It is.
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.
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.
11:25 a.m.
Former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, As an Individual
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.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
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?
11:25 a.m.
Former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, As an Individual
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.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Can you extrapolate as to why you think that would be best?
11:25 a.m.
Former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, As an Individual
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.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
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?
11:25 a.m.
Former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, As an Individual
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.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
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?
11:25 a.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
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.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
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?
11:30 a.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Yes. We believe the current practice in Alberta is the gold standard in Canada at this point.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
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?
11:30 a.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Yes. We're saying that there's a former—
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
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?
11:35 a.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Only the financial information. I don't think—
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
That currently is being given. So you're okay with that.
11:35 a.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
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....
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
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.
November 7th, 2013 / 11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
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?
11:35 a.m.
Former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, As an Individual
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.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Nycole Turmel NDP Hull—Aylmer, QC
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?
11:35 a.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
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—
