Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 18th, 2014

[Marc Bosc]

Mr. Lamoureux, we're sort of uncomfortable answering hypothetical types of questions of that sort, because we don't have the context within the overall picture. Normally if there were a concern about a particular piece of communication, we would have it, look at it, assess it as a whole, and make a recommendation to the board if there were an issue that had been brought to the board's attention.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I think one of the things to recognize is that, as a committee, we're trying to come up with some ideas and suggestions in terms of how we might be able to fix the system, and part of that maybe deals with information that the professional civil servants actually brought forward to the Board of Internal Economy so that they could get a better understanding and appreciation of what had taken place.

Can you give any indication regarding what it would take for this particular committee to gain access to and use the information that the Board of Internal Economy would have used in making that final decision? Would the unanimous support of the Board of Internal Economy suffice for them to be able to release the study you conducted?

[Marc Bosc]

As we've said before, Mr. Lamoureux, this is the kind of request that would go to the board, and the board would have to consider it and decide whether or not it approved it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The board would have the authority then to say that we would like the PROC committee to have and use for its study.... That wouldn't be a problem then as long as you had—

[Marc Bosc]

It would be up to the board.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

The board has two spokespeople who will speak on behalf of the board. If this committee wanted to call them to come and answer the committee's questions, would doing so require the Board of Internal Economy's approval?

[Marc Bosc]

They obviously would have to respect their oath, but, at the same time, they are members of Parliament so they could be invited, but they couldn't be compelled.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Right. Are there things the Board of Internal Economy could do that would enable those spokespeople to be very frank and open as to the discussions that had taken place, or are there restrictions that would prevent them from doing that?

[Richard Denis]

Again, the board discussions are confidential, Mr. Lamoureux, and it would be up to them, essentially, to decide or to agree on what they would be prepared to share, but typically, board spokespersons are authorized to say certain things by the board itself.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

You made reference earlier to the improper use of House of Commons resources. I cited a statement from November 27 regarding allegations that a former Bloc leader made improper use of House of Commons resources.

Actually a complete revision of the bylaws was done beginning in August 2010. It was approved on November 21, and then on December 5, 2011, it came into force. Actually that was on April 1, 2012. As part of the review, the definition of parliamentary functions was clarified, and political parties in electoral activities are now clearly excluded.

Again, I would look to you, Mr. Denis, or to others who might be able to provide a summary of the actual changes that came into force on April 1. I know that earlier you made reference that maybe Mr. Watters might want to add something to it.

[Richard Denis]

You are testing my memory, because in my office I have this beautiful table comparing the old definition of parliamentary functions with the new one. I would be more than happy to share with the committee that table of the old provisions and the new ones.

The exercise was mostly a modernization, but there were some provisions that were clarified. For example, subsection 4(3), which specifies what is not a parliamentary function, is kind of a clarification of the old rules.

I'm more than prepared to provide that to the committee so that you have that information, if that would help.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, I think that would be very beneficial.

If my memory serves me correctly, you cannot ask for membership and you cannot ask for donations. These are some of the very basic requirements that would be disallowed.

[Richard Denis]

Mr. Chair, thanks to Mr. Watters, who is very organized, I actually have a deck that explains what was new in the revised bylaws that came into force April 1, 2012. I can quickly quote from it:

Main changes found in the revised Members By-law: 1. Clarification of the definition of “parliamentary functions” 2. Change in the definition of “immediate family”—impact on existing contracts or employment relationships with brothers and sisters 3. Clarification of the use of the mandatory form for contracts for professional services 4. Clarification of the rules that apply to the different types of contracts 5. Employees of House Officers or Members cannot be the landlord of any Member—either for their constituency office leases or for their secondary residences 6. Travel section [totally] reorganized and policy details now only appear in the MAS 7. The employee is on “travel status” when he/she is more than 100 km from his/her normal place of work—(formerly the personal residence) 8. 1/2 per diem on the date of travel will apply since the current application is not in accordance with the Board's policies 9. The person who is responsible for the NCRO is not necessarily a House Officer 10. The clarification of the rules of House Officers as distinct from Members and [National Caucus Research Office] 11. No transfer of funds between recognized party budgets, including the [National Caucus Research] budget, House Officers budgets and Members budgets 12. Clarification as it relates to the dissolution of Parliament 13. Clarification that family members of Members may not use the resources provided to the Member

A series of issues were clarified. Some have been changed since then, in fact, through different decisions of the board.

To do a better job, I could probably provide something clearer to the committee so that you have something to look at in terms of what was before and after April 1, 2012.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

We'll go to Mr. Butt. You have four minutes, please and thank you.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here tonight.

I remember fairly accurately how, when I first got elected in May of 2011 and came to Ottawa, I had an orientation session with a number of your staff from different divisions. They were very tough. They read me the riot act on being personally responsible and personally liable, financially and otherwise, for any activities that took place in my role as a member of Parliament.

I'm assuming that orientation is done for all members of Parliament in all parties, whether elected the first time in a general election or subsequently in a by-election. You do consistently sit down with every single new member of Parliament, do a full orientation, and explain all of these rules on personal liability for their office budgets and any activities that take place. You do that for every MP. Is that not correct?

[Marc Bosc]

That's correct.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

As an example, we are responsible for our franking privileges. We are liable and responsible for whatever it is we're mailing out to our constituents or in any other role that we have as an MP. Whether we're a government MP or an opposition MP, I don't think it matters; we're all parliamentarians and we're all treated equally under the system.

Let's say, as an example, I said to a group who wanted to do a mass mailing, “Here are five boxes, and here are 2,000 or 3,000 franked envelopes with my name on it.” Then let's say I gave it to a third party, perhaps to my own political party, and said to them, “You can use these envelopes and you can mail out whatever you want under those envelopes, because I'm a member of the team and I want to be a good member of the team.”

If I were to do that, hand over those envelopes to a third party, my political party, my research group, and say, “You mail out whatever you want in my franked envelopes”, am I not still responsible for whatever is sent in those franked envelopes?

[Marc Bosc]

Mr. Butt, I'll answer in a general way, and then Richard can be more specific.

In the bylaws, in part 1 of the general provisions, subsection 4(4) says—and this is the bylaw that has reference to the use of House of Commons resources—“Members shall ensure that the requirements set out in subsection (1) are met.” So the member is personally responsible. This includes activities by staff.

Mr. Denis, do you want to answer the question as well?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

On a point of order, could you say again which section we are talking about?

[Marc Bosc]

It's in part 1 of the general provisions, section 4.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

If Monsieur Denis wants to answer as well, that's fine.

[Richard Denis]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to complete my answer, in the MAS you find, in the section regarding large-volume printing, that it specifically says:

Since the House Administration is the sole provider of large-volume printed materials for Members, any printed materials produced, in whole or in part, directly in Members’ offices or by external suppliers exceeding 4,500 copies will not be processed or assembled by the House Administration.

That's your restriction.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

As a supplementary question to that, if I were to do a mailing out of my office, regardless of what the content material was, if I were to send a flyer out to my constituents or elsewhere using my franking privileges, and there was a line at the bottom of the flyer that said the flyer had been paid for and authorized by the CFO for my political party, I shouldn't be able to mail that. That's something the party has certified, not Parliament. That's not part of my role as an MP.

So if I'm mailing stuff out using my franking privileges, any flyer, and it has any reference to it being paid for or approved by the political party I happen to represent, is that not a violation of the rules?

[Marc Bosc]

It certainly sounds like it might be, but again as I said to Mr. Lamoureux earlier, dealing with these kinds of issues in a hypothetical sense is always a little delicate. We always like to see exactly what we're talking about and do a proper analysis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Butt.