Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 20th, 2013

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

Absolutely. As it stands, the public can read the minutes, as sparse as they may be, and see those decisions. You'd think it would be useful if they could hear the deliberations.

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

Would it be helpful if more detailed...I wouldn't say transcripts of all discussions, but if more detailed minutes were provided? For example, you know as well as I do that you only have so many column inches, and I would find it very difficult to believe that even if the meetings were made public there would be almost a verbatim transcript of all of the discussions that went on. There would be some editorializing, I'm sure. There would be some compactness of reporting. So I'm really not sure we would get to the point where the public would be better informed just by hearing how individuals perhaps got to a consensus, and then the decision, than they are better served now by just seeing what the decision is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

We'll all have to get better informed during the next round of questioning by Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Taylor-Vaisey, for being here today.

I just wanted to mention the good work of the Canadian Association of Journalists. Recently the Canadian Association of Journalists granted the Code of Silence Award to the Conservative government, and I want to quote association president Hugo Rodrigues, who said that the Harper government was the overwhelming choice of the CAJ's 600 members across the country. He said, “The death grip on information has long frustrated journalists in this country, but it may now be reaching a point where the public at large is not only empathetic, but shares it.”

I'm going to ask a series of questions. The first is, do you feel that the public has a greater and greater concern about the secrecy of the current government and, by extension, of course, the secrecy around the Board of Internal Economy decisions?

Secondly, we now have on the other side, on the side of good, the Auditor General, who this week said very clearly that his preference was that there be an independent body “given the responsibility for all matters related to members' expenses and entitlements”. He said, “...it is important that Canadians are confident that its membership is independent and that the members have been chosen in a non-partisan manner.”

You have two examples, of course. The Code of Silence Award is on one side. On the other side, you have the Auditor General very clearly expressing his preference for an independent body.

Very specifically, then, do you think the public shares that increasing concern around secrecy, whether it's the general government direction or MPs' expenses? And do you not feel it would be important to have independent oversight, like the Auditor General has so clearly stated as his preference?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

I'm not sure I can say something like the public is more concerned now than ever about transparency. I think the public has always been concerned about transparency. There are issues with every government. Right now there are issues this current government is facing that people like me are reporting.

So there's a sense, because people have generally short memories...no offence to human beings, but we sort of do. Right now the Harper government, in some people's eyes, is an object of concern, and is the worst ever, or something, but I wouldn't feel comfortable confirming that myself.

I think independent oversight is never a bad thing.

Perhaps you could repeat that question.

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

The Auditor General said it's important that Canadians are confident that the membership of the oversight body be independent and the members are chosen in a non-partisan manner. He gave two options, but we questioned him, and he said his preference was to have independent oversight. This is a body given responsibility for all matters related to members' expenses and entitlement—so no more self-policing. What would be established is an independent body, the Auditor General having enormous credibility with the public in this regard. I think that's something this committee obviously will have to follow very strictly.

Do you not feel that is the type of approach that needs to be taken for credibility?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

I'd rather not comment on whether or not an independent body or independent oversight is more or less appropriate. That's not really my expertise either.

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

Okay.

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

I'm a journalist who doesn't like to take opinions, I guess, but I would say if there is a forum or an approach to that forum that allows for comfortable non-partisanship, if we can call it that, where people are comfortable not being partisan, then that's the kind of thing a journalist would love to see, because it would mean if it leads to an open meeting, we could attend that meeting.

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

Absolutely.

Can you spell out to us what measures you feel would enhance accessibility to MPs' expenses, so we're establishing that public trust and confidence the Auditor General has very clearly stated needs to happen?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

Measures that would make sense to....

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

Measures that enhance accessibility to MPs' expenses. We talked about independent oversight, of course, but what about other measures that you think would enhance that accessibility to MPs' expenses?

I'll give you an example. Every one of our members of the NDP caucus has a direct link from our website that people access locally, because that's the website they get in their materials, their community bulletins, ten percenters, neighbourhood bulletins, so they can go on to directly access MPs' expenses. We've been pushing, of course, at a variety of levels to enhance the transparency and accessibility of expenses.

Are there other measures that you think need to be taken?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

The members' expenditure reports currently online I think are useful. Obviously, there is a certain level of detail there that either me writing a story or my neighbour who is curious about their MP can access. I think the more detailed it is, the better.

There's some criticism or concern about disclosing too much—for example, disclosing a pack of gum that's been expensed. That can lead to embarrassing stories that are characterized as “gotcha” journalism. To be fair, I think there are unfair stories that can be written about things that are expensed.

Again, I would repeat my original statement that I think the public is the judge of how much disclosure is too much.

I think the answer to your question is that in an online form, as much disclosure as possible of MPs' expenses is ideal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have one minute.

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

When we talk about accessibility, so that the public can actually access it.... I've been posting my expenses for seven years. Constituents in Burnaby—New Westminster, as in all the 100-odd ridings of the NDP, can go directly on their MP's website and access the expenses. We've been pushing for more transparency, and doing it in a way that we're not comparing apples to oranges or having selective partial disclosure, but having expenses that everyone can access and that people can compare.

From a constituent standpoint, I know that every year as expenses come out, my constituents ask me questions. We're pushing now for quarterly reports, and that's going to start happening early in the new year, which is good. Those are all issues around accessibility that are important.

My question then is, that type of accessibility, going beyond journalists, actually allowing constituents to access those expenses, is fundamentally important, is it not?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

Sure it is. Absolutely. Something being easily—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

What's fundamentally important is that we're going to Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find it very interesting, the NDP pushing for more transparency and accountability. I hadn't witnessed that first-hand when we asked for the New Democrats to participate in proactive disclosure. I'll continue to hold my breath. Maybe that might be one of the first things on the agenda, whatever that new body might be, because of the hesitation and reluctance of the NDP to get involved in more proactive disclosure.

I do have a few specific questions I would like to ask.

Do you think it would be in the public's best interest if we actually had performance audits conducted on a regular basis? By regular, I mean every three years we would actually have performance audits conducted on MPs and how they're spending the money, done by the Auditor General.

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

Absolutely.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

What about the idea that we look at the Auditor General looking at ways in which they can provide more detailed audits on how those tax dollars are being spent? Is that something else you would support?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

Yes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I understand you make reference to the rule versus the exception. There is this other independent body, IPSA, on the other side of the ocean. In your opinion, is there a difference if it's IPSA in camera versus the current system in camera?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

I'm not overly familiar with the IPSA system.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

But in principle, if we change the system so that it's not a group of individuals on the Hill going in camera, it's some other group that does its meetings in camera, are they both problematic in your opinion?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

I think they are both problematic. If their approach is to go in camera first by default, using basically the same set of rules, then I'm not sure it matters who's behind those doors. The point is that the public is not welcome.