Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 24th, 2007

[Audrey O'Brien]

I would say that the discussions are going very well. There is no doubt that if people are coming to talk to you, they are most likely unhappy about something. Having said that, I believe that relations between workers and the House, as an employer, are very good and that the benefits are truly excellent. Indeed, people working here on a part-time basis would like to have the same benefits.

If a competition is held for a position in a restaurant and that position is currently filled by a part-time employee, that employee can take part in the competition. He could be given the job. You have cited the example of someone being laid off because a young person arrives to fill a position. But there is something here that I don't quite understand. Perhaps we could discuss this privately. Sometimes people take part in a competition but do not get the job. That may be the case here, but I can tell you that any competitions that we hold are conducted properly and resolved fairly. I am very confident that this is the case.

As regards health and safety, I think we need to be careful there as well. The Canada Labour Code does not apply here, to the House of Commons, because the House is a parliamentary institution, and thus parliamentary privileges prevail. However, all House of Commons employees are subject to a health and safety policy that was adopted by the Board of Internal Economy. In some cases, where employees have a collective agreement but where their bargaining unit was not willing to adopt that health and safety policy, they retain whatever is already provided for under the collective agreement.

An employee who believes he has been adversely affected can invoke either his collective agreement, or the policy applied at the House of Commons. He really has the best of both worlds. I believe that we take health and safety issues very seriously here.

Of course, Part 3 of the Cabinet and Caucus Employees Act has not been proclaimed, and that is something the unions have been requesting for a very long time.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

In that case, they don't have access to the best of both worlds.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Part 3 has not been proclaimed, but employees have immediate access to the policy now in effect. They are not without protection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

We do have a couple of other....

Mr. Speaker, please.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I would like to comment on the passport issue. This has been raised by members of the Board of Internal Economy. We have held discussions about all of that. It certainly is a problem, but passports are a problem for all Board members. As far as I'm concerned, it is perfectly normal for there to be a lot of applications. In past years, in months when the number of passport applications is very high—I believe that's January, February and March—we received almost 500 of them a month.

This year, on January 2 and 3 alone, we received 183, and things have not let up since. Now there are line-ups next to my office. People come, their applications in hand, and want my assistants to deal with it. We have discussed this, but there is no agreement to change the Standing Orders with respect to the amount available in every MP's budget. Only the normal increase that we have agreed to for this year will apply. I believe the Board sees this as a temporary problem. We are hoping that over the course of the next two years, the problem will be resolved. In order to mitigate the problem, we have encouraged the Department of Foreign Affairs to extend the term of the passport from five to ten years. But you never know. You, too, can encourage the Minister to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci.

We're going to start our third round here with Monsieur Proulx. Did you want to go?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes, sir. I have a very short question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I think we can stay at five minutes, but I'm going to keep it to five minutes this time; we went over.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Ms. O'Brien, you say that when a position becomes available, part-time or seasonal employees can apply. They are free to do so at the same time as anyone else. I am told that, for some positions that were subject to a competition, 200 or 300 people applied. Would it not be possible to give priority to people who are already seasonal or part-time employees, rather than opening up those competitions to the general public? Those people are already part of our family, part of our system.

[Audrey O'Brien]

I know that for some time, that was one of our policies. I will ask the question and note the information I am given in that regard.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

According to my information, that is not the way things are done now. However, it would be a good idea to give those people priority.

[Audrey O'Brien]

I have noted your suggestion.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Owen, would you like the other half?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question of more general application than the specific estimates themselves, but it really goes to the opinion of you and your colleagues as to your effectiveness in being able to execute your responsibilities in the House of Commons in the face of what—as I understand from people who have been here much longer than I—is the deteriorating situation with respect to allegations that can really be classified as nothing other than defamation in the House.

I'm interested in your historical view of the issue of members' privilege, which, as I understand it, is an important privilege that grew out of the need to protect members of Parliament from the both the Crown and the courts, and to provide that space to speak freely and challenge and exchange ideas.

While I understand that if it were not under this privilege, it would be seen to be defaming other members, at least members have a chance to protect themselves and the Speaker has the opportunity to intervene in a number of different ways to try to correct that situation. But of increasing concern to me is the fact that, with CPAC and immediate publication of a defamation—not against another member, where there are some protections, but against any member of the public across Canada—we have a situation under parliamentary privilege that I think is contrary to a fundamental legal principle in our country, that if someone is harmed, there should be a remedy.

I'm wondering, first of all, if you agree there has been some decline in civility or an increase in comments that could be defamatory of people not within Parliament. And perhaps giving consideration to the Parent case as well, which showed some incursion of the courts—not in this way, but in another way—into the activities of MPs and in defining or narrowing the parliamentary privilege, do you feel satisfied you have the tools to do your job, or will the courts perhaps be convinced they have a role to play to protect the necessary remedies of Canadians affected by defamatory comments?

I must say, Mr. Speaker, I did ask this same question of Justice Rothstein during his appearance before the parliamentary committee, before his appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, and he didn't burden me with his opinion on it.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I gave a ruling this morning on this. It was dealing with a point of order raised by a member who alleged that another member had used the Standing Order 31 statement to suggest that someone had done something improper. I ruled that the statement did not in my view violate the principles of the House. In my ruling I cited statements from Mr. Speaker Fraser in Marleau and Monpetit, which indicate that members should not use the names of members of the public in their presentations in the House unless it is in a polite way. I noted in my ruling that in my view the member had not overstepped the line in his quotation. He had quoted a member of the public who had appeared before a committe. The quotation was accurate. He made comments about the organization to which the member of the public had some connection, which were unflattering to that organization. But in my reading of the statement they were not directed at the individual in question, as was alleged in the point of order. So in effect I dismissed the point of order.

I don't think the House has deteriorated particularly in that regard. I don't believe there are more statements that are offensive about members of the public in the House today than there were when I arrived 18 years ago. I think members are relatively guarded in that respect. More of the offensive comments seem to be directed at each other than at members of the public. I haven't had many complaints about comments about members of the public in the House, which members of course are free to raise, as happened in this point of order this morning. I don't think it's a particularly serious aspect of the way the chamber is functioning at the moment.

I have no comment whatsoever on committees. I'm relatively unfamiliar with what transpires in committees. I believe there were allegations in the point of order that something had happened in the committee. Of course it's not for me to make rulings in respect of those matters. I'm unfamiliar with it, because I rarely get to a committee meeting. That's why I enjoy coming here. Of course where there is something that goes wrong, I refer it to this committee. You people can look into it and report it to the House. I appreciate your assistance immensely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Godin, we have a five-minute round for you now. Thank you.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to comment on what Mr. Own said. I would have trouble accepting the idea of this be handled outside of Parliament. I think we have to resolve these issues inside Parliament. I don't wish to offend anyone, but I would find it hard to accept that I was to be judged by judges appointed by the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party for something I allegedly did in Parliament. Parliament is essential political. We are protected by Parliament and we resolve our issues directly in Parliament. There are committees that have their own disciplinary rules and we resolve our issues internally. However, even though we deal with things internally, we deal with them publicly. As a general rule, all of those things are public. When there is a point of order raised in the House of Commons, it is public. I have difficulty imagining someone else—particularly since we are in politics—muzzling us to prevent us from speaking our minds. I believe every member of Parliament takes his responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you have someone removed from the House of Commons because he had not taken his responsibilities, but the Liberals and Conservatives refused. We could have gone that far, but it was not accepted. So, we have to trust you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I guess that was more of a comment.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

It's comments and questions, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's called rhetorical commentary.

I don't have any questioners on my list, so perhaps I could be indulged to simply ask our panel a question.

Under the first section, “Budgets for Members and House Officers”, I see an increase of about $3 million, which I understand from last week is the result of an increase in rental costs, the Bank of Canada's consumer price index, and extra ridings. Then I see as well, under “Salaries”, a salary adjustment for members of the House.

What I want to speak to, and it speaks to the point that Mr. Godin raised about our staff, is that I've been on the Hill now coming up to three years, Mr. Speaker, and I follow all the guidelines that are provided with respect to suggested staff salaries being in the range of 63% to 68% of your MOB, and so on. We're certainly doing that, but I have noticed that there seems to be an increasing discrepancy between what we pay our staff here on the Hill versus the private sector. I know some members can probably comment that they've lost staffers to the private sector because the pay is significantly higher for, in most cases, similar work.

I'm concerned that as the years go by, that discrepancy will increase, and at some point in time it may in fact cost the taxpayers a huge amount of money to simply catch up or to try to catch up to par with the private sector. I just wonder if you could explain how you go about determining what the members need in terms of paying their staff.

It goes to the issue of passports, which I would agree is perhaps a temporary issue, but all of our staff work very, very hard, and it's difficult to pay them. Could you comment as to whether there are any plans in place to try to decrease that growing gap in the short term?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I don't think the plan is to attack the issue from that perspective. We do have difficulties that have been discussed in the board in the past, and indeed, we're proposing to look into some of these matters in the next short while.

Part of the difficulty is that members face different pressures in different places. For example, members in Toronto or Vancouver have to pay rents that are astronomic compared with the rents that many of us in the rest of the country have to pay. So the percentage of their budget that goes to renting an office can be double or triple what it might be in some other parts of the country to have a quite modest office in their own constituency.

Other members have similar difficulties with salaries in constituency offices. Salaries, you expect, might be higher in some parts of the country than they would be in others. We hear about it in the media. The difficulty of hiring people at Tim Hortons or Burger King in northern Alberta is much greater than in Ottawa or Kingston. This makes for a significant difference in the rates of pay expected in different parts of the country.

Those factors are all ones that impinge on members' operating budgets in a significant way and can make for real discrepancies in the amount that members are able to put into salaries, rent, or purchase of other items that their budgets allow them to purchase, because of these differences that exist across the country. As you know, the differences that we make in members' operating budgets are impacted by the size of their riding geographically and the population size of the riding. Supplements are paid for those two factors but really not for anything else. So we don't pay if the rent is higher in a certain place, and we don't pay or deduct if the salaries are higher or lower in a certain place.

We're looking at, really, what the members' operating budget is doing at the moment for members in terms of allowing for engaging of staff, obviously both in Ottawa and elsewhere, because the constituency staff is a very important part of this. Both are being looked at, and I think the board may come up with some recommendations, for a new Parliament, for changing the MOB to a different figure, based on their studies. But we have to do some detailed work on this, and you have to accept the fact that some members pay more in salaries than others.

We have, I believe, ceilings and a base on all of the salaries, and I'm sure those will be reviewed as part of that review, but some members are much closer to the ceiling, I'm sure, than others, and that's just the way it works. Some may have fewer employees than others. Many will employ a bunch of part-time people. The options are there for members to make their own decisions in this within the framework of the budget. But I agree that rents and rates of pay can be significant distortions in the way that members can operate their offices, and the differences or the variables across the country significantly impinge on this, and our process does not reflect the costs of carrying on operations in various parts of the country. At least in Ottawa everyone is the same, but again, some members will hire more people here than in their constituency, and others will hire more in the constituency than here. It's a matter of choice, and it's one that the board does not dictate to MPs, as you know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Just as a final comment on that, and then....

Sorry, I see that we have other questioners. I guess I'm causing a lot of questioning here. I apologize.

Has the board ever considered using a point system for rents, much like we use for travel? Again, it's the same sort of variation. I drive home, and that's a tank of gas. Yet members from British Columbia have to purchase a $3,000 plane ticket. There's the same discrepancy. If the board were to put the rent of a constituency office on a point system, that would free up the money for staff salaries. It's just a suggestion that you might consider.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We noted that rents in British Columbia--we just discovered this the other day--are paid by the legislature and are not part of the member's budget.

So there are options, and the board is looking at these. It's under what I would describe as semi-active consideration at the moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.