Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 8th, 2012

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

My final question is regarding the $1.3 million increase for the travel points system.

This week I looked at my travel and saw it had dropped by about almost 20% because of the election. I'm just wondering why there would be an increase, because a large number of MPs would have had a decrease in the number of points they used.

[Audrey O'Brien]

We hadn't sought an increase in the actual....

We fund the travel for MPs on an actual basis and we've been cash-managing that now for a good number of years. The kinds of increases that have occurred because of taxes and surtaxes for fuels and this, that, and the other thing haven't been in our base budget. With the new crop of MPs, we realized that we were not going to be able to continue to cash-manage it, so we've asked for a top-up to the travel budget in order to be able to pay for the various increases that have happened over the years.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Again I go to the point that this year, April-May of 2011, would have seen a dramatic decrease in the cost. The travel points system would have had hardly any demand for those two months. I would have thought that such a drop in demand would have more than offset any increase in cost for some of the other points, such as fuel, surcharges, or whatever else.

[Audrey O'Brien]

I don't think I'm quite following your logic there.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Because of the election, we were simply not travelling. We weren't using travel points for almost two months.

[Audrey O'Brien]

I realize that, but that doesn't change the fact that the base budget for the travel points was underfunded. We did not have the moneys required to pay for what the travel cost.

Perhaps I can ask Mark Watters, the chief financial officer, to come to the table and—

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'm just having a hard time, Madame Clerk, because—

[Audrey O'Brien]

I realize that in an election year travel costs were lower than usual, but we're trying to address a chronic underfunding.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

But the overfunding because of the actual usage was, at least in my personal example, 20%. I used 20% fewer miles this year than I did in previous years. I would have thought that would have been more than enough to offset these other costs.

Mark, would you comment?

[Mark G. Watters, Chief Financial Officer, House of Commons]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think it could be that what the member is expressing is an isolated case.

When we accumulate all the costs for all the members in the House, we find that the budget has remained static since at least 2009-10, which was the last time we topped up the travel budget. It was established at about $21.3 million, and we had been spending in the neighbourhood of $22.6 million for some time.

As the Clerk was explaining, when there was room in other budgets to be able to supplement the travel budget to pay for it, then we did so, but we've exhausted the capacity to do that, so we've had to ask for a top-up of $1.3 million in travel to align that budget with what we're actually spending, the $22.6 million.

It does not reflect the funding for the entire point system, but because it's a statutory item, it's always topped up to the amount we actually spend in a particular year. We've now adjusted so that it's based on the most recent spending pattern. If members were, on average, to use more points going forward, we'd be back here again asking for more money as well, because it's always reset to what we actually spend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Monsieur Garneau, go ahead, please, for seven minutes.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

I thank the Speaker and the Clerk for a very thorough presentation.

Being a new MP, I don't feel this uncontrollable urge to fill my seven minutes, so I'll pass it back to you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Would anybody on that side like four minutes' time?

Go ahead, Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Sure.

Again I join with all my colleagues in thanking you for being here—particularly Speaker Scheer, since this is your first appearance, I believe, before this committee.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I haven't been in a committee in any capacity since 2005.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Then welcome.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I noticed that wasn't in your campaign letter.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I'll ask more of a general question, then.

You're new to this committee. You're also obviously new to the Chair, so my first question would be more of a general one: does anything about the overseeing of the House administration surprise you? Are there things you're seeing now for the first time that you were unprepared for, and subsequent to that, are there things in the brief period of time that you have been in the chair that you would be looking to change or improve?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

The biggest thing, I think, that maybe most people, including members, don't realize is that the House of Commons has to interact with several other government bodies, whether it's the RCMP providing security or the National Capital Commission for things around or Public Works for the physical things, so there's a myriad of layers that are not always so straightforward when you're dealing with something.

In terms of changing things, a few months after I was elected Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy was invited to participate in the strategic operating review. We are going through it very thoroughly at the board level, and I think all members are looking for ways to do things more efficiently on the Hill. I don't have an answer for you yet on those types of things, because decisions haven't been made, but there are certainly a lot of things that the Clerk's team, including me, is going through to make sure we are making very good use of taxpayers' money. We are looking to make sure that we're doing things in the most efficient way possible while still providing a high level of service to members so that they can carry out their duties in the manner they've become accustomed to.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I can see where there would be a couple follow-ups, but I think some of my colleagues also indicated they might have a question, so I'll cede my time to my colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Hawn will be first, and then we'll have Mr. Zimmer.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

You mentioned security, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that always struck me and I don't know how many others is that we have a multiplicity of police forces on the Hill. What's your view, and are we going to get serious about rationalizing that down to perhaps one?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I think it would certainly make sense to do those types of things. We have partners we have to work with on the Senate side, as well as the RCMP, to make sure the goal of providing all members with a safe and secure place is maintained. As well, there are the unique security concerns of various high-level officials.

Discussions are constantly.... It's also part of the long-term vision and planning aspect. There are many aspects to that type of thing, both for the physical buildings as well as for security.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I understand the requirement for the RCMP, but I don't see any requirement for having a separate force for one end of the building and a separate force for the other end of the building. That makes no sense to me.