Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 29th, 2012

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Page 2 of your presentation.

[Audrey O'Brien]

So you are referring to the increase of $4 million.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Yes. Basically, to what do you attribute that increase? Will it be recurring every year?

[Audrey O'Brien]

No, it will not be recurring every year. Furthermore, there will be reductions resulting from the strategic review that we undertook and that members were told about. That isn't reflected in the main estimates, but it will appear in the supplementary estimates and the main estimates for the next three fiscal years.

I will ask my colleague Mr. Watters to give you more details on that.

[Mark G. Watters]

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair.

As the clerk said, under the supplementary estimates, we will be reducing House budgets in the years ahead, in accordance with the program endorsed by the BIE, the Board of Internal Economy. The program takes into account the estimates over the next three years. Basically, the increases you see here will be more or less cancelled out in the future, by reductions of roughly $30 million a year, and that is as of the third year of program implementation.

So it is accurate to say that there would have been standing year-over-year increases in the neighbourhood of $4 million, but those increases will decrease under the strategic review program conducted at the House.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

And you anticipate $30 million a year for the next three years? Is that right?

[Mark G. Watters]

As of the end of the third year, the reductions will be in the range of $30 million, and that's for each year.

We are giving ourselves three years to put the program in place, and the reductions will gradually amount to $30 million as of the third year.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Do I still have some time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure. We took a little time with the paperwork.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

You talk about sound resource management, which sounds like a good idea. But at the same time, will the resources set out in the main estimates allow House Administration to run as effectively as possible?

[Audrey O'Brien]

I believe so, Mr. Chair.

When it comes to approaching the reductions strategically, we plan to look at methods and practices that may be outdated. For instance, we are interested in using technology in a more strategic way, one that would enable us to provide members with the same level of service or better, without requiring the involvement of further human resources for a transaction.

I would say that the financial portal recently announced by the Speaker in a press release builds on that idea. It's an opportunity to establish similar ways of doing business. I am very hopeful that it will enable us to maintain our strategic approach and reach our objectives, while delivering the reductions promised further to the strategic review.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Merci.

Monsieur Garneau, for five minutes.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't have any questions for the Speaker or the Clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Williamson, here is your time back. Four minutes, please.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Thank you.

I'm curious. You expect savings of $5 million, yet you've requested $1.3 million, if I'm reading that correctly, in additional funding. Why the up before you go down?

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

There have been increased costs, and not every member is on the travel point system up to this point. As I mentioned in my speech, previously there had been surpluses used in other accounts to cover shortfalls. We've gone away from that system, partly because those surpluses in those other accounts aren't there any more. It will go up to reflect the increased costs for the last little bit, and then start to go down as the flight passes are implemented.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Is that something you're planning to make mandatory?

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

Yes.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

What about spouses? They're not currently available for spouses, as I understand it.

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

Right. I'm not sure how the board addressed that, but I think Mark knows a little more about it.

[Mark G. Watters]

The thinking was that the spouses would not be allowed to use the flight passes because the flight passes have to be bought in booklets of ten. Members are responsible if those ten segments are not used. In a way, to protect members from unnecessary expense, it was decided by the BOIE at the time that flight passes would only be applicable to members for regular travel to regular points back and forth between Ottawa and the constituency, because there was a high likelihood that the full ten segments would be able to be used. Spousal travel is sometimes less predictable, and therefore it's probably best if a flight pass would not be purchased for the time being.

We're still definitely open to studying that question further. We're only dipping our toes in the water of flight passes with this initiative. Should utilization prove that the full flight passes could be used, there would be no reason we wouldn't want to extend it to spouses, but for the time being it is restricted to members.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

I would urge you to allow members to opt in if they choose. As you said, they—and not the House of Commons and ultimately not taxpayers—are responsible for them if they are not used. It's one more avenue that could be used to save taxpayers additional money, because there are a lot of young members in the House whose families travel with them frequently.

I have another question. It's geared towards the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if there were a case in which moneys were spent inappropriately and that question were referred to the BOIE and the BOIE agreed with that—if mail, for example, were improperly used—what would be the sanction after that? Would it go back to the House of Commons? How would the BOIE resolve that? Or would it come to this committee?

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

With my short experience on the board—I've been on it for only about a year—I would say that the board looks at each situation and takes appropriate action that it deems necessary in each case.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

And for a new member, what might that be? Educate me.