Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 19th, 2013

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Ferguson, for coming and also for your brief. Along with your remarks the brief is very helpful. It's essentially in accord with the NDP's motion to replace the Board of Internal Economy with some form of independent body, but also to draw from comparative experience on the whole transparency front and address the question of how we go about providing adequate disclosure of MPs' expenses.

The Scottish and the Alberta models are mentioned specifically in your brief, and they're both of great interest to us. As I understand them, they go much further than the much vaunted, proactive efforts of one of the parties around this table, well beyond hospitality and travel, and they include supporting documentation. Have you had a chance to look at the Alberta system, which you don't directly recommend but you suggest we look at closely? Would you recommend that as a system that would work here?

[Michael Ferguson]

We haven't gone into either one of them in any detail. What we did as part of preparation for this meeting was look to see what's going on in other areas. We identified those two as areas that we think would be of interest to the committee to look at further, but I can't give you enough detail on it to really go any further.

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

What I would note is that it does include full supporting documentation, if I'm correct. That's something we would want to look at, which slides me quickly into the second question.

I'm very concerned that whatever system is put in place and is applicable to all MPs have adequate support. You've emphasized that as well. My question is simply this: would the Auditor General's office be in a position to assist in figuring out what the adequate levels would be compared to what we have now by way of House support? It would have to be much greater than what we have at the moment, I would assume.

[Michael Ferguson]

Mr. Chair, in that type of situation, we always have to balance off being in a situation where we come in to audit a process that we have recommended be put in place. We certainly would be willing to answer some questions and provide some things that we think need to be considered, but anything that we do would have to be within the way that we do our normal work.

For example, we wouldn't be able to come in as a consultant and say, okay, here's the actual process that needs to be put in place, and then have to come along later to do an audit of whether or not the process is adequate. We'd have to make sure that we can maintain that independence.

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

Do we have a minute? Mr. Christopherson will ask a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Great.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

One minute? Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Ferguson, it's good to be with you in a different circumstance.

I have two quick things, Chair.

One is that I think it's pretty clear, at least from the Auditor General—please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your comments—that his comments very much underscore the idea of an independent body, that we need to keep going in that direction. I'm not seeing anything or hearing from anybody who is saying that we don't need to or that it's a bad idea. To hear that from our Auditor General I think is the greatest endorsement you could have.

The last thing I want to mention, Chair, in my own right as chair of the public accounts committee, which is responsible for all of the audits, working with the Auditor General on the audits that are done, is that these audits are things for the Canadian people. This has nothing to do, really, with internal government per se, and therefore in no way should we nickel or dime the Auditor General's budget. Whatever work we're asking his office to do beyond what he's currently doing, given the importance of the work he does and this, there should clearly be a top-up—separate money—for that.

We're probably talking, I don't know.... I won't throw out a number, but it will be a lot smaller than most items we deal with. But given its importance, I urge this committee not to consider asking the AG to do more with less. If we want them to do more, let's make sure they have the money to do it.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson. You will get more time in just a couple of rounds.

Mr. Richards, please, for four minutes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

This is an important topic we're discussing today, no question. Obviously transparency and accountability are very important topics. That's why we as a Conservative government have chosen to voluntarily disclose some of our expenses. Give credit to the Liberal Party for that as well. It's unfortunate that not all parties have followed that lead, but certainly it is important that we do look at this.

Having said that, I have some information here from when we heard from the clerk, Audrey O'Brien, about the current system. I just want to just go through that.

You talked about the 98.5% compliance that you saw. I know you've had a number of questions about this already, and have certainly indicated that it seems to compare quite favourably with other corporate audits or those kind of things that you've been a part of.

Having said that, Ms. O'Brien indicated to us that 21 staff are involved now in adjudicating members' expense claims, which seems to be a significant amount of resources put towards that to ensure it's done right and done thoroughly. She indicated that there were about 70,000 member payments on average in the fiscal year, and that in an average year, they also received about 20,000 calls or e-mails from members' offices. It obviously indicates there is a concerted effort on the part of members, or I'm sure at least the vast majority of members, to ensure that they're complying and that they're being thorough and doing a good job of reporting the expenses as they should be reported.

She also indicated that 4,365 regret letters were sent on average in a year to members advising about some modification that was made to an amount claimed, which obviously indicates they're doing a pretty thorough job of examining those claims.

I'll use myself as an example. Certainly we are very diligent. I have a great staff member who has a lot experience on the Hill who's very helpful in making sure my claims are done right. Of course, I'm also accused by my staff of being a bit of a micro-manager. I always ensure that I've combed through them thoroughly myself as well.

One thing I will admit is that my signature is fairly erratic, and it doesn't often look the same from one day to the next. A number of times they've come back and questioned the signature to verify that it was in fact mine. Clearly that tells me they are looking quite thoroughly at these documents, and that's a really good thing to know. It gives me comfort, certainly, to know that the job is being done as thoroughly as it is.

Let me use one other example from my own experience. I recall that one time an item that had cost $20 or $25—I can't remember the exact amount—had been purchased as a gift for an official visit I was making to a first nation. I guess the receipt that accompanied it didn't give sufficient detail from the store it was purchased from on what exactly it was, so that was brought back to me.

Now, I'm assuming that probably in many instances, among the 4,365 letters, it would be something of that nature. I'm wondering, from your look at things.... You mentioned the 98.5%. So in that 1.5%, would it have generally been that kind of thing? You indicated insufficient documentation and that kind of thing. I'm assuming you wouldn't have discovered anything that would be of the magnitude of some of the things we've seen in the Senate.

I guess the first question is—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Richards. You've taken your four minutes with your story.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

It was a good story.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're all going to sit on pins and needles, hoping we can get that answer back.

Mr. Lukiwski, maybe you want to help Mr. Richards and see if you can get an answer to his question.

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

As I've said a number of times on this committee, I would have been able to follow up except that I wasn't listening. No, I'm just kidding.

With all due respect to Blake, I have a different series of questions, or a different view, anyway.

Going back once again to my last line of questioning, the purpose of this is to try to find out whether or not we need to replace the BOIE, and that's really why we're here.

The NDP is taking the view that we do need to. You've certainly made recommendations that we need at least some other independent body, whether it is to advise the BOIE or to replace the BOIE, that there needs to be an independent function. I can only surmise that you are saying that in your view, the BOIE, for whatever reasons, does not fulfill the functions of either transparency—and probably that's the priority you're talking about—or accountability in good governance. Otherwise, why would you think the BOIE, as we now know it, should be replaced?

We've certainly heard examples. Mr. Richards was talking about how some of his claims were rejected because the administration couldn't determine whether or not it was actually his signature. I—and I think every MP at this table—could give examples where I've made claims that have come back to for further information or clarification, which again, as Mr. Richards points out, gives me confidence that the people who are examining our expense claims are doing their job and they're doing it well. Yet you're saying that in your view, the BOIE should be either replaced or strengthened.

I'd just like to get comments from you as to, in an overarching view, why you think that's important. Is it that you just don't have enough confidence in the BOIE, or is it just not transparent enough for your purposes?

[Michael Ferguson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We certainly have not done an audit of the functioning of the board, and we haven't said that the board needs to be replaced. We have indicated that we think there would be a role for an independent organization to augment the process as it is right now, and that independent board could either have some authority or it could be advisory.

We don't dispute that there are very diligent people working in the administration of the House of Commons, processing claims. We agree with that. We understand they're dedicated people and they're working very hard at the jobs they do.

But again, for us this issue.... What we're doing is looking at governance structures in other places, and we're asking whether there are some good practices out there that should be considered by the committee. Whether you look at other government jurisdictions or at the private sector, we think that having a role for some sort of an audit committee, and a committee that has some independence, would be a way to help strengthen Canadians' confidence in the way members' expenses are being processed. That's really what we think the committee should be considering, whether there are ways to really enhance that confidence.

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

Just to be clear—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

If you can be clear in 10 seconds, do it.

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

—you're not advocating a replacement of the BOIE, just a strengthening of the system around it.

[Michael Ferguson]

We haven't said one way or another to replace the board or not replace it. Certainly, the functions of the board have to be done by somebody. How the board would interact with this independent committee is something that would have to be considered.

We think some form of independence would be the important thing that needs to be added to the process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Christopherson, you will finish us off with just slightly less than four minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate that.

Thank you again, Mr. Ferguson, for your answers.

Just to pick up on the discussion that you were having, I think it's still fair to say that all the examples you've given in here—unless I've misread them—are actually examples of arm's-length independent agencies. I saw nothing in here that was a kind of beefed-up BOIE, but more what you've referenced. By that I mean—we've talked about Alberta, although you don't reference it here—the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia, which each have independent mandates, different from the BOIE, so that it's not MPs telling the country, “Okay, every MP's expenses are okay.” It's other people, arm's length from us, saying, “Yes, they're okay. These are the rules.”

I would just ask you to comment on that.

[Michael Ferguson]

Certainly in the paper we provided the committee there are examples of those independent bodies. There are other examples as well, perhaps Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, where a couple of independent members have been added within the existing system. So there are both models out there.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You're really okay with both? You think they're both the same?

[Michael Ferguson]

Again, I think what we're saying is that there needs to be independence, both from the audit perspective and from the internal audit committee type of perspective. Whether that is advisory or it's authoritative, again, really, we can't make that decision, obviously. But what we feel is important, again for this committee, is that it's really about what people outside of this room think. As I've said, it's not just the reasonable person per se, but whether the reasonable person looking at it with skepticism thinks that any changes you put in place have gone far enough. That's what we're bringing forward.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Fair enough.

I would just say that in responding to the rightful demand of the public to have more confidence, it's not going to come from our just painting up the existing system—and it's my opinion and I'm not looking for you to comment. But it really does need to be that independent body.

Take a look at Great Britain. That's the best example of scandals that exist. They had a bigger problem than we do or did, and look where they went to solve it. I'm perplexed why we would think about going to anything less than, and I think it's going to leave Canadians perplexed. At the end of this process, if Canadians still don't think there's a process that holds us adequately to account, we have failed. It seems to me that we ought not be tinkering but go with the idea that we need a new, separate structure, find out which model works best or whether we should have a “Made in Canada” hybrid model that suits our particular needs.

But I have to tell you, folks, this notion of doing anything that leaves the BOIE intact vis-à-vis MPs' expenses and our accountability is not going to fly. I hope that's not where the government's thinking of going with its majority, to drive us into that. That train's left the station and people expect us to be setting the same standard of accountability for ourselves that we set at the public accounts committee through the Auditor General for everybody else in government.

Now will there still be some things that could remain in the BOIE's purview? That could very well be. I used to sit on the BOIE at Queen's Park and not everything is related to members' expenses. There are other matters that go there. There may still be a BOIE performing some functions. But the notion that they in any way, shape, or form would do the auditing and accountability function of what we're talking about here to me is going to leave Canadians saying, “You're still not doing what we need, and you're still not transparent enough”, in which case we will have blown all of this time.