Evidence of meeting #41 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 funding.
A video is available from Parliament.
Chief Information Officer, House of Commons
They are mainly recurring costs. We committed to come before the Board of Internal Economy on a yearly basis to submit the necessary costs for the investments in the long-term renovations.
Conservative
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Could you give us some more detailed explanations on the cuts to members of Parliament's pensions, and to the pension plan?
Conservative
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
As I mentioned, that's a result of the statutory changes to the members' pension plan, which saw a significant increase to the proportion that members contribute to their own plan. In terms of the actual breakdown, Mr. Watters has a more actuarial analysis of it.
Chief Financial Officer, House of Commons
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
This follows an assessment made by the Chief Actuary of Canada, who works for Treasury Board. When he analyzed these pension plans, he determined that the contributions could be reduced, in light of the new configuration of the plan and the likelihood of upcoming changes in employee contribution rates—the employees being the members—and those of the employer, that is the House. So this is related to the distribution of contributions.
That decision was also based on other, external factors, such as the average age of members, the estimated rates of return of the plan, and the number of people who have already retired. A lot of factors were considered.
Acting independently, the Chief Actuary of Canada determines the contribution rate of the House as employer. He determined that if appropriate, the contributions would be reduced by $2 million a year, in light of all of these factors as a whole.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you very much.
We'll go to Mr. Lamoureux for seven minutes.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciated your opening remarks, Mr. Speaker. I do have questions related to the estimates. My questions are going to be directed to the oversight of spending in the House of Commons.
First, Mr. Speaker, if you will recall, on March 24 the Leader of the Opposition, in response to a question about NDP mailings, stated, “We checked and double checked with the Speaker before going that route.”
Mr. Speaker, could you indicate who from the NDP checked with you before sending out these mailings?
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, on April 9 of this year, in relation to the NDP satellite offices, the deputy leader of the NDP, the member for Halifax, stated—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
One second, please. We have a point of order from Mr. Scott. I thought we were going to get through it pretty relaxed.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
So did we.
Mr. Chair, I think you may be aware that there was a point of order in the House asking the Speaker to rule on whether or not the motion setting up this committee was in order. I don't believe we received the ruling yet from the Speaker. I think it would be highly inappropriate for the committee to be going into another study under the guise of an estimates study, and that's exactly what Mr. Lamoureux is trying to do. I think it's very obvious.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Lamoureux, try to keep it connected to the estimates.
Mr. Speaker, I'll leave it to you to determine what you feel comfortable answering or not answering.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, it's just dealing with the oversight of spending in the House. The question, Mr. Speaker, was that on April 9 of this year, in relation to the NDP satellite offices, the deputy leader of the NDP, the member for Halifax, stated, “Well, we actually checked this out before we did it. We got approval from the Speaker.”
Mr. Speaker—
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Chair, I appreciate your ruling, and you weren't taking a hard line, but I think you're trying to provide some parameters. Either Mr. Lamoureux's going to be within those parameters or not, and we can repeat that kind of meeting if you want to have that, Chair. We can have that kind of meeting. That's not what we're interested in here. The matter is before the Speaker as to whether or not we're even going to continue in that.
I'm just saying to you, Chair, with the greatest of respect, sir, that if you're going to allow Mr. Lamoureux to go down that line of questioning, that would make it in order if you said so, but if not, we will retaliate in kind and we'll just repeat the kind of meeting we had before, which wasn't the kind of productive meeting that I think we want to have here. I saw the government asking serious questions to the Speaker. We've been asking serious questions. It's up to you, sir, whether we're going to go down this circus road or not.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Lamoureux, please try to keep it to the main estimates and supplementary estimates, if you can, please.
Mr. Speaker, again, it's your comfort zone as to what you can answer and can't answer.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to keep it very simple.
Mr. Speaker, you heard my specific quote. I just want to ask a simple question.
Who from the NDP checked with you in regard to—
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
On a point of order, Chair, we're either going to go down this road or not. You're going to have to be firmer, Chair, one way or the other. Either we're going to rip it wide open, or you're going to rein him in. It's your call. We're ready for both.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
The question has been asked. The Speaker has the option to answer or not, or we can go the other route. I'm trying to keep this related to the estimates and supplementary estimates, and I understand Mr. Lamoureux is walking a pretty thin line here.
Mr. Speaker.
Conservative
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Yes, well, as you mentioned, Mr. Chair, I am here to talk about the estimates and the different reductions, and in a few cases, increases for the House of Commons. I don't know where this line of questioning could end up, so I'll simply say nobody checked with me personally or with anyone in my office.
If you'd like to get back to the subject before us, my sense of the room is that the members would appreciate that. I know I certainly would, because that's what I came here to talk about.
Conservative
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and again, it's just that we're responsible for the oversight of the administration and my questions are, I believe, pertaining to that.
I'll go to Mr. Bosc.
I'm the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North. Can you tell me if, in fact, the rules would allow me to hire employees to be based out of Yukon? I'm thinking in terms of House of Commons employees, not contractors.