it does by determining the rules governing members' expenses, and to administer and pay members' expenses and their salaries. IPSA is governed by a board of five, one of whom is the chair. The appointments are ratified by the House of Commons. Candidates are selected for recommendation based on the principles of merit and fair and open competition. They are appointed for specific terms. Three of the four members must meet specific eligibility conditions. The agency has a chief executive officer and a professional staff. Within the agency there is also a compliance officer role. In the original legislation it was defined as the commissioner for parliamentary investigations, but was subsequently amended to compliance officer. The compliance officer is appointed in a manner similar to the board of IPSA, and IPSA must provide resources to the compliance officer for the carrying out of the mandate.The role of the compliance officer is to conduct investigations if the officer has reason to believe that a member may have been paid an amount that should not have been allowed under the allowance scheme. There are strict processes to follow regarding how investigations are conducted, as well as limitations on how investigations are launched.The Speaker of the House has a committee for IPSA. The members of this committee are the Speaker; the leader of the House; the chair of the standards and privilege committee; five members who are not ministers, all appointed by the House; and three laypersons who are appointed by resolution of the House. The laypersons must also meet strict conditions prior to being appointed.The role of the Speaker's committee for IPSA is twofold. It considers IPSA's appropriation and agrees on the Speaker's recommendation to the House for the appointment of the IPSA chair and board members. The Speaker still maintains other committees for the functioning of the administration of the House.Implementing this model was quite difficult. It was done in great haste due to the environment. Members were generally dissatisfied with the new agency, saying that the service was poor and they were not better served. In fact, at the time of the election in 2010, members were out of pocket for a significant period of time as IPSA struggled to get off the ground. IPSA had a significant credibility issue to overcome due to its poor response to members in a post-election period. The election unfortunately happened to be timed at the same time as the coming into force of the legislation and the creation of the agency. The compliance function is now, some three years later, just getting off the ground, post-enactment of the legislation. It's clear that with the creation of this new agency the pendulum had swung to an extreme position. Some three years later, the middle ground is being found. A rigorous arm's-length relationship was forced with a strict independence mentality, which no doubt caused relationship issues to arise. Today we note the existence of an informal liaison group between the House and IPSA that meets on a regular basis, is jointly chaired, and whose objective is to discuss and consult on potential changes to the allowance scheme, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of IPSA, and to improve relations with members. This is a large group, and from the House perspective it is quite diverse and representative of members according to geography, gender, age, family status, and other criteria.(1200)[Translation]Mr. Chair, I'll now address the issue of independence, transparency and accountability.First, I would like to say that independence doesn't necessarily lead to transparency and accountability. It only leads to independence.The House has made significant advances on transparency and accountability with respect to spending.As the clerk mentioned earlier, I would like to remind the committee of the following initiatives: public disclosure of minutes of the Board of Internal Economy meetings, an annual audit of our financial statements, posting our financial results in the Public Accounts of Canada, posting the administrative by-laws of the House on the website, posting the Report to Canadians on the website, posting the Strategic Objectives on the website, annual publication of the members' expenditures reports with increased disclosure in recent years, a transition toward enhanced quarterly reporting on members' expenditures in the coming fiscal years, beginning April 1, 2014, the planned posting of the Members' Allowances and Services Manual on the website and the planned posting of the Public Registry of Designated Travellers on the website.We could adopt the following measures to continue improving transparency and accountability through increased disclosure.First, we could prepare and publish a quarterly financial report, possibly using the same format as the Public Accounts of Canada. The report would present credits for each program activity and line of income, like we do when the Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates are presented here in committee.Then, we have the modification of our program activity architecture in order to establish an improved report at a much more detailed activity level. Our activities are currently summarized in two categories: House of Commons members and officers, and House administration.We could also look into a more detailed presentation of activities. We could even examine the members' annual expenditures reports before they are posted on the website.(1205)[English]Mr. Chair, the House has a robust finance function in place, says the CFO of the organization—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Mr. Mark G. Watters: —you would hope. Finance Services provides policy advice to the board, makes payments of members' claims after verifying compliance with policy and regulation, provides support and advice to members through training and communication initiatives directed towards members and their employees, provides access to financial tools, tracks all member expenses of public funds, and regularly discloses these according to the format that's approved by the board. We have put in place a rigorous pre and post-payment verification process. The U.K. through IPSA is only now attempting to put in place such a regime. If we review the following measures of performance indicators for the House finance function, we can appreciate the conditions under which this model is applied at the House: over 70,000 member payments on average in the fiscal year; 20,000 calls and e-mails received by Finance Services in a year; and 4,365 regret letters sent to members advising them of a modification to an amount claimed—some of you will be familiar with those letters and you probably typically don't like to receive them. But this is where we've made an adjustment to claims, and we advise you. We conveniently call them “regret letters”, rather than something else. Only seven requests for exemption were made to the board in the fiscal year, and there were 11 situations raised with the Speaker that were dealt with directly without having to involve the Board of Internal Economy. Finally, 21 staff members were involved in the adjudication of member expense claims. Despite complaints made by members of the requirements or services provided by Finance Services, members are generally supportive of the regime currently in place at the House. There have been numerous public comments made by members about the robustness of Finance Services at the House. In the most recent Office of the Auditor General report on the audit of the House administration, the AG indicated that the administration had in place appropriate policies and control systems to govern the proper expenditure of funds in accordance with the bylaws, policies, and directives of the board. The AG found no instances of significant non-compliance. Our external auditors, KPMG, once again have issued a clean opinion on the financial statements prepared by the House administration. Further, they did not find any areas that needed to be addressed through a management letter as a result of their audit. That's probably as good as it gets in terms of audit-speak. In our view, the House can claim that it is transparent and accountable for the resources that are expended.Mr. Chair, now turning to the independence issue, while the board is not an arm's-length agency, we have made significant inroads on the independence front as an institution. In terms of human resources, the finance function that is contained within the administration of the House is functioning well and is supported in its role by the Board of Internal Economy.A high number of staff have professional designations and adhere to strong codes of ethics as a result of their memberships in these professional bodies. Salaries for members are determined independently; they are not decided upon by the Board of Internal Economy. A formula contained in the Parliament of Canada Act, which ties increases to those achieved through collective bargaining in the private sector, assures this. Pension entitlements for members are debated in the House and administered by the Treasury Board with the assistance of the Chief Actuary of Canada.If there were a desire to add an additional layer of independence in decision-making, external expertise could be added to the existing structure, as is often the case on corporate boards and audit committees. External advisers or independent directors supplement the existing structures to provide additional perspective on issues. The committee may wish to explore these models, which, in our view, could achieve the objective of independence while continuing to leverage the investments that have been made in the existing regime, which in our view is robust and sufficient.Of course, such a model would avoid the duplication of committees that we find in the U.K.—you'll recall the Speaker's committee on IPSA, the Speaker's administration committees, and the informal House-IPSA liaison committee—and could be pursued without incurring significant additional cost and delays.Mr. Chair, thank you for your patience. I would now like to return the podium to the Clerk for final comments.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of CommonsLegislative Assembly of Nova ScotiaManitoba Legislative AssemblyNewfoundland and Labrador House of AssemblyParliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland3465415346541634654173465418346541934654203465421346542234654233465424346542534654263465427346542834654293465430346543134654323465433346543434654353465436346543734654383465439346544034654413465442346544334654443465445346544634654473465448346544934654503465451346545234654533465454346545534654563465457346545834654593465460346546134654623465463JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1210)[Translation]I join Mark in thanking you for being so very patient this morning. Naturally, in preparing for today's appearance, Mark and I discussed extensively on how to proceed. Your order of reference is very clear.[English]Your order of reference asks you to conduct hearings with a view to replacing the board with an independent oversight body, and we wondered whether we should, actually, conclude with any kind of recommendation. I think it would be disingenuous if we didn't conclude with a recommendation. Basically, we are both of the opinion that the Board of Internal Economy is a viable governing authority for the House of Commons. I hope we have been able to explain how and why we believe it is responsive to changing needs. It has demonstrated, through its steady improvement on the transparency and disclosure regime, an ability to respond to changing needs with the flexibility inherent to being able to do that.We hope, as well, to have demonstrated that the role of the board extends beyond merely the question of allowances and services for members. In our view, the board is transparent and accountable. We're not suggesting, by any stretch of the imagination, that it is perfect. There are clearly areas where changes may well be recommended, and we would certainly be open to those, but basically we think the board has evolved with and responded to these changing requirements and that we have, as I say, a regime that is ever more transparent and is certainly accountable.We'd be happy to answer any questions.[Translation]Once again, thank you for your tremendous patience.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures34654643465465346546634654673465468Mark G.WattersJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): (1210)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you, Madam O'Brien and Mr. Watters, for your very thorough presentation.I have a lot of questions. However, I think the one we really have to deal with is contained in the order of reference that was adopted. It was originally a motion presented by the NDP, supported unanimously in the House last June, and it states, unequivocally, that the view of this study would be to replace the Board of Internal Economy. I thank you for your recommendation that the board need not be replaced; perhaps it could be improved.I want to drill down a little bit on that. I think, certainly, one of the arguments we've heard from members of the opposition with respect to the board is the fact that all of its meetings are in camera. They claim the secrecy aspect is problematic, at least to them. I hope I'm not mischaracterizing where the NDP is coming from, but at least that's certainly what I've heard them state.If the board remained in its current state but perhaps were open to some suggested changes, what would your thoughts be on the board meeting in public, as a general principle, and then going in camera when needed? For example, if they were dealing with issues of a personal nature, of a legal nature, of a labour relations nature, would that, in your view, be appropriate?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn camera34654753465476346547734654783465479JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1210)[English]Mr. Chairman, through you, I was afraid that this would be a question, because I fear that I have what is, I suppose, easily characterized as a Luddite approach to this. I'm going to be very candid with you, at the risk of going beyond my remit as the Clerk. I don't think, if the meetings of the board were to be held in public, this would improve the situation. It might improve the perception of the board. It is invariably characterized as very secretive, highly secretive, which seems to suggest that fascinating secrets are being dealt with there, when in fact the work there—I see Mr. Preston smiling seraphically—is of such mind-numbing ordinariness that I think people would be quite surprised. I mean, we're not dealing with issues of national security. Again, I'm going to be foolhardy and go out on a limb here—and hand you a saw—and say that I think, just as an observer of the situation, that the current climate that exists in political debate is so ferocious that it seems to force people into rigid partisan positions that are really not helpful when you're trying to come to a consensus over a particular issue.I have found with the board a willingness for members, because of the fact that they're private meetings.... I don't consider them secret, because the minutes are published, the decisions are published and people find out what those decisions are, and in talking to their representatives on the board, the representatives can explain why they're going along with the strategic review, what they're contributing to this environment, and so on and so forth.I think if the meetings were public, to tell you the God's honest truth, what worries me that it would drive the actual discussion underground. It means that the real bargaining goes on in corridor discussions, in private meetings that are not in any way minuted, where there's no presence of a secretary. I worry that this would lead to perhaps a situation where decisions are not perhaps as sound as the decisions that I think the board has been taking over these many years.I understand the wish of the public to see the board work, to see how decisions are made and that kind of thing. It is certainly the case, perhaps, that what seemed to be a veil of secrecy in which the whole operation was cloaked initially has kind of stayed with it well beyond any kind of useful life. But I do think that the private discussions are useful.Now, how do you regain credibility if credibility is not there and trust is not there? I think perhaps there are other ways. For instance, the board might be able to meet—this is just totally, absolutely off the top of my head—and field questions as to why certain things are done in a particular way, and this kind of thing. I'm taking up way too much time, so I'll leave it there. I would prefer to see the meetings kept private. We could look at putting minutes that are less terse, shall we say; they're virtually haiku at the moment. We could conceivably have a bit more information in the minutes.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn camera34654803465481346548234654833465484346548534654863465487TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1215)[English]I think there wouldn't be time for a detailed answer.I thank you again for your candour on why the meetings are typically held in camera. I think there are a couple more reasons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge the Board of Internal Economy is not covered by privilege.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn camera34654893465490JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1215)[English]It is not an actual committee of the House, and in that sense there is some debate about whether privilege is covered. There are all kinds of ancillary issues there that make it really difficult.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn camera34654913465492TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1215)[English]This is my last comment, since we have a serious lack of time here. My observation, after what I've heard today, is that even if we went to a new system of an independent oversight body as suggested in the order of reference, that body, however it would be structured, would still have to be supported by the administration of the House in a similar fashion to the Board of Internal Economy being supported today. So in terms of the old saying “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”, I'm not sure if the board needs to replace, but I'm sure there will be questions that will determine that outcome. Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures34654933465494AudreyO'BrienJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1220)[Translation]You are very kind. Your presentation was very detailed and very useful. However, it raises all kinds of questions, for me and my colleagues, and it would be important for us to address these matters.We are studying the NDP motion that was passed unanimously in the House of Commons. The most important question I want to ask you has to do with the Board of Internal Economy's decisions. Are they made on the basis of the majority or is a consensus reached among the board's members?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures34655003465501AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1220)[Translation]Mr. Chair, it really is a consensus process. A discussion takes place. Certainly, in some cases, people don't always take the same position but, over the course of the discussion, we come to a compromise that everyone finds acceptable. At least, that is what I've seen in my 30 years here, although I haven't always worked directly with the Board of Internal Economy.But I must say that we recently needed to go to a vote because we couldn't reach a consensus. However, that situation is very rare. It was almost unprecedented. Sometimes we put off decisions so we have the chance to develop them.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures34655023465503PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1220)[Translation]Thank you very much.[English]So what you're seeing with the Board of Internal Economy now is that there are certain decisions that are subject to a vote, where the majority then makes that decision. Is that a fair characterization?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures34655043465505AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1220)[English]Not quite. There has been at least one instance where that has happened. That has happened in this Parliament, but it's not common with this board either. It's still a rarity, quite a rarity.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures3465506PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1220)[English]But it does represent a shift. You understand what I'm saying. If what we have is a situation where a majority makes the decision, we're not talking about an impartial group that makes the decision by consensus.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures3465507AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'Brien//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1220)[English] If ultimately it can be subject to a vote, then what that means is that it's really subject to a majority control, which I don't think would enhance the reputation of the Board of Internal Economy in the eyes of the public.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures3465509AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1220)[English]Well, I think it's important to remember that there is no majority. The majority doesn't belong to the government or the opposition; there is an equal number of voices, and the Speaker, if there's an equal number of voices, is left with the unhappy role of weighing in.Speakers and chairs of the Board of Internal Economy with whom I've worked have been very deft at avoiding that kind of situation. As I say, I think this has happened only once in my time as secretary to the board, so I wouldn't call it a shift. I understand what you're saying, though, about credibility and about the idea that you might fear that the Speaker—impartial though the Speaker is, having been elected and so forth, and impartial in presiding over deliberations—might be inclined, by virtue basically of the ideology he represents in being a government member, to side with the government, say, and therefore create a majority there. But I don't think that would be a fair characterization of the way that Speakers—and this Speaker as well—handle the role of chair of the board.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures346551034655113465512PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1220)[English]You can understand that it would be a concern to the public, right, when we're talking about public perception? This is why this order of reference was made by the House of Commons. There needs to be in the public eye, I think, a sense that when we're talking about MPs' expenses, when we're talking about taxpayers' money—Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures3465513AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1220)[English]Yes.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures3465514PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterPeterJulianBurnaby—New Westminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianBurnaby—New WestminsterNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Peter Julian: (1225)[English]Because these are taxpayers across the country, in my riding and everywhere else, who are paying our salaries and paying those expenses, and they want to make sure that it's subject to a neutral, non-partisan, independent body that is making those decisions based on facts, rather than on having a debate and ultimately some votes taking place, which is exactly the opposite of what I think the public wants.Can I ask you, because you have a long history and experience, if you have seen that happen in the past. Or in the past has there been a real attempt by Speakers to say, “We're not going to make a decision until all parties agree”?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures34655153465516AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1225)[English]I think you're quite correct in saying that part.... When I talked about Speakers being very deft at handling their role as chairs, it is the case that the Speaker will say: “Well, you know, we obviously have some way to go, and people have to think about this. They have to talk about this with each other and whatnot, so we'll put this off to another time.” So you have that chance for cooler heads to prevail, for a consensus to emerge.I guess that what worries me when you say a process lacks credibility and the public expects that these steps be taken to make it independent, to have an independent body, and I guess what troubles me about that is.... And I understand exactly what you're saying, and I agree with you that it's a public perception that's out there that we have to fight, but I think the terribly upsetting premise that that seems to be resting on is that anyone who is associated with politics or who knows something about politics is, by that very association, untrustworthy.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures34655173465518PeterJulianBurnaby—New WestminsterJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): (1225)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I do want to address the issue of what I believe is the public perception, which is something that we all have a responsibility to deal with.To use an example, we and the leader of our party have been talking a great deal about proactive disclosure, making reference to ministers and how they would proactively declare the actual costs of making that flight in terms of where it is they're flying to, and the costs of meals in terms of where they're having those meals, and so forth. Here is an expectation that we're hearing from Canadians as a whole: they want to see more proactive disclosure. I can appreciate that there might be additional costs for that, but we're in a democracy. We have to meet those costs in order to provide what it is that Canadians ultimately would like to see.The question—and it might be best for Mr. Watters—is in regard to what steps we could be taking to make proactive disclosure to the same degree to which ministers have proactive disclosure on their trips. Is that something that's doable within your administration? Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34655223465523346552434655253465526JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1225)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.The answer to that question is yes, that anything is absolutely doable. There would be no trouble in doing that. The board has been reluctant in going in that direction, and we have been reluctant in recommending that. Personally, I feel that if we were to adopt that type of disclosure, it would be a regression from where we are today.As you've seen earlier today, the members' expenditure reports are far more detailed than what proactive disclosure would be at the level of a minister in a department. You have in that disclosure essentially disclosure that is around a trip. We disclose far more than that. We disclose all the expenditures of a member with respect to all the funds that are entrusted to that member, or that are spent from central funds from the administration on the account of that member. We go far beyond that level of disclosure. I personally believe it would be a step back if we did that.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34655273465528346552934655303465531KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1225)[English]Yes, but that would be on the assumption that the proactive disclosure we're talking about is just limited to that in the future. If we look at it as a starting point.... I'm very much wanting to provide and deliver what Canadians are asking for. We had the opportunity, for example, to use this as a starting point back in June. We came very, very close to actually having it pass in the House. If it weren't for the New Democrats, in fact, we would have had the support to see it actually pass, and it could have been in place today. That is indeed a starting point.You made reference to the fact that you went to other provinces. I was intrigued by Manitoba. I served in the Manitoba legislature for 20 years. I was a part of the process that brought us the commissioner. I can tell you that when we talked about bringing in the commissioner—I was part of those discussions and representing the Liberal Party at that time—we needed to make a clear statement that politicians should not be setting politicians' salaries—Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation dissemination34655323465533Mark G.WattersMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1230)[English]Right.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures3465534KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1230)[English]—nor should we be determining what our pensions are. There was also a feeling that there needs to be an appeal mechanism that is not the Board of Internal Economy—we knew it as the Legislative Assembly Management Commission in the Province of Manitoba—so that if in fact a member has an issue, they could go to someone, and that was determined with the commissioner.Here's the question I have for you. Do you believe that the potential role a commissioner could play here on the national scene could be of benefit to Canadians as a possible add-on? You talked about how we have the established Board of Internal Economy. Do you see the potential role that a commissioner could play in dealing with what Manitobans thought was important, but applying that nationally?Appeals and appeals officersBoard of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures346553534655363465537Mark G.WattersMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1230)[English]The position we have advanced today is really one in which we would perhaps supplement the Board of Internal Economy with some external advisers. I think doing so would in fact address a number of issues. Mr. Lamoureux, if you look at the number of exceptions that are requested of the board in a particular year, there are on average only seven. To put in place such an infrastructure for that many who decide to appeal to the board, when in fact, as I advised you, we alter almost 4,400 claims when they are presented for payment.... I think the current regime is working.The question is whether we want to add the element of independence.The fundamental argument the Clerk and I have put forward today is that the board does lots of things. It does more than just members' administration of expenses. That is a very important part, but only a part of what the board does. If there's a desire to bring independence to that, then do that by bringing in external advisers or maybe creating some type of another small working group within the board to do that, but continue to lever off the infrastructure that is already in place, which is, as we hope we have demonstrated today, working properly.Appeals and appeals officersBoard of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures346553834655393465540KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1230)[English]I have one last question for you, Ms. O'Brien. I appreciated your comments about the importance of being in camera and how, if you remove the in camera aspect, decisions might ultimately end up being made in hallways as opposed to through a more formal process. I can appreciate that.Something I have advocated for years is to allow for the assumption that meetings are in fact public, and if it is deemed necessary that a meeting go in camera, that it be done through unanimous consent of all the members of the Board of Internal Economy. Do you feel that would be a problem? I'm familiar with the give and take and the nature of the discussions of a group such as the Board of Internal Economy. I wouldn't think it would be a problem, because, generally speaking, people from all political parties are sensitive about having to go in camera.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn camera346554134655423465543Mark G.WattersJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC): (1230)[English]Thank you. I have a few questions for both Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Watters. I'm sure we won't get to them all, but we'll get to as many as we can. I do certainly think when we're looking at changing something or replacing something as this motion contemplates, it's always best to start from the point of view of looking at what is being done currently, and how or if it's working or not working, and certainly having the two of you here is very helpful to us as a starting point in that. That's very much appreciated.With that in mind, I think I'll first pick up on the line of questioning that Mr. Julian was undertaking in his initial part of his time, in relation to the consensus on the board. Ms. O'Brien, you indicated that you could recall at least one occasion when that wasn't able to be arrived at so a vote had to be taken. I cannot imagine, but I would like to ask if you could imagine any other way, if consensus could not be reached, that a decision could be made. In that instance is there any mechanism through which to make a decision other than a vote?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures34655473465548346554934655503465551JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1235)[English]Through you, Mr. Chairman, I can't think of one. I have to say in fairness and to appreciate how seriously the members of the board take their responsibilities, they were very loath to get to that point. It was something that divided them, and there was no option.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures3465552BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1235)[English]It is quite uncommon as you said.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures3465553AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1235)[English]It's absolutely uncommon, and in a sense it's a sad event, because it says we can't get to a middle place.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures3465554BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1235)[English]I know you also indicated in your presentation some of the recent changes that have taken place in the way the board operates. One of them was the posting of the minutes.I'm wondering if you have kept any stats on how many people are clicking on that page to see those minutes, and if they were unique hits or whether we're seeing.... Obviously you can imagine that within the Parliamentary Press Gallery or the research staff we have here on the Hill, inside the bubble, people would probably be clicking on it quite frequently. Are there any stats that have been taken on this to help us understand...?Access to information requestsBoard of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures346555534655563465557AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1235)[English]Yes, indeed, Mr. Richards. We've been anxious as well to see how that was received. I'm afraid I don't have that information with me, but I can certainly provide it to the clerk for the committee's use.Access to information requestsBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures3465558BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild Rose//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsWild RoseConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1235)[English]The next question is if the board were to be replaced by some kind of an arm's-length organization, do you have any idea how something like that might look or function? Also, if you've done any of that kind of work or research, has the House of Commons done any estimates on what it might cost to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an outside body?Board of Internal EconomyCostsGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresThird party management3465559AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1235)[English]I confess we have not costed that out, because it would depend on the composition, the structure, and so on. It was only in rereading the order of reference today that I saw that it's with a view to substituting for the Board of Internal Economy an independent agency. All I could think of was that God always answers prayers and sometimes the answer is no. I thought to myself, I was going with a no. I don't have a very elaborate alternative, because I didn't think it would fly. I genuinely don't think it's a good idea.Board of Internal EconomyCostsGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresThird party management34655603465561BlakeRichardsWild RoseBlakeRichardsWild RoseAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1235)[English]The U.K. model offers some use.Again, in the case of the U.K., it was act in haste and repent at leisure. The scandal broke just before the election and they were desperate to do something. We've learned a lot from them, but that model does work, ultimately.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresParliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland34655633465564BlakeRichardsWild RoseJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71538SadiaGroguhéSadia-GroguhéSaint-LambertNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/GroguheSadia_NDP.jpgInterventionMrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): (1235)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.My thanks to our witnesses. I have learned a great deal from their information and explanations.My first question has to do with the powers that the Board of Internal Economy possesses. Do you believe that some of those powers could be taken over by an independent agency, and if so, which powers would they be?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresThird party management346557034655713465572JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1235)[Translation]You want to know whether I believe…Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresThird party management3465573SadiaGroguhéSaint-LambertSadiaGroguhéSaint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71538SadiaGroguhéSadia-GroguhéSaint-LambertNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/GroguheSadia_NDP.jpgInterventionMrs. Sadia Groguhé: (1235)[Translation]In terms of the technical and administrative work that the Board of Internal Economy does, do you believe that some of its powers could be taken over by an independent agency? If so, which powers would they be?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresThird party management3465574AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1235)[Translation]An independent agency along the lines of the independent agency in the United Kingdom could certainly be established. We could learn from their mistakes and organize ourselves in that way.I feel that we still need an authority in charge here, in the House, for the administration and for the parliamentary precinct. I think that is a matter of credibility and of meeting the public's expectations.But the problem, as I see it, is that we are not doing enough to communicate to the public so that the public understands the way in which decisions are made. The public draws parallels that are not particularly useful. They even have it in their minds that there is not enough control, not enough regulations or standards, but that is not the case at all.When we met with the people from IPSA, the independent agency in London, I was very happy to learn that the systems for verifying expenses that we have in place here in the House, were every bit as robust as theirs.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresThird party management3465575346557634655773465578SadiaGroguhéSaint-LambertSadiaGroguhéSaint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71538SadiaGroguhéSadia-GroguhéSaint-LambertNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/GroguheSadia_NDP.jpgInterventionMrs. Sadia Groguhé: (1240)[Translation]Board of Internal Economy deliberations most often achieve consensus. But sometimes, they have had to hold a vote. You also mentioned the ability to put off a decision until later, giving time to consider a matter in much more depth. Has the Board of Internal Economy ever had to turn to expertise from outside, for example, before coming to a consensus or taking a vote? Has that ever happened?Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures34655793465580AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1240)[Translation]No. Given the clearly unique environment in which we work, the problems that arise are ideological or political. Some people want to see a certain approach and others do not share that point of view. The debate is not about the facts, but rather about the approach. That is what happened in the only case that I can recall where a vote was needed.Board of Internal EconomyDecision-making processGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures3465581SadiaGroguhéSaint-LambertSadiaGroguhéSaint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71625TedOpitzTed-OpitzEtobicoke CentreConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/OpitzTed_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Ted Opitz (Etobicoke Centre, CPC): (1240)[English]Thank you, Mr. Chair.Thank you, all, for being here today. It's been an incredible presentation, incredibly detailed.Ms. Audrey O'Brien: You're very kind.Mr. Ted Opitz: Madam Clerk, you mentioned the rules, standards, and lessons learned from the U.K. model, which itself leads to a communications plan. You're speaking language that I understand from a previous life.In reference to our board, you referred to communicating with the Canadian public so that they understand fully what the board does. What would your recommendation be for a communications plan to the general public?Board of Internal EconomyCommunication processesGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures34655873465588346558934655903465591JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1240)[English]I think the board has actually taken measures to address this vulnerability. The problem is that if there are scandals, or if there are problems that make headlines, then there's a contagion there. It spreads like wildfire. The impression of difficulty spreads like wildfire, and that's very bad for the institutions generally speaking. I think the direction that the board is taking now, putting more and more information on the web in a timely fashion, ready to answer quite specific and substantive questions from the media and from Canadians, is definitely a step in the right direction for communications. I belaboured the point about what is available on the web because I don't think that's well understood. I think it's the case that people just don't get that.Board of Internal EconomyCommunication processesGovernment accountabilityGovernment expenditures346559234655933465594TedOpitzEtobicoke CentreTedOpitzEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71625TedOpitzTed-OpitzEtobicoke CentreConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/OpitzTed_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Ted Opitz: (1240)[English]Certainly that would take some reinforcement.To go back to something that Mr. Lukiwski asked earlier, as the board of economy is not really a House of Commons committee, would its proceedings be subject to parliamentary privilege if it were public?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresParliamentary privilege34655953465596AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1240)[English]No. In the first instance, it's not a standing committee, so it's not obvious that privilege would attach to that. Then you get into the experts discussing parliamentary privilege and the fact that it would attach to it only if it were linked to deliberations of the House. So certain decisions probably wouldn't be covered by privilege, where others would be. I think this is why, for instance, in the statute, the Parliament of Canada Act, it specifically says that the board is the sole authority.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresParliamentary privilege34655973465598TedOpitzEtobicoke CentreTedOpitzEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71625TedOpitzTed-OpitzEtobicoke CentreConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/OpitzTed_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Ted Opitz: (1240)[English]Right. But anybody appearing in front of it then would be subject to some sort of risk, potentially, from lawsuits or....Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresParliamentary privilege3465599AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1240)[English]I think potentially, yes.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresParliamentary privilege3465600TedOpitzEtobicoke CentreTedOpitzEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71625TedOpitzTed-OpitzEtobicoke CentreConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/OpitzTed_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Ted Opitz: (1240)[English]Okay.In terms of going in camera, without mentioning specific cases, are there any examples of what the board has considered, and that you could talk about, that couldn't be dealt with in a public forum?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn camera34656013465602AudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1240)[English]The board has had very detailed explanations of, for instance, certain security instances, of certain security challenges that were met. Other examples would be labour relations cases and the negotiations mandate for collective bargaining. I think those are good examples.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresIn camera3465603TedOpitzEtobicoke CentreTedOpitzEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71625TedOpitzTed-OpitzEtobicoke CentreConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/OpitzTed_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Ted Opitz: (1245)[English]Okay.To Mr. Watters, have outside auditors ever been brought in to look at either House of Commons spending or spending by the House of Commons administration?Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons administration34656043465605AudreyO'BrienMark G.WattersMark G.WattersMarkG--WattersInterventionMr. Mark G. Watters: (1245)[English]Yes, every year since 2004-05, I think, the financial statements of the House have been audited. We have an external auditor, KPMG. The financial statements, which include all of the activities of the House, are consolidated, and KPMG expresses an opinion on those financial statements annually. This year, as I said in my statement, no management letter was issued, which means there was no area for improvement. As I said, it's as good as it gets in terms of audit-speak. If there's one thing we can be happy about in finance, it's that—when we get that kind of report from the auditor.Audits and auditorsBoard of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresHouse of Commons administration346560634656073465608TedOpitzEtobicoke CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25474AndréBellavanceAndré-BellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaIndependentQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/BellavanceAndré_BQ.jpgInterventionMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): (1245)[Translation]Thank you, Mr. Chair.I plan to show you that I have not lost my touch, at least I hope I haven't.Thank you for your testimony. I have two matters to bring up and not a lot of time to do it.Times have changed in terms of transparency, and that is a good thing. You gave us a great example of that earlier on.For the Bloc Québecois, it is quite normal for the public, and, by extension, the media, to be able to have access to our expenses, given that people have questions about them. It is their money, after all. We feel that this is a very important question. With expenses posted, we might look forward to the time when even more details may be available on the Internet. Ms. May, for example, pointed out the costs of air travel. We do not know whether a member flew economy or business class, nor how many times he or she did so. But we know that business class is much more expensive. This possibility would answer the public's question about that. My first question is for you, Ms. O'Brien, or for the person with you. It is about the importance of protecting privacy. We have a law about that. People might want to know whom we are meeting with, and why.Also, there are all those cases of whistleblowing, including the one at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, where the person was fired because of the revelations she made.Someone meeting with an opposition member of Parliament could be targeted by the government. It would not matter who, because in the list of expenses, you could see that they went to a restaurant, for example. I am sure that you will tell me that people will be more careful in cases like that. But it is a problem that we should think about.Everyone feels that their consciences are clear by saying that they want more transparency. But it not the same for everyone at the moment. And it has to be. We cannot ask each member of Parliament to reveal more and more all the time, as if this was the dance of the seven veils. The other part of my question deals with independence. Mr. Watters, you made me sit up and take notice when you said we have to be careful. Yes, but sometimes there is nothing better than a real example for showing the importance of independence.With the exception of the Liberals, every party has been non-recognized at some stage, when they had fewer than 12 members. A non-recognized party can be subject to the scrutiny of the Board of Internal Economy. I will not remind you of the case, but it has happened to us, as you know full well. But despite our requests to the Board of Internal Economy and to the other parties, everyone washed their hands of the matter and it was decided that the discussions would be held without the party there. It took several meetings and, because it all went on behind closed doors, we knew nothing about it. This ties in with what my colleagues said earlier. We suffered the consequences after the fact. In my opinion, the Board lacked all credibility and legitimacy in that study, given that the people affected were not able to be there.So, in terms of independence, I also feel that there is certainly some room for improvement.Could you comment on the two points I have raised?Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of unrecognized parties346561134656123465613346561434656153465616346561734656183465619346562034656213465622346562334656243465625JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1245)[Translation]It is true that times have changed, Mr. Chair.Like Ms. May, you talked about points, and about business class and economy class. But people need to know that we run ourselves ragged so that members of Parliament, who are travelling all the time, can normally do so, not as cheaply as possible, but with passes, for example. These are like coupons; we buy them and they let people travel business class generally much more cheaply than if we bought business-class tickets separately. Anyway, according to Board of Internal Economy rules, members of Parliament can only travel business class in certain cases. There are rules for all of that. I feel that this may be a lack of communication rather than a problem of disclosure.You also mentioned independence—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of ParliamentTravel3465626346562734656283465629AndréBellavanceRichmond—ArthabaskaJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonAudreyO'BrienAudrey-O-BrienInterventionMs. Audrey O'Brien: (1250)[Translation]In terms of non-recognized parties, I have to tell you—and I am really going out on a limb here—that the whole issue is not necessarily a problem with the Board of Internal Economy, but rather because the rules changed at some stage. I think that the NDP was the non-recognized party at that time. The rules were changed to introduce the new phrase “party not recognized in the House of Commons”. That got across the idea that the parties were not recognized in the House, though they may well be recognized elsewhere.I could respectfully suggest that this committee might wish to change that approach.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresMembers of unrecognized parties34656313465632JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair (Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)): (1310)[English] We are back in business, folks. We have the motion by Mr. Lukiwski.Mr. Cullen, you have the floor. Did you—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament343570334357043435705NathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1310)[English]Yes. I appreciate Mr. Lukiwski's words earlier. I think Mr. Scott has some specific things to say to this.Here's our concern specifically with what we've seen. I don't believe we have a date yet from the Prime Minister as to when the House will reconvene. The concern we have, if committee members remember the motion.... I'm not sure if we can make copies available from.... It was in our request for the meeting, if committee members want to refer to it. The motion that we very specifically put forward in the spring talked explicitly about a number of things. One was potentially replacing the Board of Internal Economy, which is a complex matter. It's not a matter of a simple signature on a piece of paper. It also talked about conducting a brief study to bring us to that type of action and allow us the ability to have transparent and independent oversight of members of Parliament's spending.The concern we have with both prorogation and how this meeting has come together is with any loss of momentum. One of the things we're asking of the government, and which Mr. Scott will speak to, is the reintroduction, word for word, of what we all agreed to unanimously just a few months ago. I think that's important—certainly from our perspective. As Mr. Lukiwski will remember well, we talked about this at great length before the end of last session, and got the agreement of all members of Parliament to change the way we do things for the better and that it go to this committee to do that work, with a deadline.If prorogation lasts a number of weeks, or longer, that's the clock running on that deadline that we set for ourselves. That means the study will be less well done. There's a fear that the work will be of lower quality and that we might not get to the result that Canadians expect of us, which is to improve things. That's the essence of bringing the committee back. Sunday afternoon is an interesting choice of time, but here we are. We understand that things are what they are.I think we're going to potentially move, and maybe I'll pass to Mr. Scott here, an amendment to this to allow it greater specificity to reduce the concerns we have about what Mr. Lukiwski has presented here today.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3435706343570734357083435709343571034357113435712JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.): (1310)[English]Thank you.I actually appreciate the opportunity to come here today, as I suspect that a great deal of discussion has taken place in all of our ridings across the country, from coast to coast to coast, since Canadians are, in fact, quite concerned about what is taking place and what has been taking place in Ottawa over the last number of months. In the past we attempted to deal with this, even prior to the House adjourning, or taking a recess, back in June. As members would know, it was the leader of the Liberal Party who brought forward four motions of substance. We attempted to get those passed. They are now referred to in the letter that Mr. Cullen has brought forward. I think it is important to note just how those motions, had they been passed, would have resolved a lot of concerns that many Canadians have today.Unfortunately—and the record will show this—it was the New Democrats who actually prevented the motions from passing in the first place. So, on the one hand, we're glad to be here: we want to see changes. We want more transparency. We want those things, because we know that Canadians want them and are demanding them. We have seen strong leadership within our own party with regard to coming up with ideas on how we will be able to do just that.I really believe that one of the first things we as a committee should do on this agenda—given the fact that back in June there appeared to be just a minority of New Democrats who were uncomfortable with the motions proposed by the Liberal Party—is to review those motions put forward by Mr. Trudeau and get the unanimous support of the committee. I think that would be a reasonable thing to ask. We've had the opportunity to review the motions. Everyone has had a copy of them, Mr. Chair. People are familiar with them. We would be doing a great service to Canadians if people would agree to let those motions pass.Whether it passes unanimously today or not—and I will ask for that, Mr. Chair—as much as that would be great to see, I can tell you that we as a caucus are prepared to do it. We are committed, because we recognize what Canadians want us to do, and we're prepared to demonstrate that through leadership and to implement certain aspects of it ourselves. The question is to what degree other members are as well. I suspect that all members have had the opportunity to canvass their constituents and to find out that there should be support.Mr. Chair, I'm not entirely sure of the proper procedure, but I am going to ask if you could canvass to see whether, in fact, there would be unanimous support for the four motions that were brought forward by Mr. Trudeau back on June 10.I can quickly read them, Mr. Chair. Mr. Trudeau moved:that the Board of Internal Economy begin posting the travel and hospitality expenses—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament343571534357163435717343571834357193435720343572134357223435723JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1315)[English]Go ahead, Mr. Reid, on a point of order.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3435724KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and AddingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC): (1315)[English]Just on relevance, I appreciate that Mr. Lamoureux would be fully within his rights to introduce a motion or, indeed, several motions. I don't think there's a notice requirement under our committee's rules, but we are actually in the midst of discussing not merely another motion—and everything discussed must be germane to that motion—but an amendment to that motion. I would think that these remarks would be more appropriate when we've dealt essentially with this.Let's deal with Mr. Cullen's amendment to Mr. Lukiwski's motion first.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34357253435726JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1315)[English]Thank you, Mr. Reid. I was about to get there as Mr. Lamoureux was rounding the corner into new motions.We are still on Mr. Lukiwski's notice of motion of today. Unless you are trying to move these as amendments to that, I don't see a way forward until after that discussion is complete. I'd be happy to come back to it at that time.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34357273435728ScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Lennox and AddingtonKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC): (1315)[English]I'm not sure if this is a point of order or a point of clarification, but if you take a look at the motion we passed on June 18, paragraph (vi) says:examine the subject-matter of the motions, standing in the name of the Member for Papineau, placed on the Order Paper on June 10, 2013.I think, Kevin, you are trying to reintroduce the same motions that we have agreed to study anyway. I don't see the necessity of that. Part of the House order, and part of the motion that was unanimously passed, was to study the motions that your leader brought forward. We have agreed to do that.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34357333435734JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1315)[English]I think a big part of it, Tom, is recognizing—which I wasn't too sure of in terms of the most appropriate way of bringing it forward in the form of an amendment—that what we're looking for is just getting the recognition from all three political parties that these suggestions or motions that were brought forward back on June 10 are very tangible and whether in fact they're supported by all political parties. Now, it might not necessarily be appropriate as an amendment. That's why I was looking to see if we could get the unanimous support of the committee to at least acknowledge their existence and in fact support them, because what we're talking about is not studying them per se, but rather adopting them.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34357353435736TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1315)[English]Well, I think this committee would like to usually move in that step, where we'll study before we come to the conclusion as to what we'll put in our final report.I have Mr. Scott, Mr. Cullen, and then Mr. Lukiwski, but I'm trying not to get out of sync here as to where we are.Mr. Lamoureux, as Mr. Lukiwski has pointed out, the subject matter you're talking about is already in the motion that founded the reason for our meeting. Belt and suspenders I understand, but I just don't understand why we need to go that deep at this moment, further—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament343573734357383435739KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1320)[English]It's redundant.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3435740JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1320)[English] If you'll allow me, let's leave it. If at the end you don't believe that the subject matter you're looking for is going to be covered, I might even give you some leeway to bring it back, but at this moment I think we're already discussing the topic that you're trying to put on the floor, either as an amendment to Mr. Lukiwski's motion or as another motion.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3435741TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1320)[English]Okay. On that particular point, then, Mr. Chair, I appreciate your comments and I'll look forward to maybe a more appropriate time, when we could actually have some dialogue on the four motions that were brought forward by Mr. Trudeau.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3435742JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1320)[English]Yes. I was hopeful that maybe we'd be able to draw some conclusions if possible, at least before the end of the day, so that we would have something tangible prior to the end of the meeting. I will hold off on providing more comments in regard to those particular motions, but suffice it to say that we're glad to be here today. We're anxious to see some movement in this area. We'll have to wait and see where it goes.Thank you.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34357443435745JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1320)[English]Yes. All I was going to say in response to Kevin is that with all due respect, Kevin, I just think what you're attempting to do here is somewhat redundant, because it's in the motion that we passed unanimously to study all of the elements of your leader's motions of June 10. So I don't think we need an amendment or a clarification. It's in the House order that was discussed.Eventually...and obviously I don't want to cut off any further discussion of my motion, but I would just reiterate that the commitment of our government is to honour the motion that was approved unanimously on June 18, and that is to conduct a full and thorough review of all issues dealing with transparency and accountability of members of Parliament. It's I think fairly clearly presented in the motion that was adopted where we're going to go with this. We're going to talk about things, about the Board of Internal Economy. We're going to talk to the Auditor General and other financial people. We're probably going to examine other jurisdictions. But the sole purpose of and the spirit behind this motion was to try to increase transparency and accountability. That's why my motion comes forward: just to reaffirm the fact that as a government we are absolutely committed to doing that.With respect to one further comment that Nathan made as to honouring the deadline of December 2, as a committee—and everyone knows that we're the masters of our own fate—we can meet as often and as frequently as we want. We can have extended hours. We can meet evenings, on weekends, whatever. Our point is that we believe the December 2 deadline can and will be met, and we're fully committed to participating in a thorough review.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3435750343575134357523435753JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1320)[English]Mr. Lukiwski, thank you for that recap, but I'm wondering if you wanted to read your motion into the record, because it was done while we were in camera.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3435754TomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreTomLukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1320)[English]Sure. Everyone has notice of it and this is public, but I will read it just for the record:That, the Committee hold meetings in the fall of 2013 pursuant to the House order of Tuesday, June 18, 2013, regarding the transparency and accountability of the House of Commons, and that the Committee show respect for the will of the House by allowing one Member who is not a member of a recognized party to participate in these hearings as a temporary, non-voting member of the Committee.I know that other people are on the speaking list, but I would like to deal with the substance of this, and I would call the question at the first opportunity so we can vote on my motion.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentMotions343575534357563435757JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/75006CraigScottCraig-ScottToronto—DanforthNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/ScottCraig_NPD.jpgInterventionMr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): (1320)[English]Great, thank you, Mr. Chair.I think what I have to offer will actually assist in one respect: it will clarify to an extent a small concern about the extent to which we are committing in advance to move forward in the fall on the exact same motion adopted in the House on June 18. I think that's absolutely in the spirit of everything I've heard from Tom. I want to suggest an amendment that makes it even clearer. In suggesting this amendment I think I'm probably helping on the point by Mr. Lamoureux as well, because my amendment makes it exceptionally clear that in the motion of June 18, the provision “examine the subject-matter of the motions, standing in the name of the Member for Papineau, placed on the Order Paper on June 10, 2013” will be part of the study. This will be made even clearer by my amendment.What I'd like to do now is just to read the amendment. Tom's motion would stand exactly as is, and then I would suggest simply adding these words:and that the Committee further show respect for the will of the House by instructing the Chair of the Committee to write to the Government House Leader to request that he, on the first day of the return of the House, seek unanimous consent from the House to bring back the House order of June 18 2013, in the exact form adopted on that day.I think this is a good idea procedurally, because we are going to have prorogation—it's almost certain—between now and when we'll be able to really study this. In that case I think it's really a good idea to have the exact same motion back before this committee, and the mechanism I'm suggesting here would accomplish that. At the same time, it absolutely makes clear something that is possibly just a little bit too general in the first three lines of Mr. Lukiwski's motion. The first three lines talk about holding meetings pursuant to the House order regarding transparency and accountability, but then it says, “and that the Committee show respect for the will of the House”, and it only specifies paragraph (h). The idea of showing respect for the will of the House with respect to including a non-recognized party member is really important, but it's isolating one element of the motion, whereas the first three lines are quite general. All I am doing, I think, is crossing the t’s and dotting the i's with what we've exactly heard already from Tom, that the government is in support of the motion as adopted. I would like to add the extra procedural boost by asking you, the chair, to write to the House leader to ask him to seek unanimous consent when we return.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentMotions34357603435761343576234357633435764343576534357663435767JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen: (1325)[English]That's right.This reiterates in black and white what Mr. Lukiwski just confirmed to the committee, the assurance that the government has maintained the political will over the summertime to continue the work that we unanimously agreed to in the spring. It provides specificity and assurance to Canadians that this work will continue. I take the assurances from Tom just with regard to the committee's work. As soon as we get through this motion—I think we're almost there—I'd like to get into some of that discussion today so that the work can begin in advance on witness lists and whom we would call, with some suggestions made already, and the pace of work. As I've suggested already, while the goal is quite clear, getting there will be somewhat subtle and complex in changing the very, very old institution of Canada's Parliament, specifically the Board of Internal Economy, how to bring the Auditor General in properly, and those kinds of things.This motion I think it just confirms the assurances that Mr. Lukiwski talked about. I think it should certainly confirm and give validation that the Liberals seem to be seeking. It allows the committee to know exactly what the work is about, and puts it in your hands, Mr. Chair, so that on day one the government House leader can introduce this. Of course, we will agree and we'll move forward, and the committee will have its marching orders to complete its work on that specified date.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentMotions3435781343578234357833435784JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25520TomLukiwskiTom-LukiwskiRegina—Lumsden—Lake CentreConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/LukiwskiTom_CPC.jpgInterventionMr. Tom Lukiwski: (1325)[English]I just don't have a problem with this. As I said verbally, our commitment is to do it. I've said so in public now, and so if this committee wants to instruct you, as chair, to write a letter requesting that we reaffirm the motion we have already passed, we don't have a problem with that. We are fully committed to having the study.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3435786JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen: (1330)[English]Just procedurally, I want to confirm technically that a prorogation of the House, which we have not had yet, would nullify the motion we passed in the House in the spring. Is that correct? I wonder if we can just—Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3435790JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1330)[English]That would be correct.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament3435791NathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25493NathanCullenNathan-CullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/42/CullenNathan_NDP.jpgInterventionMr. Nathan Cullen: (1330)[English] Yes, I think that's correct. I ask because people might be wondering why we have all of these assurances. That's because it doesn't exist. The moment the Prime Minister seeks prorogation from the Governor General, the motion we passed in the House in the spring won't exist, so this is a very public confirmation that even though technically that's procedurally true, when we come back we'll have exactly the same wording, in advance, already confirmed by this committee and others. I just wanted to assure my colleagues and others of that.Board of Internal EconomyGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of Parliament34357923435793JoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonJoePrestonElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25448JoePrestonJoe-PrestonElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/41/PrestonJoe_CPC.jpgInterventionThe Chair: (1330)[English]All right, I have no one else on the speaking list, so shall we call the vote on the amendment?Some hon. members: Yes.(Amendment agreed to)(Motion as amended agreed to)The Chair: Fantastic. That accomplishes a good combination of motions today. Thank you very much. That's great.Mr. Cullen.Board of Internal EconomyDecisions in committeeGovernment accountabilityGovernment expendituresInformation disseminationMembers of ParliamentMotions343579434357953435796343579734357983435799NathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNathanCullenSkeena—Bulkley ValleyINTERVENTIONParliament and SessionDiscussed TopicProcedural TermCommitteePerson SpeakingProvince / TerritoryCaucusParticipation TypeSearchResults per pageOrder byTarget search languageSide by SideMaximum returned rowsPagePUBLICATION TYPE