Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 5th, 2013

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

The next question is if the board were to be replaced by some kind of an arm's-length organization, do you have any idea how something like that might look or function? Also, if you've done any of that kind of work or research, has the House of Commons done any estimates on what it might cost to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an outside body?

[Audrey O'Brien]

I confess we have not costed that out, because it would depend on the composition, the structure, and so on.

It was only in rereading the order of reference today that I saw that it's with a view to substituting for the Board of Internal Economy an independent agency. All I could think of was that God always answers prayers and sometimes the answer is no. I thought to myself, I was going with a no. I don't have a very elaborate alternative, because I didn't think it would fly. I genuinely don't think it's a good idea.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

That's appreciated.

[Audrey O'Brien]

The U.K. model offers some use.

Again, in the case of the U.K., it was act in haste and repent at leisure. The scandal broke just before the election and they were desperate to do something. We've learned a lot from them, but that model does work, ultimately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

I'm sorry to stop you there.

Madam Groguhé.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

You have four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to our witnesses. I have learned a great deal from their information and explanations.

My first question has to do with the powers that the Board of Internal Economy possesses. Do you believe that some of those powers could be taken over by an independent agency, and if so, which powers would they be?

[Audrey O'Brien]

You want to know whether I believe…

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

In terms of the technical and administrative work that the Board of Internal Economy does, do you believe that some of its powers could be taken over by an independent agency? If so, which powers would they be?

[Audrey O'Brien]

An independent agency along the lines of the independent agency in the United Kingdom could certainly be established. We could learn from their mistakes and organize ourselves in that way.

I feel that we still need an authority in charge here, in the House, for the administration and for the parliamentary precinct. I think that is a matter of credibility and of meeting the public's expectations.

But the problem, as I see it, is that we are not doing enough to communicate to the public so that the public understands the way in which decisions are made. The public draws parallels that are not particularly useful. They even have it in their minds that there is not enough control, not enough regulations or standards, but that is not the case at all.

When we met with the people from IPSA, the independent agency in London, I was very happy to learn that the systems for verifying expenses that we have in place here in the House, were every bit as robust as theirs.

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

Board of Internal Economy deliberations most often achieve consensus. But sometimes, they have had to hold a vote. You also mentioned the ability to put off a decision until later, giving time to consider a matter in much more depth.

Has the Board of Internal Economy ever had to turn to expertise from outside, for example, before coming to a consensus or taking a vote? Has that ever happened?

[Audrey O'Brien]

No. Given the clearly unique environment in which we work, the problems that arise are ideological or political. Some people want to see a certain approach and others do not share that point of view. The debate is not about the facts, but rather about the approach. That is what happened in the only case that I can recall where a vote was needed.

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

Okay.

In terms of—

My time is up already, Mr. Chair? That was too quick.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

There are about two seconds left, so I don't think we're going to get that question in.

Next is Mr. Opitz, please, for four minutes.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, all, for being here today. It's been an incredible presentation, incredibly detailed.

[Audrey O'Brien]

You're very kind.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Clerk, you mentioned the rules, standards, and lessons learned from the U.K. model, which itself leads to a communications plan. You're speaking language that I understand from a previous life.

In reference to our board, you referred to communicating with the Canadian public so that they understand fully what the board does. What would your recommendation be for a communications plan to the general public?

[Audrey O'Brien]

I think the board has actually taken measures to address this vulnerability. The problem is that if there are scandals, or if there are problems that make headlines, then there's a contagion there. It spreads like wildfire. The impression of difficulty spreads like wildfire, and that's very bad for the institutions generally speaking.

I think the direction that the board is taking now, putting more and more information on the web in a timely fashion, ready to answer quite specific and substantive questions from the media and from Canadians, is definitely a step in the right direction for communications.

I belaboured the point about what is available on the web because I don't think that's well understood. I think it's the case that people just don't get that.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Certainly that would take some reinforcement.

To go back to something that Mr. Lukiwski asked earlier, as the board of economy is not really a House of Commons committee, would its proceedings be subject to parliamentary privilege if it were public?

[Audrey O'Brien]

No. In the first instance, it's not a standing committee, so it's not obvious that privilege would attach to that. Then you get into the experts discussing parliamentary privilege and the fact that it would attach to it only if it were linked to deliberations of the House.

So certain decisions probably wouldn't be covered by privilege, where others would be. I think this is why, for instance, in the statute, the Parliament of Canada Act, it specifically says that the board is the sole authority.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Right. But anybody appearing in front of it then would be subject to some sort of risk, potentially, from lawsuits or....

[Audrey O'Brien]

I think potentially, yes.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay.

In terms of going in camera, without mentioning specific cases, are there any examples of what the board has considered, and that you could talk about, that couldn't be dealt with in a public forum?

[Audrey O'Brien]

The board has had very detailed explanations of, for instance, certain security instances, of certain security challenges that were met. Other examples would be labour relations cases and the negotiations mandate for collective bargaining. I think those are good examples.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay.

To Mr. Watters, have outside auditors ever been brought in to look at either House of Commons spending or spending by the House of Commons administration?