Evidence of meeting #5 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was matters.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Rob Walsh  Former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, As an Individual
Gregory Thomas  Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Sorry, but we've gone over Madame Turmel's time. Hopefully we can get that thought finished.

Mr. Butt, you have four minutes.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

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?

11:40 a.m.

Former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, As an Individual

Rob Walsh

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.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON

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?

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you for asking the question of Mr. Thomas, but you've asked it with absolutely no time left for him to answer.

We'll move to Mr. Hyer for four minutes.

November 7th, 2013 / 11:45 a.m.

Independent

Bruce Hyer Independent Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

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?

11:45 a.m.

Former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, As an Individual

Rob Walsh

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.

11:45 a.m.

Independent

Bruce Hyer Independent Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON

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.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

A short answer; we're a bit over time.

11:45 a.m.

Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Gregory Thomas

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.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Do the rest quickly.

11:45 a.m.

Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Gregory Thomas

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.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Okay. Thank you.

Madam Groguhé.

11:50 a.m.

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

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?

11:50 a.m.

Former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, As an Individual

Rob Walsh

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.

11:50 a.m.

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

Mr. Thomas, what do you think?

11:50 a.m.

Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Gregory Thomas

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.

11:50 a.m.

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

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?

11:50 a.m.

Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Gregory Thomas

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.

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—

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

I'm going to have to stop you here.

11:55 a.m.

Thomas Gregory

Sorry.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

We're at five minutes on a four-minute round.

Mr. Richards, four minutes from you, please.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB

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?

11:55 a.m.

Former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, As an Individual

Rob Walsh

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.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB

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.