Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 19th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, so—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

If I may, Madam Chair, I'd like to offer a contribution to the discussion. It actually comes from the experience of my father in the 1990s, when the Reform Party came to Parliament.

Prior to that, meals were subsidized in the parliamentary dining room. Parliamentarians didn't get any free lunches in the lobby, but they could go to the parliamentary dining room and pay a reduced price for the meals they ate on the Hill. When the Reform Party came to the Hill, they did a big political song and dance about that and ended it. It was shortly after they ended it that the Reform Party began advocating for free meals in the lobby for MPs. That's when and how it all began.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's interesting.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I think there's something to be said for transparency in the real costs. Sometimes in these kinds of discussions around committee tables and elsewhere, we end up pushing what's going on off the books instead of having a very open accounting about how it all happens.

I'm not casting any aspersions on current members. I'm, of course, speaking about what happened in the nineties, but sometimes the members who want to benefit from a public conversation about stopping something are the people who advocate later for it to come back in a way that's less transparent. I would say we ought to be careful.

I'm comfortable endorsing a way of doing it that is at least transparent. I'm saying this as somebody who has yet to participate in an in-person meeting of this committee. I'm certainly prepared to support a way that's transparent about which committees are using how much in resources to pay for things such as food. As I think Mr. Gerretsen mentioned, this is about the House paying itself, and this is a way of documenting how much of the resources are being provided to this committee specifically.

There's something to be said for transparency here. I am concerned that we will end up pushing under the table information about the consumption among members, rather than proceeding in a way that documents it clearly.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Chair, I totally agree with what Mr. Blaikie said. He's absolutely correct, but we also have to think of the people who aren't going to be taking that lunch. Are they going to be claiming the per diem, and is that actually going to cost more? I appreciate where Mr. Tochor is going with this, and I think he's on the right path, but there are other sides to all this stuff that I think have to be considered.

To Mr. Blaikie's point, I think he's absolutely correct about transparency. It has to be across the board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We were going to move into subcommittee but Mr. Lukiwski is next.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

I wasn't going to join in on this for a number of reasons, but I would point out that, if we're talking about transparency and being cost efficient and the taxpayers' dollars, all of which I agree with, we have over the years seen a lot of abuses with what's been going on. I will not name the former member of Parliament, but many of us know him, who used to come and eat a lunch in the lobby every single day, even though he was only on duty one day a week.

Other MPs have done the same thing. To Mark's point, you are not supposed to, by the rules, claim per diems if you're eating in Parliament. With me personally, I don't eat in Parliament. I eat one meal a day and it's always on my own dime outside of this office, but there are many, many MPs who have lunches at committees, lunches in the lobby, and still claim the full per diem. You are supposed to, by the rules, if you have a lunch in the lobby, eliminate that lunch from your daily per diem. I don't know how many members are doing that.

If we're going to talk about cutting down on costs, let's go all the way. Let's really talk about saving taxpayers' dollars.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Absolutely. That is my understanding. Sometimes we expect people to understand this and it's not said enough. I do appreciate this conversation, although I didn't realize we were going to have such a lengthy conversation on this at the onset.

I've seen a whole bunch of points of view here and that is what I was trying to say originally. Are we taking something from one place and just shifting that cost somewhere else because we're upset that this cost is showing up here? Think hard about that.

Mr. Turnbull, you have your hand up as well. If you'd like to have a vote on removing it, then we could perhaps have that.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I wanted to ask a very quick clarification question. Is this a projected budget for future meetings or is it costs that have already been incurred in a way, in the sense they've already...? We can't vote to take something out of a budget expense claim that's already in a way been spent. It would be moving forward in the future.

I wanted that clarification on what's before me, which says request for project budget. What I want to know is whether that is for future costs or is that for past meals. We seem to be having a really lengthy discussion about working meals, which I wasn't anticipating. I do find the basic amount of $250 for meals, and I don't know how many people are attending, is quite high.

I just wanted clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Sure. The clerk can clarify.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, to Mr. Turnbull's question, these are costs that have been already incurred by the committee because there have been several meals that have been ordered already and consumed, as well as the use of the phone lines and headsets that have been shipped out.

In order to proceed, there would need to be a decision made on this current budget that's before you. The committee can always also then adopt a separate motion to essentially refrain from ordering any more catering going forward.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

It's money spent already.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I move to adopt this and then maybe one of our colleagues could move a motion to suspend meals after we do this, because it's money spent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It's a lot less than previous budgets we've ever approved. We don't have people flying in as witnesses, so we're saving quite a lot. I haven't had a single meal, that's for sure, and quite a lot of people haven't because most of us are virtual.

Mr. Doherty has moved the motion. Does everyone agree on passing the budget we have before us?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Seeing as there's no one opposed to the budget, the budget passes.

Would anyone like to move the motion?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Chair, I make the motion that we suspend all free lunches for committee going forward until the end of the pandemic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. Would you like a recorded vote on that? Is everyone in agreement?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'm in agreement, but what does the end of the pandemic mean? When we start meeting in person again? Is that what you meant?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

In person...yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. I guess the motion is to suspend meals while we're in the hybrid sitting.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

As long as we're in this type of hybrid format, or even if it were to become all virtual, obviously, we wouldn't have meals. Depending on what's happening within this context, as long as we're not all sitting in person we will have meals suspended.

I see no opposition to this.

(Motion agreed to)

The clerk has noted this. Moving forward we will not order any meals for anyone.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Chair, sorry, if I may, I don't need to move this now because I respect that we want to get into the committee business portion, but a lot of the testimony we heard today, I think, would be quite germane to the study we're doing on pandemic elections. I'm just wondering if you'll need a motion at some point in order to allow the testimony that we heard today from the Chief Electoral Officer to be included in the body of testimony for that report.

I'd be happy to move a motion to that effect at a time that you think is appropriate. I'll just leave that with you for now. I didn't want to pass it over and then forget to do it later.