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

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

Thank you very much for your attendance today.

I'm going to start with another quote from the Auditor General, from yesterday. He said:

In particular, we noted that members of Parliament hold positions of trust and have responsibilities to their specific constituents and to Canadians in general that are considerable. In my opinion there are three fundamental elements that contribute to the fulfilment of these responsibilities. They are transparency, accountability, and good governance.

I'd just like to paint a picture for you and get your thoughts on whether you think it would be an improvement or not over what we have, and on any other holes in it that you see, or if perchance there are parts of it you like.

Right now, all the work of the BOIE is, for the most part, done in camera. You've acknowledged that most reasonable—if I can use that word—people will acknowledge there are some matters that do need to be in camera. We can articulate what those are: certainly people's medical records, legal circumstances, staff issues, and things like that, which really don't belong in the public domain because those people have rights.

What we're talking about is the potential for an organization, similar to what they've done in Britain, that would take all those issues that relate to MPs' expenses and running our offices and all the areas you're looking for, the line items and everything, and put them in this stand-alone agency.

Now, I've heard you say you really don't have a lot of thought as to who is making the decisions. I find that a little surprising, simply because there is an issue of arm's length. In terms of good governance, there are reasons that arm's-length bodies are created, and we're looking at this as an extension of that. One of the problems is that in BOIE debates, discussions, there can be partisanship. There won't be with people who are chosen from the public and there are criteria and it's a public application. The whole process of hiring these folks, actually, or appointing them is in law, and they actually have the regulations for that.

That would be a stand-alone body. They have no partisan interest. They have a stand-alone mandate and that mandate is to answer in this case to the Canadian people—the British people, in their case—on their monitoring and oversight of MPs' expenses and related matters.

You've acknowledged those in camera things. They started out in public. It's interesting. I think Tom mentioned they did start that way, and then they went in camera, which speaks to the issue that reasonable people will see times that you need to be in camera, and then they issue minutes. So they're in camera, not secret meetings.

However, on the flip side, by taking those things out of BOIE, I would suggest to you that it leaves a lot of other areas that are wide open to be public matters because we're debating them the same way as we debate anything. There are only certain times when you'd need to go in camera—security, and things of that nature—but for the most part, for the operation of the House and the building, there is not a lot of secrecy there. So it would actually, in the model I'm painting for you, provide the BOIE to have more of their meetings open, and to have a stand-alone agency that's accountable to the people directly and overseeing our wages, expenses, and related matters.

What are your thoughts on that picture?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

Well, if the picture you're painting leads to a meeting that the public can attend, then I like at least that part of the picture.

I'll just make one point of clarification on the composition of the board and my not having a preference, really, on who fills it. I just mean that from the perspective of the CAJ and from the journalist's perspective, transparency isn't at stake in the same kind of way. I won't get too academic, but if you have people behind closed doors, it doesn't matter to me who they are, the issue is that the door is closed. That was my rationale there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lukiwski, you're back for four minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Should I call you Mr. Taylor-Vaisey? I hate mispronouncing a name, and when you have a last name like mine you get very sensitive.

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

I get it. No one has said it wrong, it's amazing. You got it right, yes.

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

Okay.

Mr. Taylor-Vaisey, I'm going to challenge your profession a little bit here. I can understand completely what you're saying, and if I were in your profession I would probably be asking for the same thing. You're a journalist. You want to know. You want to gather information. You want to print information. You want to broadcast information. But I ask you to take, perhaps, a little self-critical look, because much of the information that is published now, frankly, is simply not reported upon.

Peter is talking with great pride about how he publishes, and has for seven years, all this information. Those are summary financials that are published with expenses for every MP. It's open to the public. It's open to journalists. I haven't seen, outside of one or two stories every second or third year, much concern or examination from journalists.

I gave the example a couple of meetings ago, and I will again—Kevin doesn't like this because I'm going to be picking on my friend, Ralph Goodale. It's quite clear in the financials on the travel expenses. Ralph and I both live in Regina, Saskatchewan. I live in Regina Beach; he's in Regina proper, but we both fly out of Regina to Ottawa and back. We both attend the same number of sessions of caucus. I'm here from Monday through Friday. Ralph is usually here Monday through Friday, but, amazingly, last year his travel expenses were over three times mine. His were about $122,000 and mine were $38,000. Do you know something? We never saw a story on that.

If all of this information is here, and if you're suggesting that the public is clamouring for this information—and maybe I'm mischaracterizing your words—why aren't you writing stories about the information you have now?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

As a mini newsroom, this is the funniest-looking newsroom I've ever come across. That's a good question, though.

I don't want to speak for journalists who may have found interest in that story about discussing expenses between two MPs. Maybe it's a worthwhile—

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

But in general. I gave you only one example.

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

Sure.

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

Much of the information is perhaps not as much as you'd like to see. There is information out there now in more detail than there ever was before, but I haven't seen a whole bunch of stories about it.

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

I think that's because most of it is not newsworthy. Some of it might be, and that's why it's important for it to be there for the public and for journalists to see. I would never suggest that every airline ticket is going to be a news item.

The answer to your question is simply that there aren't a lot of news stories about expenses, relatively speaking, compared to the amount of information that's out there, because most of it is not extremely newsworthy. If it is newsworthy, it's our judgment in newsrooms to publish it.

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

I go back to a point I made earlier. If all of the rules and bylaws are made public, so you know exactly what constraints we as MPs have—what we can and cannot do, in other words—and if the board adheres to those rules and bylaws and if the decisions made are published, why isn't that important then? As you said yourself, a lot of this may not be newsworthy. If it were, you would already know about it. If there were problems like we saw in the U.K., you'd know about it and you'd report it, but there haven't been.

I'm trying to get my head around why it is so important to be able to actually sit in a meeting to hear the discussion between members who reach the same decision that is published right now and that you are not reporting on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

We will go to Mr. Bellavance for four minutes.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here.

As a former journalist, I can understand this concern about transparency. I can understand it even more now that I belong to a non-recognized party.

As I said earlier to Mr. Milliken, in the first seven years I was an MP, my party was represented on the Board of Internal Economy. I trusted my whip, who reported what he could to us. Not all the discussions were systematically made public, even for party caucuses.

Now I am in exactly your position, even though I have been an MP for nine years. I don't know much about what has happened in the past two years. The Board of Internal Economy brags about transparency, but even the MPs, particularly those whose parties are not recognized or who are independents, are suffering from the lack of transparency. This is especially true for journalists, even though they in some way represent the public. But the money being spent is taxpayers' money, who deserve to have watch dogs—pardon the expression—check what is going on and how the money is being spent. Yes, there is a lack of transparency, internally and externally.

However, although Mr. Milliken said that there were no major changes in his 10 years as Speaker, I have seen a change. More information is available now, online for example, but there is much more on each expenditure.

Would you be satisfied if, rather than indicate a bunch of expenditures and the amount an MP spent on travel, we said what the trip was, and where the MP went and when, for example? All that information is submitted to the auditor anyway. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have a problem with it, but the 307 other MPs should do the same. It shouldn't be up to each individual to decide what information to provide.

What additional information would be useful to you in doing your job?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

I think, if I can use the members' expenditure reports as a guide, it would be more detail about each line item. I wish I had one right in front of me so that we could go line by line and talk about what value there may be to each.

But I would just say more detail. There is more detail there, of course, than there has been in the past, but with more detail breaking down salaries and purchases, we would know what people were buying.

So just greater detail—that's really what it comes down to for us. It gives us a greater sense of a politician's judgment when they're spending public money.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Lukiwski gave us an example earlier. But if this story about Ralph Goodale had happened in Quebec, it would have certainly been in the newspapers. I'm convinced of it. For us, the media report on details of MP expenditures at least once a year.

Far be it for me to tell you how to do your job, but I would still like to point out that every MP's reality is different. I myself am not one of the biggest spenders in Quebec: out of 75 ridings, I rank about 44th. Having said that, I don't want to judge the others who have higher expenses. Since my riding includes 40 municipalities and covers 3,000 km², I have not one office, but three. So I need employees who drive two hours to get from one constituency office to another to work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I'm telling you my life story. Interesting, isn't it?

[Some hon. members]

Oh! Oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Time flies when you're having fun.

Madame Turmel, four minutes, please.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

I'm trying to understand what you expect of the Board of Internal Economy. As you can see, everyone is in favour of transparency. But how we are achieving that transparency is not as clear. There have been some changes at the Board of Internal Economy, and there will be more changes in how our expenses or budgets are posted on the site. That should help.

You also noticed from our discussions that our position has not changed much. The current government does not seem to want an independent board or any real openness within the committee. But that is what you are after: openness and the possibility of knowing what is going on.

There are minutes. The former Speaker, Mr. Milliken, said that the minutes were published, that they were very clear and that that should suffice.

As a journalist, you have to work with BOIE representatives. Do you think you have enough information? If we maintain the status quo, what additional information, be it minutes or BOIE reports, would help you do your job and meet the public's needs?

[Nick Taylor-Vaisey]

I think—

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'm sorry for interrupting you, but I want to clarify that the status quo is not what we want.

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

No, not at all.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I wanted to make that clear. We would like the submissions to be fully independent and open.