Procedure and House Affairs committee  I don't know whether it is made up entirely of MLAs or—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It is? Okay. Well, that itself is in principle acceptable, but when you identify pensions and pay, obviously those are two areas where one might think that members should not be deciding for themselves. The board takes care of a variety of other matters. To look at this question with the focus simply on those issues, I would suggest, is to consider the question too narrowly.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Other than the whips; I would think whips should be allowed to sit on the board. They don't have to, but they're eligible to sit on the board—but not House leaders and not ministers.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  In terms of ministers, it is to ensure that the board acts independently of the government. The House is an independent parliamentary institution. Obviously, the government is here politically with its majority and its ministers, and that's perfectly appropriate and that's our system of government.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I didn't want to go into too much detail of an operational nature, but I meant to suggest that financial administrative matters would first go to a subcommittee before arriving at the board, and the subcommittee would look at these matters that come to them in camera. Then their report to the board is public and the board's consideration and treatment of the report is public.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Well, I obviously have enormous respect for the views expressed by Madam O'Brien, but I suspect that her suggestion arises out of the fact that she saw many times that the board wasn't able to move forward with business on a consensus model. I would tend to go against a vote regime.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes. I'm not clear on what those models are off the top of my head, but the idea.... In mentioning that, and in your earlier question, you both times used the expression “policing” members. Now, in using that expression, you're loading the question, in the sense that you're suggesting members of Parliament need policing, that they can't be trusted to look after their affairs because somebody has to be the enforcer of the law against them.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Mr. Chairman, if I may, I hear the member expressing a point of view that is sensitive to public expectations about the House—and presumably the Senate these days as well—but I think one has to look at this, frankly, in terms of what's best for the institution as a public institution and not simply to serve public expectations.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Let me approach that question this way: the answer is partially yes. The committees of the House, such as this committee, are fully covered by privilege, regardless of what they're talking about. With the board, it would enjoy the protections and privilege according to what it's talking about.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  That's correct.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could just back up on that question a little bit and explain what I said here. There is some talk out there that everything should be public, and then there's the other extreme, if you want to call it an extreme, which you have now, where everything is private.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my time at the House as law clerk, I worked with and for the Board of Internal Economy. I saw it in its good times and in its bad times. I'm pleased to see the House take on this review of how its internal financial and administrative affairs are managed.