[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 4, 1995
.1107 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Order, please. I see we now have a quorum. The discussion of Tuesday dealt with the motions of Mr. Hermanson on Elections Act.
[English]
Mr. Lee was about to speak when we adjourned.
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): He'll be here shortly.
The Chairman: Did others wish to speak on this issue?
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): No. Question.
The Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Chairman: The question is as follows: Mr. Hermanson moves that this committee recommend to the government that tax credits for political contributions be lowered to the same level as that of charitable donations.
Motion negatived
The Chairman: The second motion moved by Mr. Hermanson is that this committee recommend to the government that, with the exception of the candidate's $1,000 deposit, all other campaign reimbursements to both registered parties and candidates be eliminated.
It sounds as though it was drafted by Mr. Manning.
Motion negatived
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): Declare it dead.
The Chairman: It has died a natural death.
Mr. Hermanson: I thought Mr. Boudria said there have to be some changes.
The Chairman: I think there's a bill before the House, if I'm not mistaken, regarding the reimbursement, proposed by your colleague Mr. McClelland. It requires that parties get 2% of the vote in order to qualify. I'm surprised that he put it so low. I think a higher number might have been more appropriate.
I'd be happy to put in a minimum number. We considered it in the reform committee -
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, if you're willing to entertain that subject, that is an issue I think this committee should discuss. Never mind the other stuff. The fact that the Natural Law Party effectively received what amounted to a subsidy from the people of Canada for what is close to or is a religious cult is not exactly -
The Chairman: It's not what we had in mind.
Mr. Boudria: No, it's not what we envisioned by the act.
.1110
No matter how much you think the act should subsidize, more or less, I don't think anyone ever envisaged that the purpose of the act was to subsidize yogic flying. It was certainly not the way I had previously envisaged it. If a party doesn't get a certain threshold - a small one, mind you...[Technical difficulty]...that bill comes to us.
It's an important subject. It is one we could do under Standing Order 108 if we do not get a bill referred to us by the House.
The Chairman: Certainly. We're free to deal with proposals to amend the Canada Elections Act at any time. It's part of our permanent mandate. Although we've come close to the subject today with the motions Mr. Hermanson proposed, I suggest that it's one that requires more detail than dealing with bits. We might come up with a series of proposals for change -
Mr. Hermanson: Starting with higher powers - right?
The Chairman: No, I'd be happy to embark on my own - well, not on my own, but as a group, Mr. Hermanson.
There are so many things we can look at. We ought to wait for the report from the Chief Electoral Officer, which is due in June. It was to recommend changes to the act based on his experience in the election. It may be that in discussion on his report, when it's forthcoming, we'll come up with not only his suggestions but a few of our own that could improve the act in ways hitherto unforeseen.
The second item on today's agenda is consideration of the report
[Translation]
of the Subcommittee on Members' Affairs filed in the Committee on March 28th 1995.
[English]
Mr. Lee is the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. Lee, your committee's report deals with a series of matters. Perhaps you'd like to address that issue for the committee.
Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): The subcommittee has prepared a draft report. Over the last couple of days it has become apparent that members of this committee, staff and members of the subcommittee had misapprehended a provision in the Standing Orders. Both the reference to the subcommittee from this committee and our deliberations at subcommittee were based on the premise that in dealing with private members' business items that were not dealt with when called in the House, they were simply recycled on the order of precedence.
This failed to take account of Standing Order 42, which states that private members' motions, when not dealt with when called, are dropped from the Order Paper completely. That deals with motions.
Standing Order 42 does not deal specifically with bills in that way. The bills would simply be dropped in the order of precedence, not off the order of precedence.
Consequently, all of us have been operating under a misapprehension of what the existing rules were. Therefore, our draft report, which I would have presented today, is really not in a satisfactory state.
I would ask we take another two or three weeks to have another look at it to ensure that bills and motions are treated equally and fairly, and make a recommendation back to the committee.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lee.
May I urge you to revisit the issue thoroughly. We've had two recent cancellations of private members' hour, one on Friday and one on Monday, too late for a substitution to be arranged. The penalty for the members is simply dropping the item to the bottom of the order of precedence. If the bill's a votable one, it remains so.
I don't know why it should go there. It should be struck off the order of precedence. It should get redrawn and take its chances. It's inconvenient to the other members who are expecting to proceed. We lost an hour of House time on Monday because of the inability to proceed.
All kinds of things could go wrong. It warrants serious reconsideration.
.1115
Mr. Boudria: My opinion is that if a substitution can be arranged there should be no penalty. The reason for that is, if I wanted to debate my bill on Monday and Mr. Lee on Tuesday, and we just happen to be picked in reverse order, what difference does it make to the House if we change them? That's fine.
The Chairman: Exactly.
Mr. Boudria: However, if someone doesn't show up or cannot proceed with his private member's item and the House loses that time - in other words, no substitute can be found - then he should definitely be struck off the list, because it's unfair to everybody else. It's just morally wrong that people should be waiting for months and months to debate their private members' ballot items while the House is suspended for an hour because a person didn't show up and the time is wasted. It's not right. It's just not fair.
Mr. Lee: Just to clarify again, if I could ask the clerk of the subcommittee on private members' business whether the two items of business referred to by the chairman that were not proceeded with were both bills and not motions.
The Clerk of the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business: Mr. Chairman, we're talking about a bill this week. We haven't, to my knowledge, had a situation with regard to a motion in this Parliament.
Mr. Lee: I see.
The Clerk: The last reference is in February 1993 that a motion was dropped completely from the Order Paper.
Mr. Lee: The point I would make is that the Standing Orders now provide that if a motion isn't taken up when called, it is dropped, it's gone.
An hon. member: It's toast.
Mr. Lee: It's toast. The same provision does not apply to private members' bills, at least on the prima facie reading and the precedence.
The Chairman: That's what we're trying to get changed.
Mr. Lee: Yes.
Mr. Hermanson: Has your committee looked at finding some method whereby we can make all of private members' business votable, even if some bills are deemed to be worth debate for only one hour? Rather than just becoming a sort of debating society where there are no consequences to the final outcome - I mean, it can be reissued and we can end up debating the bill again - could we come to some conclusions on the matter?
Mr. Lee: No, but I think there's been an acceptance by members on the subcommittee that just because a private member's bill or motion is drawn in a lottery doesn't mean it has quality or substance sufficient to warrant a vote in the House of Commons. There is some excellent private members' business out there. By the same token, there is some very light stuff that would not warrant a vote in the House of Commons. We need a mechanism to vet private members' business.
At the moment we have a formula that says we can pick x* number of private members' business items for votes and debate. The balance is simply debated without vote.
Mr. Hermanson: I wonder about the use of our time in debating something on which no decision will be made. I know you can ask for unanimous consent to make it votable, and that's attempted many times, but it always fails unless someone is a very good negotiator.
Mr. Lee: This particular issue was not referred to the subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, as I understood it, so we have not taken up the point in as much detail as Mr. Hermanson has raised.
Mr. Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Lee, what if on private members' business a procedure was considered that all bills that get drawn and approved would be votable? The subcommittee's work would not be deciding which ones are votable and which are not, but the decision at that subcommittee would be those 10 objections, the list that you sort of went through last night. If it's on the government's agenda, then it stays there, the government is the one to proceed with that; therefore, this private members' bill doesn't qualify, so it's drawn, but it's thrown out, it won't be on the Order Paper. Use those same criteria and whichever ones are drawn.... You draw eight, or you draw five, or you draw four. They'll all be votable if they match the criteria set out by the government. In that way that hour is not wasted, -
The Chairman: By the government.
Mr. Silye: - or the three hours on private members' business is not wasted, and everything that does get on the agenda is something every member would want. Some members feel let down, and some get selected.
No system is perfect, but is that not something that might have some merit?
Mr. Lee: Mr. Silye has had the cold-shower experience -
Mr. Silye: Oh, oh. That's right.
Mr. Lee: - of sitting on the subcommittee, being in the unenviable position of having to make judgments about other colleagues' private members' business.
.1120
All I can say is that this is probably not the right forum in which to debate that. If the committee wished the subcommittee to take up that matter for further discussion, I think colleagues would be pleased to do that.
The Chairman: The subcommittee and the committee can take it up when the report comes in. We can discuss it further.
We can make recommendations to change this in the Standing Orders whenever we feel like it.
If Mr. Silye wants to make such a proposal to the full committee, perhaps the time the subcommittee report comes in would be an appropriate moment at which to embark on such a discussion. We will be dealing with private members' business and Standing Orders.
Mr. Hermanson: Yes, there are lots of alternatives we can look at.
The Chairman: Oh, sure.
Mr. Hermanson: We could have two bills or motions debated in an hour where there's one representative from each party speaking to it. If it's going to drop, it drops.
Why are we spending so much time...?
The Chairman: Well, it's the same with non-votable opposition motions, Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: I'd be happy to see them all votable.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Hermanson: I'd love it. You hit on something there, Mr. Chairman. I don't see why we spend a whole day debating a motion that's not votable.
The government certainly gets quite active in the debate and puts forward its position. Ministers usually speak to them and yet at the end of the day we don't have the mechanism to move on them. You're allowed only so many votables per period.
The Chairman: You don't have to vote on everything. A debate is often very helpful because it airs the issue. You don't always have to make a decision, because often no decision is being made. You're simply....
Mr. Boudria: Those decisions made...[Inaudible].
Mr. Hermanson: Well, we do here...[Inaudible]. Then we should decide whether government bills are worth voting on or not.
The Chairman: We do.
Mr. Hermanson: Some of them -
The Chairman: Some of them aren't -
Mr. Hermanson: - aren't voted on either.
The Chairman: Some of them aren't brought forward either. Take a look.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Chairman: Okay, then perhaps we could look at the next item on the agenda, the report of the Sub-Committee on Members' Travel.
Mrs. Parrish: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin by thanking Marie Carrière and James Robertson. They were amazing. They were very helpful. They kept me from making a fool of myself on many occasions. They're just terrific. Mollycoddling -
Mr. Silye: Didn't François and I do that too?
Mrs. Parrish: I'm getting to you two.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Parrish: There are many occasions when a rookie MP can be left to look pretty stupid, and these guys corrected me nicely. I really appreciate it.
Jamie did a fabulous job of writing the report. He allowed me to boost it in a few spots, but generally did a wonderful job.
My two cohorts on the opposite side were wonderful.
Mr. Boudria: Let's not exaggerate.
Mrs. Parrish: No, actually they were. We worked together very well, didn't we? I thought we did a great job and if the three of us can run this government, we'd probably be okay.
Don't write that down, Mr. Hill Times.
Mr. Boudria: We are okay.
Mrs. Parrish: We are okay; we're absolutely wonderful.
There were several things that were most revealing to us. I won't go through the report. I'm sure you've all read it with great interest. The rate of response was phenomenal. I think we had an incredible rate of response from the MPs, which indicates a total change in attitude on the part of Liberals, Reformers and the Bloc.
We have a new breed of politicians. We're all interested in saving money and we're all equally interested in doing it in a cost-effective and painless way.
We don't want people to go through exceptional torture on flights. We all fly almost on a weekly basis and we're all very aware of that.
One of the recommendations in the report is that we go to the very minor expense of releasing the black-and-white version of the results to everyone who did participate. When you get such a high rate of response, it's like most things: people are curious about how the results came out and they'd like to go through and read them line by line.
With the permission of this committee, I don't think it will cause an undue expense to make sure every member of the House receives the black-and-white copy of the survey results.
As you can see, they're separated into two types. A lot of people were hesitant about answering the first request because they travel by car mostly. They thought this was specifically looking at flights so those two sets of responses are presented separately because they have a different perspective, and then the results are combined in the report itself.
The second thing we noted was the absolute arrogance and lack of cooperation of both airlines. We asked them what we thought were some fairly reasonable questions. I want to reiterate that as a Canadian government we buy $173 million worth of flights, roughly one-third from Canadian Airlines, two-thirds from Air Canada.
These are the same two airlines for which, during the recession, we have bent over backwards to subsidize, to guarantee loans, to assist, literally to keep them afloat. When they came in here their attitude shocked Mr. Silye into reality. He was being one of those nice guys who said, gee, they're entitled to make a buck.
.1125
They would give no discounts for government or group travel. Their excuse was that they would have to give discounts to other large corporations. Their next biggest customer spends $15 million a year; we spend $173 million a year.
There were no discounts, no group rates, no government rates, and neither could we convert our points, which are accumulated and none of us use, into a discount for the Canadian taxpayers on our flights. They wouldn't even consider that.
They also would not give us another discount. They pay travel agents in the industry roughly 10% when they do bookings; they would not give us the 10% if we booked directly.
We also talked to them about the fact that their prices were identical at every point in Canada, within a penny. They agreed. They said if one price changes, the other price changes. There is no competition - and that's in their own words - except in service. There's no competition.
One of the recommendations by the Board of Internal Economy is that we should look into - and possibly what they're doing is perfectly legal - the price fixing or duopoly aspects where they have admittedly matched prices everywhere across this country, because it effectively squeezes out any other little airlines that want to do jaunts between Ottawa and Toronto, for example. They might as well forget it. They can't match the number of flights and they can't match the prices. These two have made a nice deal with each other that they're going to match each other's prices top to bottom.
The other thing we wanted to recommend was that a booklet be put together with the participation of Air Canada, Canadian Airlines and Rider, and they all agree to it. One will assume they'll brook the cost, but we'll control the editorial results. It will be a small booklet that will simplify the booking system so that MPs become aware of what's going on. Our staffs change frequently. If they do education for staff, this way you have a little booklet you can refer to quickly with regard to how to get a B-class ticket, for example.
We would like the full committee to endorse that recommendation.
We also have attached a revision questionnaire to the 64-point system. One of the things we think is very unfair in particular is with regard to those who drive. A lot of the Quebec MPs and a lot of the MPs in the Ottawa area are really being shafted by the points system. With your permission, we'd like to continue our work a little bit and put this draft questionnaire back out to MPs just to gather some information on how there are different ways of looking at -
The Chairman: Can you tell us how they're shafted, though?
Mrs. Parrish: For example, I think Mr. Boudria drives back and forth from his home to the Hill -
Mr. Boudria: Every day.
Mrs. Parrish: - and you do too. My understanding is that you can't acquire the points we acquire to fly back and forth to Toronto.
If there were some way of modifying it.... If you look through the questionnaire, you will see that there are various approaches we can take to give a fairer approach to everyone, not having the wear and tear on the car, not having to put out that much funding on their own.
As well, there's a way of modifying the points system so that those who choose to fly business class possibly will be at 1.1 points instead of the flat rate of 1.
The Auditor General, when he looked over the workings of the House, said this system needed to be reviewed again. I know it's been reviewed repeatedly.
Another recommendation that had almost an 82% agreement among the MPs was that the same rule that applies for government employees, which is that anything over 850 kilometres is entitled to a business-class flight and for anything under 850 kilometres you can pay the difference yourself but you are entitled to an economy-class flight, should go forward as a recommendation to the Board of Internal Economy.
Rider suggested it. We asked them how we could save money, and we were trold more than 50% of the MPs fly business class. Many of them are on 40-minute flights from Pearson International. Rider thought that was outrageous, and actually said that here. We were hoping we could make that a recommendation as well.
The other suggestion we looked at was the practicality of an in-house travel agent. This was not resoundingly endorsed by all members of the committee. Mr. Silye steadfastly insists it won't work, but I still would like some form of poking around into this. If we're booking $173 million worth of flights, and one travel agent, Rider, has all those contracts.... If Rider can do it, then we can do it ourselves. As a bona fide booking agency, we can at least save the 10%.
Again, these are all suggestions for further pursuit.
.1130
The firm ones on which we'd like endorsement from the committee today are for the booklet, which is not exactly an exorbitant request for a recommendation to the Board of Internal Economy on the 850-kilometre rule, because MPs are not different from staff. We're the same people and serving the same people in this country and we should be as frugal as possible. Also, we would request permission to hand out the second questionnaire on the 64-points system and the results of our first survey.
Mr. Boudria: I have no problem with some of these recommendations, just the so-called unfairness of the 64-point travel system for those of us who live closer. I am not sure I am unfairly treated by it. I'm one of them and the way I look at it is this.
I leave from Ottawa to go to my home, which is in part of the constituency, and of course I come back every morning. But, then again, my constituents work in Ottawa and no one gives them mileage, so I'm not reimbursed for that mileage and that's okay. However, once a week, whenever I go to the furthest point in the riding that constitutes my point. As far as I'm concerned that puts me at the same level as everyone else. In other words, my trip from Ottawa to the riding is.... Say that weekend I go to Alexandria; well, that's it. As far as I'm concerned, that's even, because the trips I make during the week are the same as a commuter would make. That's not reimbursed and neither would it be for a constituent who comes back and forth to work.
But to go from Ottawa to a function at the other end of the riding is the equivalent of Mr. Silye going from Ottawa to Calgary, except mine costs $50 versus his, which is a lot more. In my mind, one is the equivalent of the other, therefore that's the one that counts and that's the one I claim as my travel point. That's the way I reconcile it in my mind, and I don't think I'm treated unfairly by that. I don't think I should be reimbursed for coming to Ottawa every day. It's my way of seeing the system as it presently is.
Of course, I eat up a travel point that way once a week, but that's okay, because what else am I using them for? If I deliver a speech in Calgary or somewhere, I may use one then, but how many times does that happen in a year? I may need four tickets in a whole year to present a government subsidy or something, or do another particular function that one has to do as an MP.
The point I am making is it's not all that frequent; no more frequent than it would be for another MP to speak at a location that is different from their own riding. To that extent, I don't use them very often.
Mr. Chairman, there are almost three groups. There is the group like myself and possibly Mr. Assad and members like Mr. Kilger, who live 50 or 60 miles from Ottawa, who go back and forth every day. It is not quite far enough to stay overnight and, frankly, I couldn't stay overnight anyway. I'm too close; I don't qualify for the housing subsidy that other MPs get. I'm not sure if Mr. Kilger does. It is kind of borderline in his case. We commute.
There is the other group who commute by car, but only once or twice a week. Those are probably people like you, Mr. Chairman, and possibly many of the Montreal MPs.
Then there is the third group, people such as Mr. Silye, who, because of the distance, have virtually no other way to go home other than by using the plane.
Those are the three categories of MPs.
One could make the argument there's almost a fourth category, and those are the people who fly part of the way and then have to drive another part in order to get to their ridings. I can think of colleagues in Newfoundland, for instance, who have to fly from here to Newfoundland and then drive for four, five or six hours and possibly more. One of them even has to land in a different country, namely St. Pierre and Miquelon, which is part of France, in order to go to his riding. I think that's Mr. Simmons.
.1135
There are all kinds of these combinations. That's the closest airport. Then he has to take a ferry and go back to Canada.
We have all these weird and wonderful combinations to get home, all of us.
I don't think I'm treated particularly unfairly by that. Perhaps there are others, though, and I'll gladly fill out the questionnaire. In my case, I don't feel I'm any different from a regular constituent in the way this is treated.
Mr. Silye: I want to add to the report of the chairman on the subcommittee that I seek advice from this committee as to where to proceed from here. Air Canada and Canadian Airlines were extremely protective of the territory. They feel they have the government and that $170 million in the bag.
I don't wish to deny them the opportunity to make a profit. Our committee was only seeking their cooperation in reducing costs. They don't wish to do that. I asked this question: ``You're also a taxpayer. On that hand, as a taxpayer, you look at the government and you're concerned about how its spends its money. Aren't you in favour of it looking for ways to reduce the costs?'' They say yes to that, but now that they've put on their business hat, it's no.
I feel that when a ticket price is $514.16, and they're both 16¢ cents...I have a problem with that. Even in food and beverage, you try not to go over your competitor. If they can sell a beer for $5, you sell a beer for $5. If you sell for $2, you'll get a higher volume but you won't make the margin. That person has to do only a part of the business.
The other thing I'd like to seek advice on is that I think there's a way to pressure the airlines to reconsider their level of cooperation. One of the ways is to get them to come before the full committee, procedure and house affairs, and ask them again why they can't cooperate. We could ask them to come before the Standing Committee on Transport, which could then take a look at the Competition Act of 1986 and see whether they comply with it, whether they don't comply with it, whether they own each other, and whether there's collusion.
We can start asking these hard questions, to find out whether in fact there are conversations at the board level that theoretically shouldn't be taking place. You can't have a ticket priced within 16¢ within an hour, and that's how fast they can make the same prices.
I've been in the business. I used to own a business in this area and that's how they do it.
It's tempting to in any way, shape, or form get that $170 million of travelling down. There are a lot of good ways we can do it, such as the 850 rule. I support everything we've recommended, but I'd like to seek advice on whether this committee would be willing to engage in that sort of a dialogue with the two airlines.
It could be this committee first and then we could request that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport ask them to appear.
I think it would be worth while pursuing. Even in this gas-pricing war, the gas prices that are being investigated, as well.... I think a standing committee could play a useful role.
Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): I have something I want to say. I think it's been a valuable report. The answers to the questionnaire are impressive in the detail. The only criticism I make is that I think you could have gone further with all this statistical detail; in other words, the empirical data are there for more substantial general propositions. You may even, I suspect, get that from reading the consensus. It's a very impressive piece of work.
I have no problems with the two basic points. It's a clear statement of what's available. This is the booklet.
The second thing, your drawing the distinction I think between short-term flights and long-term flights.... That's something, Jim, I think you're very well aware of. I think there is a distinction between flying to Ottawa from Montreal or Toronto and flying from points further west or much further east. It seems to me that you've recognized that fact. It's a reality.
I support these things.
.1140
I'd recommend that some degree of respect for special wills and competences of other committees when you get into the things that Carolyn and Jim raised. It seems to be the potential of ministries, actually one of the effective ministries that we have, and they've done massive work in relation to the international air routes of the two main companies and working out a pragmatic balance, and the follow-up to that is necessarily some action in relation to internal air pricing.
It seems to me the transport committee probably should be following up on this. I'd suggest that you get into this, as I think you want to. You should limit your inquiry to this particular issue; particularly, bring your information to the attention of the transport committee and suggest that its members look into it. I think we have to get into this issue of comparity of pricing and competition within Canada because the rates are rather high in relation to similar services in the United States.
I have one comment on the 64-points issue, one of the issues I've never been sure of. I know if I travel, as I have to occasionally, to Washington, D.C., the points are not available. They are available within Canada. I've looked at my own points and I use them within Canada only between Ottawa and Vancouver, but if I, for example, go to a meeting in Montreal, am I entitled to use them? Should I be entitled to use them or should there be a limitation?
In other words, should we be encouraging people to use the summer to see other parts of Canada or should we -
Mr. Silye: You have up to 20 trips outside of -
Mr. McWhinney: One of the issues is, shouldn't the 20 trips be examined? If there's a valid case for it in terms of general education, well and good. I think it's part of a larger picture of costs and maybe that should be taken into account.
The other thing is travelling by members on parliamentary committees. I have been paying myself for travels on what I consider public duty, but outside the regular parliamentary committee or other structure. One of the issues there again is, shouldn't that be taken into account because it generally affects the pricing structure?
Returning to the issue, as I say, I'm very impressed with the response you got. I think you have produced a report that is modest in its recommendations and I don't have any difficulties with them. Perhaps you could have gone further, but I recognize that as a committee you wanted a consensus and you wanted the support, and if you have a unanimous report, that's the best and ultimate goal.
Mr. Pickard (Essex - Kent): I too would like to compliment Carolyn and her committee for the detail the report gives us. I would also like to make a couple of points on the question of competition.
Coming from the Windsor area, we end up on flights through Air Ontario or the counterparts on Canadian and the times are the same, the prices are the same, the routes are the same. We fly to Toronto, sit over in Toronto and then fly here. Even though I'd be within that 800-kilometre threshold by flying, we spend three hours travelling on the airline because of the little commuter flights that we have to link into.
It takes longer to go to Windsor than it takes to go to Winnipeg from here. It probably takes as long for me to get to Windsor as it takes Mr. Silye to get to his province. There are some things that are actually not comparable distance-wise.
However, there's more in this 64-travel points system too. Every one of us would love not to have to use the 64 travel points and to be close to our homes at all times. If we look at people within driving distance of Ottawa, many of them wouldn't have to have a second residence and all of the other things that are costly items for everyone else travelling in.
.1145
There are some balances and counterbalances to the costs of each member of Parliament and those could probably be off-setting expenses. I don't feel that one is more deprived than the other.
I think the issue of people like Roger Simmons is a very critical one because not only does he have to do many hours of air travel, but he also does many hours of driving and it is difficult for him to get back and forth. I see that to be another problem that we might look at.
As well, on travelling on parliamentary committees, I would support Ted's comment. I think it is an issue that possibly our travel points should be used. In my opinion those 20 exceptional trips, for parliamentary committees and those dealings that you have for a particular purpose having to do with your job, should be included within that spectrum, as well. Perhaps it would save just where the applications of the dollars are. It would in fact cut down some of the costs as well.
Competition among the airlines is a major question in my mind, and always has been. They can offer a $200 return trip to Florida at certain times of the year, but to fly from Windsor on the most economical rate to Ottawa on a regular ticket the government buys is three times that amount. It really is questionable flying from Windsor to Ottawa when Ottawa is one-third the price.
The Chairman: If members don't object, I would like to jump in, because this appears not to be an issue that's terribly divisive.
There are two issues here. One is the question of the airline prices. Members have said they make sense and that we're happy. I am happy to support the recommendations the subcommittee has made. Mr. Silye's recommendation to have the airlines come and appear here may help in that, but that's a separate issue.
The other issue is what is fair and reasonable for members. For some time, since the report from the Auditor General on the House of Commons that we have considered in this committee on occasion, we have asked the Auditor General to come in and do another update. The Board of Internal Economy has rejected this, at least for the time being.
I have been supportive of the suggestion that the Auditor General put forward in that report. He recommended that members' budgets be augmented by an amount to reimburse them for travel and then members be free to charge their travel costs against the budget. The budget amount would be different for different members, but it would be calculated on the basis that there would be value attributed to the 30 special points of x thousand dollars based on average travel, or usage, or whatever.
They would come up with a figure, and the House officials are quite prepared to come up with such a figure, and able to do so; then attribute a value to the 44 regular trips, based on the cost of travelling to and from the member's constituency. Therefore a member who had to fly to Calgary and then drive three hours would be compensated on the basis of the normal costs of flights to Calgary and the cost of the drive based on the number of miles and so on. That figure would be worked out on an annual basis and that amount of money would be added to the member's current constituency operating budget. Then it is up to the member to decide how he or she wishes to spend the money.
If the member chooses to fly economy instead of business class and have the money thereby saved available for householders, for staffing, whatever, it would be in the member's discretion to decide how much to spend. If the member chose to travel fewer than 44 times to and from the constituency and thereby save money, that again would be up to the member.
To me, that is the thing that would introduce economy into the whole process. Under the current arrangement, because the cost is picked up by the House and not by members' operating budgets, there's no incentive for a member to save. The only way we can achieve savings is by changing the rules and forcing members to travel in a different way. I don't like to get into that. I think a member should have the discretion of how he or she wishes to travel.
.1150
If some member wants to go to Toronto on business class, I'm reluctant to say he can't do it. I would like to put in an incentive for the member to travel economy on such a short flight, but to me the incentive ought to be by putting it into the budget.
In my view, most members, if it was their budget they were spending, would be reluctant to travel business class unless they were going on a long flight where they needed it. The pricing, the value of the money under the budget could be done on the basis of business class values.
This proposal, I know, has been considered by the board - at least, I assume it has, because it was in this report - and it was rejected in the last Parliament. I don't know whether it's been discussed again in this Parliament, but when the committee and the subcommittee look at this again, the board might want to rethink that part of it. To me, if the board would look at this again, the difficulty is only in the fact that some members' budgets would be so much bigger than others.
Mr. Silye, yours, for example, would end up being much larger than mine because of the distance you have to travel to your constituency. Well, big deal. The fact is, you travel back and forth, and it costs to do so. I travel back and forth, and it doesn't cost nearly as much. I don't know why you'd be embarrassed because your budget was so much larger. You could always spend less of it if you chose not to travel - that's up to you - or you could spend it on something else. The element of fairness that could exist in such an arrangement is quite obvious, except that in the public eye some members might be criticized for their budget being so much bigger than others.
I imagine the Yukon or Northwest Territories budget, for example, would be very high. But they're high already; they're given additional funds already. Some of those additional moneys perhaps could be taken away, if the travel moneys were put in instead and discretion given on a fairly generous basis.
I really think the board should look at this. Maybe this committee can make recommendations on that subject when the thing comes up. That's my two cents' worth on this issue.
Mr. Hopkins, you haven't spoken yet on this, but everybody else has. Mr. Lee, you haven't spoken yet on this. Did you want to?
Mr. Lee: I would like to say something.
The Chairman: We'll do second rounds in due course. Mr. Hopkins also wants to speak, I know.
Mr. Lee: Let me start with what we're debating, the subcommittee's report. I support it. I won't quibble with small details, but I did want to make a point that relates to it. It tends to take the same approach as the chairman without adopting the mechanism he proposes.
We are spending about $12.5 million a year on members' travel. It's a fairly big bullet. I'm assuming that there are economies to be gained in there somewhere. What we haven't got is a mechanism, whether it's a marketplace mechanism or an incentive mechanism, to achieve any of those economies. In other places you might say we'll sell the $12.5 million to somebody who will then provide first-class service to all of our members and that they will attempt to make the economies, because the more they save -
The Chairman: The more they can spend.
Mr. Lee: - the more profit they make. The House wouldn't spend less, but bidding for the piece of business by the outside would have a tendency to bid down; the House would go for the lowest bid, and over time economies would be achieved. That's by letting the marketplace look for savings incentives.
There are perhaps other ways. The chairman has mentioned the incentive of giving the bulk funds to members, an amount commensurate with their annual travel costs, and if the members could save the money, they would have the money available in their budgets for other purposes.
The thing that doesn't appeal to me about that, frankly, is that there are one or two members - or I don't know how many members - who just don't show up around here. The prospect of allowing those members have all that money to work so darned hard in their ridings but not around this place where we're working now, doesn't appeal to me.
Therefore, I go back to the item in the subcommittee's report that says we should have a booklet that explains the travel procedures and possible areas of economies that should be made available to staff.
.1155
That's heading in the right direction. But I would like to suggest, and it's just a general suggestion, that if there's $12.5 million out there, we might get more bang for our buck by hiring somebody very skilled at travel arrangements, who would go around to every single member's office and say: ``We've a budget of $12.5 million. For every buck we save, I'm going to give you half a buck. I want you to go around and work with every member's office to ensure that when they book the travel they do it in the most cost-effective way''.
It's not just a book that sits on the shelf and is never read. It's an actual ongoing relationship, someone who is going to win for every dollar they save the House of Commons.
I throw that out for further consideration.
Mr. Hopkins (Renfrew - Nipissing - Pembroke): I congratulate Carolyn and her committee. They've done very good work.
I haven't had a chance to read all the report because I'm substituting on this committee today for somebody else. But as one who remembers when MPs got little or nothing for some travel arrangements, I would like to comment on this particular deal.
There were two aspects to changing. All MPs used to have economy flights. There was no such thing as travelling first class or business class until some members from western Canada, who found themselves in a small seat crammed in between two other people in an aircraft for four or five hours going home, felt very uncomfortable. They asked the Board of Internal Economy and the Speaker's staff to look into these things. It was changed to give members who had long distances to travel a more comfortable seat. That was number one.
The other reason why points were extended to MPs who normally would not be travelling around the country was to help MPs from one region of the country understand what was going on in other regions of Canada and to make a mix out of the Canadian mosaic. I think that was a very good idea.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned putting the travel points for air into the MP's budget. I think you were being somewhat of the devil's advocate in throwing that out on the floor here.
The Chairman: I was putting the money in, the value of them in.
Mr. Hopkins: Yes, and showing in an MP's budget.
I would suggest we'd be further ahead if we had uniform regulations for all MPs to cover. Derek has mentioned putting out a booklet on these particular regulations. That would be very worth while.
Given the Canadian geography, I don't know why anyone would be worrying about their expenses being higher than somebody else's if they have to travel a long distance to Ottawa. There shouldn't be any political hay made out of that. Nobody should be looked down on because his or her budget happens to be higher, whether a member is from Yukon or northern B.C. or from the farthest tip of Newfoundland. There's some common sense to be put into this.
Don Boudria mentioned travelling to and from his riding. He doesn't live far enough away to qualify for the in-Ottawa living expenses. I'm one who has chosen to live in Ottawa during the week because I want to live a little longer. I don't want to travel Highway 17 a couple of times a week. Also, I live too far away to really make it all worth while.
Mr. Chairman, I simply throw these points out because they are practical. They lend some historical background to where we are today.
Carolyn is certainly taking the right approach when she suggests that the Board of Internal Economy should look at it.
.1200
I think a paper should go out to all members of the Board of Internal Economy so they are fully aware of the issue before it's discussed.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Thank you very much, Mr. Hopkins, for that overview.
I would like to thank my colleagues who worked on that subcommittee, Mrs. Parrish, Mr. Silye and Mr. Deshaies, who occasionally replaced me and kept me up to date on what was going on, as well as the staff from your office, Mrs. Parrish, for preparing the summaries of the meetings I could not attend.
I think Mr. Pickard and Mr. Lee spoke earlier about checks and balances. Indeed, I would much prefer to live in Glengarry - Prescott - Russell or in Hull, even though I do stay there during the week.
Mr. Boudria: Everyone would prefer to live in Glengarry - Prescott - Russell.
The Chairman: But Mrs. Tremblay does not like Hull.
[English]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I live in Hull, with the residents of Hull. They are very friendly and I enjoy living there, just as I enjoy being in Ottawa. I do not have any problem living in any Canadian city.
That said, I like to go home at night, see my husband or wife - I do not want to be sexist here - and my children, even though I would not have any if I had a spouse. There is a price to pay for living far away. In my case, after I get to the Quebec City airport, I still have to drive an hour and a half, if not two, to get home. I am like Mr. Pickard, who must take a flight, wait for a connection, wait for the flight to the north, and if the flight is late, you have to wait for another one. That's a problem with airlines. Everyone in Canada knows that.
Bear in mind that it is much cheaper to fly to London or Paris than it is to do Québec-Sept-Îles. It really is quite astounding that there is no national transportation policy. That is the fault of the Progressive Conservative government. Perhaps after the merger, you could settle something like that, Mr. Silye, with our friends who fought for a policy...
Mr. Boudria: Is that the merger between the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois?
Mr. Langlois: No, the other, the Progressive Conservative Party!
[English]
Mr. Silye: The three.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: That said, of course I would just prefer that members be better informed. And I think that a lot of work has been done to help members get more bang for the buck. It is not a question of investing more money; it is a question of getting the most for it. I think that should be a parliamentarian's main concern.
I draw the line, however, when it comes to criteria for flights of more than 500 miles, since it depends a great deal on how those 500 miles are broken down. Mr. Pickard gave an example earlier. Is it a direct, fairly quick flight to Uplands-Pearson, do you have to travel in economy? Would it not be more expensive to handle the exceptions, since there will always be some? Someone totally wiped out may need to travel in business class to get home. There could be all sorts of reasons.
Mr. Thompson told us he had to travel in business class because of his size; I can understand that if he had to travel in economy, his neighbour would have his nose crushed against the window. There are all sorts of reasons like that.
I agree that it could be encouraged, but I do not think it should be mandatory. There are no business class flights in Quebec. They are all economy and there can be surprisingly long waits.
As for the 64-point system, some obvious progress has been made. I have already seen the effects of what Mr. Hopkins was referring to earlier. Parliamentarians get special travel points - they used to get 64, but as of last year they get 20 - to encourage them to visit various parts of Canada to broaden their horizons a little.
.1205
I think a government - in this case, a national government - should ensure its members have as broad a view of the country as possible. If I talk about something happening in British Columbia, I want to be more familiar with what is going on there. The same would apply to an event in Newfoundland and, Mr. Chairman, you know what is going on in Quebec City, in Montreal. We must make decisions on issues that affect places from one ocean to the other.
That aspect must be born in mind, otherwise we will become a regional school board. I do not want to belittle school boards, but I do feel we work on a somewhat broader scale. I think a good first step would be to inform members of all costs, regardless of how small, while taking disparities into account.
At some point, I mentioned the role of a member of the Opposition. The size of parliamentary groups - take the current Parliament with 178 or 179 Liberals, approximately 50 members of the Bloc and 50 or so Reformers - means we obviously can't have all the same travel plans. It is easier to rotate members, to plan trips for 178 than 50, when at a moment's notice you can say: ``Oh! I cannot be in Ottawa Monday morning, why don't you come tomorrow morning.'' We have to have a full fare ticket, etc. So it is really luck of the draw if we can save money.
I am also lukewarm, if not opposed to the idea of transferring a member's transportation budget to his own budget. For example, how could you compare Ms McLaughlin, who lives in the Yukon, with a member from Ontario or Quebec? If Ms McLaughlin forgoes a trip to the Yukon, her office budget will increase significantly, whereas for a member who foregoes a trip to Kitchener or Kingston, his riding's budget will not be affected very much. It would be relatively insignificant. You would not save very much cancelling one trip.
The Chairman: No.
Mr. Langlois: So if Ms McLaughlin spent a weekend in Ottawa or if my friend Bernard St-Laurent skips a tour of his riding - from what he told me, that takes him two weeks - we will save a lot more. So not everyone has the same opportunity to economize, and that is what scares me.
If you say: ``You can put the savings into your riding budget'', what is the likelihood Mr. Lee or Mrs. Parrish would have a bigger budget, if she foregoes a trip to Toronto, especially since she has now decided to travel in V class? It amounts to a measly $236 saved, compared to $3,000 or $4,000 for someone living up north, or perhaps $5,000 for another member? I find it totally disproportionate. If there are to be savings, they should be put into a pot and then reallocated.
Nonetheless, we will encourage every member who lives far from Ottawa to travel less to his or her riding. That's obvious. Savings can be made there. Imagine someone working in the riding office of a member from British Columbia. He will say to his boss: ``Listen, Sir, Madam, you need only make one or two less trips to Ottawa a year and you can increase my salary by $10,000 or $8,000.'' That changes the picture entirely, which we cannot allow.
So I have a lot of reservations about that. I think we should take our time with that. We have already made good progress. Questions have been raised about major carriers, some competition, a monopoly or duopoly over prices in Canada, about how we should deal with that, that it should be referred to the appropriate committee. It would be the Transport Committee, or at least, the most effective committee. Mr. Silye has presented very valid arguments and very complete graphs, which showed he was right.
As for the questionnaire on the 64 points, of course I agree with that. They will provide us with information, but I feel a number of coercive measures have been taken in the past little while. Perhaps we should go easy with this.
.1210
[English]
The Chairman: We move now into the second round. I have two names - Ms Parrish and Mr. Silye. Who's going to start?
Mr. Silye: I withdraw my comment.
Mrs. Parrish: I'd just like to address some of the comments around the table. First of all, the length of discussion around the 64-point system and all the various suggestions indicate a need for this. As Mr. McWhinney said, there was tonnes of information in this survey and, given my natural brash style, I would have come out with 15 recommendations and they wouldn't have been for debate. They would have been: this is what I do, this is what the majority of the MPs want, these are our recommendations. Quite frankly, that was beyond our mandate. We were asked to look into MP travel. We went much beyond that. Again, I'm surprised we didn't get our knuckles rapped, because we went into the whole issue a little bit further.
I wasn't fair in my introduction of the questionnaires, because it does talk about whatMr. Milliken has suggested, the use of travel points tied into budgets, etc. What we decided was, they've given us enough seeds of information in the original questionnaire to home in more finely on the questions on this one. Because of the lengthy discussion around the table, you've just reinforced that we did the right thing. We've come back and we've asked if we can go a little further, and we would not presume to do it without the permission of the committee.
I like Mr. Milliken's suggestion, and the concern that Mr. Langlois points out about some MPs travelling home less frequently. I may put it to you that the MP I replaced went home every weekend, but did boo-all in the riding. MP style is not dictated by budget, but what this does is treat us all like adults. If Mr. Milliken's plan is accepted by the majority of the MPs, some choose to use the money in their office budget, others choose to go home more frequently. Others with five children may choose to bring their families here more often.
An MP's style should not be dictated by Parliament. They'll find their own style. What we should be doing, as Mr. Milliken said, is bringing an incentive for all to save money, and the best incentive in human nature, particularly in, for example, a riding my size.... I'm saving money purely for the joy of it. I love it. I'm Hymie; I love saving money. I'm a tough.... I'm Polish. I love saving money.
If I were to take that money and apply it to extra staff in Mississauga - now I have lost three staff in the last 18 months because the work is incredible there - and be able to pay someone a bit more and get extra staff, then I would get a double pleasure out of saving the money in that I would be serving my riding better.
MPs' style can't be dictated, but in fact 65 options should be given. Listening to this, I think we've probably even come up with some more questions to put in this questionnaire.
Also, we made an error, I think, in suggesting that it's 850 kilometres. It should be the full rule that the federal government uses, which is three hours or 850 kilometres, and that would take the Windsor problem into consideration. I would like to modify that if I could.
As far as the airlines are concerned, if they can get into competition with Delta and fly to Washington for $233, why the hell is it costing $470 to go back and forth from Pearson to Ottawa? I think the answer's amply obvious. They have too many flights going two-thirds empty. The competition, the market's there and they don't give a damn, because they're not competing with Delta to fly from Toronto to Ottawa. They're competing to fly to Washington.
I'm pleased that we've had the lengthy discussion, because it reinforces our desire to go on with the next questionnaire and report back to you. I appreciate your point, Mr. Pickard. I think we should have the full rule in there, which is three hours or 850 kilometres, when we send it to the Board of Internal Economy. That has general consensus on the survey without going further on the 64-point survey.
The Chairman: What is it that you're asking the committee to vote on today, Mrs. Parrish.
Mrs. Parrish: The recommendations which I highlighted. Number one -
The Chairman: Let's deal with them in order. Number one.
Mrs. Parrish: To send the report to the Board of Internal Economy with the recommendation that business class be reserved for anything over 850 kilometres or over three hours.
The Chairman: Let's deal with that. Are members prepared to approve that recommendation to the Board, send the report with that recommendation to the Board of Internal Economy?
Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, I think they're one step farther than that. I think, because of the complexity of this report and the possible need for questions to be answered, I would recommend that Carolyn and her committee appear before the board.
The Chairman: That's up to the board.
Mr. Hopkins: I just throw that out. It's something the board might want to consider.
.1215
Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, I understood that we were adopting the report. We're not.
The Chairman: No, that's not what Mrs. Parrish suggested in her opening comments.
Mr. Lee: No, that's why I'm raising the point now. I'm prepared to adopt the report, but I'm not prepared to go further than that at this time. There are many other areas that we may want to consider, but I understood we were debating the report and not the larger issue. If the question is that we are adopting the report, I'm onside. If it's beyond that, then I'd like to see the issues put.
The Chairman: That's why I asked Mrs. Parrish what the items were and we were going to deal with each one. She didn't indicate adoption of the report at the beginning. What she indicated were three different things, and one was, as I understand it, that the subcommittee be reconstituted, go back and do more work on this, with another questionnaire. I'm in the hands of the committee, but that was the suggestion I thought we were getting and that's what I thought we had been discussing for the last while.
Mrs. Parrish: Perhaps I could reword this. Again, you'll have to forgive me for my lack of experience. If we move to adopt the report and to forward it, as is, to the Board of Internal Economy, would it then be empowered to take recommendations out of the report and implement them as it wishes?
The Chairman: It can do whatever it wants, any time, on this issue. All we're doing is making recommendations.
Mrs. Parrish: Then why don't we do that. Why don't I suggest, first of all, that we move acceptance of the report as is, forward it to the Board of Internal Economy and get permission to continue with the 64-point questionnaire. I think that covers your concerns.
Mr. Lee: That's fine, yes.
Mr. Silye: I second that.
The Chairman: We don't have a motion. Can we write something down?
Mr. Silye: I second that notion.
Mrs. Parrish: You second that notion?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Parrish: This is typically how this committee has worked.
Mr. McWhinney: Carolyn's original points are very clear, whereas the report itself... I wasn't making a criticism when I said you were justified in the empirical data to go much further - but your motion actually was marked by clarity and precision.
Mrs. Parrish: That's my style.
Mr. McWhinney: It's at the 850, and I like that. It's a signal to the press and it's a signal to the board.
Mr. Silye: It's all in there.
Mr. McWhinney: I'm a bit sorry. It may be in the report, but the report is rather paraphrastic. It's a good diplomatic report in that sense, but -
Mrs. Parrish: Don't worry.
Mr. McWhinney: - on the other hand, the other rang a bell, you see.
The Chairman: I agree with you, Mr. McWhinney. I think the wording is very loosey-goosey, if I can use that expression. It might be tightened up and we might want to make a firmer recommendation in respect of certain items, but we can do that by motion.
Mrs. Parrish: It would give me great pleasure to firm it up and suggest that we would draw their attention to the committee's recommendation that the 850-kilometre, three-hour rule be brought into play immediately; that a booklet be put together immediately and that we investigate it further.
The Chairman: Who's going to do the booklet? Is this to be done by your subcommittee or by the board? Are we recommending it do a booklet or are we going to actually go ahead and do a booklet?
Mrs. Parrish: Rider, Canadian Airlines and Air Canada have all agreed to participate in this -
Mr. Silye: We have to establish a budget for it.
Mrs. Parrish: - and we establish a budget for it, to which we assume they -
An hon. member: Who pays for this?
Mrs. Parrish: - will all donate. We can come back with a report on what that's going to cost and who's going to do it.
Mr. Pickard: If I may comment on that too, I think the report itself is a separate issue from the extensions that could come from the work that has been done. By adopting a report we don't negate any further work or any one of those criteria that have been put forward for further work. I think that adopting a report being a separate issue is the first step we should take, and refer it to the Board of Internal Economy.
The second step we can take is to authorize Carolyn's committee to continue gathering further information, more surveys, and bringing forward more analysis of the problem she's asking to deal with.
I see it as a twofold question we're asking the committee to do. First, if we adopt the report which is recommended, do that; second, then I think there should probably be a second motion to go further.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Chairman, I like Jerry's suggestion because it does two things. The board gets an initial look at this and gets a sense of the issue itself. It will then likely ask the questions of who's going to pay for the booklet and how much it's going to cost, so it'll come back here for that. At what point should this 850-kilometre, three-hour rule be put in? What suggestions are coming forward on the questionnaire?
The Chairman: There's no guarantee anything would come back if we once get it there. Don't assume that. We don't hear from the board very often and they don't often accept our recommendations.
.1220
Mr. Silye: I know somebody on the board, though.
The Chairman: Yes, you do.
Mr. Silye: They might recommend strongly that it be explored further.
The Chairman: Can I suggest the following motion, which could be put? First, that the committee adopt the report of the Sub-committee on Members' Travel and that the report be referred to the Board of Internal Economy.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Second, that the Subcommittee on Members' Travel consider the 64-point travel system and that the subcommittee report no later than October 31. That's your deadline. Is that motion acceptable and does it cover everything else?
Mrs. Parrish: Could I also make a third motion, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Just a second. Let us deal with this one first.
Mrs. Parrish: All right.
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I suggested that deadline for the first release be postponed to March 31st. We tought it was a very long period but eventually, it was not. There will be a summer recess, the beginning of the new session and we have to go back to our offices. Instead of October 31st, if it was before the Christmas holiday, it would give us one more month, which will be enough. If we are ready before that, we will table it ahead of time.
[English]
Mrs. Parrish: If we're finished sooner, that's fine.
The Chairman: Okay. So November 30?
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Now do you want a third motion on the booklet?
Mrs. Parrish: I'd like a third motion to recommend to the Board of Internal Economy immediately that this 850-kilometre, three-hour rule be put into place for the next budget year, because in fact you can see on the original survey we have quite a bit of consensus on that.
The Chairman: But isn't that already in the report that's going to them?
Mrs. Parrish: Yes, but you've said it's like a black hole; it may not be focused on. I would like that to be a specific recommendation as of today.
Mr. McWhinney: I'm prepared to second that. I think it's worth our voting on having an expression of clear opinion on it at this stage.
Mr. Silye: How about the board authorizing the printing of a booklet or approving an allotment of funds?
Mr. McWhinney: This is the key point in your report, surely. That's what she's signalling.
Mrs. Parrish: Just for the 850-kilometre, three-hour one. They can or can't implement it, but I think we have strong consensus in that whole survey.
Mr. Silye: But the sooner you get a booklet established, which every member and staffer gets to look at, on the procedure and how to book most economically, and it's there -
Mrs. Parrish: That's the fourth proposal, and you can make it.
Mr. Pickard: We've had a number of motions.
Mrs. Parrish: Yes, we did a lot of work.
An hon. member: The board is used to seeing things numbered out like that.
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: On the issue of the 500-mile or 850-kilometre, three-hour, given that there are a large number of MPs who live within that distance and travel in business class, before we do away with it - and that is not what was suggested in the questionnaire - it seems to me we should give this committee the opportunity to present its views. We have never asked those people why they were travelling in business class.
According to what some members of the committee said - you have done it as well on some flights, Mrs. Parrish - many MPs were flying in business class. But why do they do it? Perhaps there are very serious, very valid reasons.
Now, we would set a standard and the criterion would be applied whatever the circumstances of the case. We should perhaps be more flexible and provide for some exceptions. There would not be any in your motion as presently worded.
Under our extended mandate, I am not prepared to vote on that motion without dealing with that issue. If it means we have to wait for a few more months, I think our report will be even better accepted.
[English]
The Chairman: I think we've done a reasonable thing in getting the report there. Maybe we should leave it at that under the circumstances. Okay?
Mr. McWhinney: Can we not vote on the motion, which was submitted before me?
.1225
The Chairman: Well, I haven't received one.
Mr. McWhinney: You haven't?
The Chairman: No. She has suggested that in the circumstances, with a lack of consensus on the matter, we might -
Mr. McWhinney: Lack of consensus?
The Chairman: That's what I just heard from Mr. Langlois.
We've adopted the report and referred it to the committee. The report contains recommendations. I think the feeling was to leave it at that point. I hope the chair is correct in assessing this.
Mr. Lee: The chair is correct.
The Chairman: Our time has pretty well expired. I think there's a lack of a quorum upstairs, so they need us there. We'll wait for the next opposition day, call a quorum, and move out.
I don't know whether we'll have a meeting on Tuesday. I'm not sure we'll have any business on Tuesday.
I declare the meeting adjourned.