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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

What about the idea that we virtually put it into law that the Board of Internal Economy has to meet in public, with some possible exceptions—there might be issues related to security or staff responsibilities, but with odd exceptions—and maybe even require unanimous consent of all the members?

How would you respond to that?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

That makes sense. That sounds like what Mr. Walsh was suggesting to the committee: having two subcommittees, I believe it was for finance and for administration. They could then deliberate outside of those doors and come back.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

But what we would be seeing here is that the Board of Internal Economy would be meeting in public. It would always be open to the public to participate. What Mr. Walsh was referring to, and I'm definitely open to the idea with respect to the Board of Internal Economy, is that it meet in public, almost without exception. It would almost be the law of the land that it would be meeting in public.

But then Mr. Walsh brings in a new idea: that we might establish a subcommittee. That subcommittee might deal with those issues it had to deal with—examples might be security or personnel issues—but then would report back to the Board of Internal Economy or whatever that other group might be, and the discussion would continue before it could be ultimately passed or accepted, but it would occur in public.

What do you think of that?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

That makes sense to me. If you have conversations that are going to be in camera anyway at the subcommittee level, then let it happen. Then to bring those to a public forum, or rather a publicly accessible committee, makes total sense.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'm not sure how long you've been a journalist. One issue for me for many years, and I've raised it with Speaker Milliken, is the issue of pay and pensions. There's the expectation or public perception that politicians should not be directly or indirectly setting their pay and pension.

In Manitoba they have established a commission. Do you have any thoughts regarding that issue, or could you provide some thoughts on it?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

I'm not sure I can comment on behalf of the CAJ about the direction of pay and subsidies.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

What about providing your personal opinion, if you're comfortable in doing that?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

Sure.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Do you feel it is appropriate that money, whether it's the Minister of Finance or the Board of Internal Economy involved, be shuffled between the two of them? Is this something that's appropriate at this level, or should it be done independently—much as occurs in the case of Elections Canada with the boundaries redistribution, for example?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

As my personal opinion, I'm not sure there's a public outcry right now about how politicians set their salaries. Every time a legislative chamber increases salaries, of course, it is a news story for a few days, but I'm not sure there's any public movement to change that system.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have one minute.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

With the idea of proactive disclosure, we're saying that Canadians have a right to know where you're flying from and to, and that you should be listing how much you've paid and your hospitality expenses and so forth, and that we're putting it on the Internet. Is this something that you think all parties should have to do eventually ?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

I think it makes total sense to do that. Of course, as I've said, the more detailed the better. The more the public understands exactly how its money is being spent, the better the understanding and the better it is for Parliament.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Should we have to wait until the law or regulation is changed to do that, or do you think we should be able to do it on our own?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

I don't think anybody should wait to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you very much.

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

Mr. Butt, you have four minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here tonight.

One of the things we're seized with as a committee is looking at making recommendations. If we do actually recommend to replace the BOIE with something else, do you have a preference? Do you think that whatever might replace it is better or worse if we maintain the membership of elected members of Parliament, rather than independent people from the public who might be appointed by some agency—the Parliament of Canada, or whatever?

Is there a value in having MPs on the Board of Internal Economy? At the end of the day, we as elected members of Parliament are directly responsible for these expenditures and for the way the House of Commons works. Do you have a preference as to whether these be independent individuals or continue to be elected members of Parliament?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

Our concern is less with the composition of the board and more with the way the board deliberates—whether it's in private or in public.

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

Is the main concern of journalists and reporters the lack of detail in the expenses? We can all do what Mr. Julian does, which is take last year's report, which the House of Commons has already produced, and upload it on his website. It's not real-time data; it's not what he spent money on last week. It's last year's report.

Are you folks looking for more real-time, direct...? For example, when I flew from Ottawa to Toronto this week, do you want to see the cost of that on a website somewhere in real time? Is that the greater level of transparency that journalists and reporters are looking for? Or are you satisfied with what we're seeing now, which is that the expenses are being reported? There's a time lag, and it could be of a month or two months or even, in the case of the member's annual expenses after they've been done, several months after, for the previous fiscal year. What kind of transparency improvements are you looking for around individual MPs' expenses in real time?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

Real time would be unbelievable. I suspect that would be quite a change to implement.

Having said that, I don't think it's any journalist's expectation.... I'm inadvertently speaking on behalf of a lot of people I haven't spoken to specifically about this, but I would suspect that many journalists don't mind the current system whereby there is quarterly reporting, because the point is that it be within a reasonable amount of time that these things are being reported. It's more about the detail of the expense, not the frequency of the reporting.

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

My last question is about in camera aspects. You would agree that there are certain items that have to be discussed in camera: a legal matter, a personnel issue, something that is extremely sensitive. As I understand it, and I'm not on the Board of Internal Economy so I don't know this specifically—I've read some of the minutes of the meetings—there are often many issues at these meetings that are very sensitive and that have to be in camera.

I know your line was that it's better to be open, but it sounds to me as though many of the items dealt with at the Board of Internal Economy, regardless of what changes are brought forward, are still going to have to be in camera. They are sensitive personnel matters, and legal issues are involved. It's great to say that you want maximum transparency, and I think we all want to see as much transparency as possible, but there are some fiduciary responsibilities in that “in camera” definition, and the Board of Internal Economy is the one committee of the House of Commons that deals with those very sensitive matters.

You're not suggesting that we throw those wide open or throw caucus meetings open to the media and the press as well. I assume you would respect the fact that some items have to be dealt with and maintained in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Butt, and we hope we get an answer to that at some point.

Mr. Christopherson, you have four minutes, please.