[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, April 9, 1997
.1610 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: The first item of business is the election of a chair.
[Translation]
The first item on the agenda is the election of a chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
Ms Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Clerk,
[English]
I have done some research on this, and I've discovered that the tradition for the members' services committee, like the publics accounts committee, has been to have a member of the opposition as chair. So I'm prepared to move that Mr. Langlois become the chair of the Subcommittee on Members' Services.
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East, Lib.): I second that motion.
The Clerk: It has been moved by Ms Catterall, seconded by Mr. Fontana, that François Langlois be elected chair of this subcommittee. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): What happens if the two of us on this side vote no, and the two on that side vote yes?
The Clerk: That is addressed by Beauchesne. It has happened before. When a tie occurs during the election of a chairman, the question remains undecided, obviously. If the committee cannot reach a decision, the members are disbursed.
Motion agreed to
[Translation]
Ms Marlene Catterall: Don't we need a vice-chair?
[English]
The Clerk: I don't think so, but nothing prevents the subcommittee from deciding to elect a vice-chair.
The Chairman (Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse-Québec, Lib)): In your opinion,Mr. Speaker and Mr. Fontana, do we need a vice-chair or a pro tempore chair if the chair isn't here?
Ms Marlene Catterall: I don't particularly think so. Whoever is available can take over the chair.
Mr. Joe Fontana: I think it would be good to do it formally. I nominate Mr. Speaker as vice-chair.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: I would like to thank you, colleagues, for your vote of confidence, which has been done in accordance with the rules and conventions governing this Parliament. Thank you,Ms Catterall, Mr. Fontana and Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
In keeping with our usual practice for private members' business, I am ready to receive a motion to continue in camera.
[English]
Do you want to speak publicly?
Ms Marlene Catterall: We're talking about public business. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be open to the public.
.1615
[Translation]
The Chairman: We have all read the routine motion on hearing evidence:
[English]
that the chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive and authorize the printing of evidence when a quorum is not present.
[Translation]
I don't know what you think about that.
[English]
Ms Marlene Catterall: There are only four members. I think you need some flexibility here.
The Chairman: Moved by...?
Mr. Ray Speaker: I so move.
[Translation]
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: The second motion deals with the printing of issues: that the Sub-Committee print the number of copies of its Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence as established by the Board of Internal Economy for all public meetings, unless otherwise ordered by the Chair.
[English]
Ms Marlene Catterall: May I ask the clerk how many copies that is and what the cost is?
The Clerk: Actually, what is printed is the reports tabled in the House and the Minutes of Proceedings. My understanding is that it's around 350 copies. It's on a request basis. If members or senators are interested in a particular committee, they have to make the request in order to get it, because it's available on PubNet once it has been printed.
Ms Marlene Catterall: So if we authorize the printing of 350 copies it would automatically be printed for every meeting.
The Clerk: No, not for every meeting, because now we're not printing the evidence. The evidence goes on PubNet or Internet. All that is included in the Minutes of Proceedings is the minutes of proceedings and the reports.
We print them from time to time. For instance, if this committee has ten or twelve meetings, we'll print only those minutes of proceedings.
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Especially because we're talking about members' services, it would seem to me we should make enough copies available that each and every member could get a copy, over and above whatever you would need from an administrative standpoint.
The Clerk: I think it's standard that they print 350, but we can go as high as 550 copies.
Mr. Joe Fontana: The 350 would probably be good enough. I take it we're not talking about senators within this thing, so it doesn't particularly matter.
Ms Marlene Catterall: I would like to try that for a couple of meetings and see how many copies actually get used and requested. After the third meeting perhaps the clerk could report back to us. If we're printing 350 copies and nobody is using them, let's save the money.
Mr. Ray Speaker: That's the unwritten proviso of this motion.
The Chairman: Now the motion on submission distribution: that the clerk of the subcommittee be authorized to distribute submissions from the public in the official language received, with translation to follow at the earliest opportunity.
Ms Marlene Catterall: I so move.
[Translation]
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Does the motion on the research officer allow us to keep Jamie?
The Clerk: Yes.
The Chairman: I hope it won't be defeated: that the Sub-Committee retain the services of one or more Research Officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the Sub-Committee in its work, at the discretion of the Chair.
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana: I so move.
[Translation]
Motion agreed to
[English]
Ms Marlene Catterall: About hiring ten researchers, François, we're going to withdraw that. So don't get carried away by this authority.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Future business: on this point, we all know that we are at the end of a Parliament, and I think that we could choose to draw up a long list that would focus on some of the points that seem important to me.
Personally, I sent a letter dated March 11 on per diem and expenditures for housing. That is something that concerns members.
.1620
At present, we have an allowance frozen at $6,000 for housing in the City of Ottawa or in the National Capital Region, as well as for housing in the ridings of those members who have very large ridings and who must travel. That allowance is excluded from the members' budgets.
So I submitted a proposal to increase the allowance to $12,000 and to merge the $6,000 budget with the riding budget so that a member who has a riding budget surplus can use that amount.
Regarding my proposal, I would like to point out that there is no conflict of interest because I do not have a surplus. I won't benefit from it in any way. I know that the issue was raised in my party and that several colleagues referred to it. That is why I took the liberty of writing to you.
As Senator Prud'homme said, we need to reach a consensus regardless of the issue. As a result, your opinion is as valid as mine.
[English]
Ms Marlene Catterall: Perhaps I can just make a comment. The extra budget for living allowance was introduced in the last Parliament. It had never existed before, and members were responsible for their own costs. Even when they travelled, members of Parliament had to pay for their own hotel and meals and so on. I thought it was ridiculous, because no government official at any level has to pay out of their own pocket for accommodation and travel costs.
It is particularly unfair that a member of Parliament like myself who lives in Ottawa and who therefore doesn't have the extra costs of accommodation would essentially have a bigger salary than anybody else. Most of you have costs that you have to incur and I don't have those costs. It means I have more income for doing the same job. That's why I would be somewhat reluctant to see this just added to the budget. That would mean it would be to my advantage, because then I would have more money to spend on other things with respect to my job. Again, the unfairness is reintroduced, because right now I can only use that $6,000 for expenses I actually incur, which means when I'm travelling on parliamentary business for one reason or another.
So it seems to me that to incorporate it into your operating budget would simply be reintroducing that imbalance, again, between the few people, like myself, who happen to live in Ottawa and those of you who don't and who therefore have to maintain another home here.
I don't have any particular objections if members want to have extra flexibility in that. They should also be able to use some of the money out of their operating budget.
Perhaps we need to look at the facts here a little more closely. The more proper approach is to see if that $6,000 is in fact inadequate through some decent research on what the costs are and on how many members are experiencing some difficulty in meeting their actual costs out of that $6,000. Does that $6,000 need to be increased?
On a broader scale, and this implies inviting perhaps the clerk as a witness, I would like us first to look at the global range of members' services and to see how they have been diminished over the last few years. I'd like to see whether or not we think that's appropriate or whether we think there are some of those services that in fact have become too restrained.
I don't think my second point should be dealt with until more likely the next Parliament. The members' operating budget has now been frozen for six years. I noticed in the Speaker's estimates for the House of Commons that they're making provisions now for people in the House of Commons bureaucracy to be able to rise up and receive increases in wages. They're also preparing to resume negotiations with the unionized employees. That almost certainly implies some increases. Yet nothing has been done to increase the members' operating budgets so their staff could also receive appropriate increases.
.1625
In a way, our staff has been dealt with more harshly than the House of Commons staff. They haven't been able to get promotions because there's no more money in our budget. We can't do any more even if they do take on extra duties. We should look at the overall members' operating budget and whether or not after a six-year freeze it's still adequate.
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with most of what my colleague has said. Let me answer the question as it to relates to those members who live in the national capital region.
When the first housing allowance was put in place the fact that those people living in this area were not able to claim rent or mortgage payments was in recognition of the fact that they should not have a benefit that others who lived outside of the national capital region didn't have. Hence, I don't think this motion would adjust that rebalance.
I would agree, obviously, that people living outside the national capital region have different costs. That was why it was recognized and done in such a fashion. If you're travelling, for example, you get reimbursed. If Ray and I, who live outside the national capital region, find it necessary to have costs that we could claim on the housing costs here also, but you couldn't claim on your housing costs as it relates...
I would agree with what Marlene said in the sense that we need to do a number of things.
First, we need to do an inventory to find out exactly what's happened over the course of the past four years in terms of those members' services.
Secondly, we need to review members' budgets. I believe all the parties and all the members are of the same opinion. Whether it's housing or whether it's trying to do the best job they possibly can for their constituents, especially in big rural ridings... Now that the ridings are in fact getting bigger in some cases the members' budgets don't reflect a fair amount in order for them to discharge their jobs as members of Parliament.
I agree that the $6,000 is absolutely irresponsible to a certain extent, because I don't think it even covers it all. I've spoken to members from all parties, and they say that $6,000 comes nowhere near covering the costs of housing while members are doing their jobs in Ottawa.
I'd like to see the part of your motion that we review the housing costs in the national capital region. Perhaps that review should look at what other legislatures do for their members. I understand that those members' services are entirely different in the provinces. We might want to review what other jurisdictions are doing.
The review of the budget and what the housing costs are and what other legislatures are doing with regard to the housing costs and their members should be the first things we do. (A) and (B) should then probably be deferred until such time as we have all the information, especially, as you said, Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that it would be fair to talk about retroactive payments now that we're at April 9 so as to be able to say that any unused portion would go back to be paid for 1996 costs. I'm not sure it would be fair, because there are some rules and regulations on how you can do it because these are receiptable things. You can't backtrack or retroactively create receipts.
Those costs that were incurred until March 31, 1997...you couldn't do anything about those things. There's no doubt that (A) and whatever you determine to be an adequate amount for housing ought to be given consideration after we do the review. To tell you the truth, I have no idea what the members' services even are, or what we've lost or what we've gained over the past four years. I haven't the faintest idea.
.1630
Thirdly, I know for a fact that $6,000 is not a fair representation of what the costs in Ottawa are, but I haven't an idea of what a fair amount would be until one does the analysis of what a particular scenario costs.
Your motion is in order for us to consider, but I think the relevant part is to do the (C) part of your motion, and that's to do with the study, and then look at (A). We should strike out (B) because it's past even the date of consideration.
You were saying we should have been talking about this on March 18, 1997, and it probably would have been relevant to talk about it on March 18, 1997, as you say here. We're at April 9 and I'm not sure that has any relevancy any more.
Mr. Ray Speaker: You have raised two questions and both are relevant. One question is whether the $6,000 is adequate or not and how it fits into the other scenario of benefits for members. The second question is where we should locate the funds in terms of the budget. We should review all of this. That's very necessary.
Even from my own experience in the last three and a half years, when we came here we looked at every possibility in terms of frugal rent and we still ended up paying with the utilities something like $1,400 per month.
If you're going to have your spouse stay here with you, they can't be cooped up in a hotel room. They go mad as it is, in the sense that they come without a purpose. They come without something to do here on the Hill. They're waiting for you. They see you leave in the morning and they see you come back at night. That's a pain in itself.
Certainly the $6,000 amount should be reviewed. In Alberta, back about eight or nine years ago we set it at $1,000 a month to pay toward your rent, to try to bring some equality, as you say, between the member from the capital region versus the member from western Canada or in the Maritimes or just in Ontario somewhere.
Perhaps what we should do... We all agree that we're moving towards the election in the next few weeks. I was wondering if we could get a quick questionnaire to the current members sitting in the House and ask some of these relevant questions about how they feel. Was the $6,000 adequate? What would be an adequate amount? What troubles did they have in terms of getting rental accommodation? They could just check off some stuff for us to give us a bit of direction. If you go back to the grass roots, those 296 or so members are the grass roots.
I don't think we need a motion. I would suggest to the chair that we have somebody do that this week. Then, say on Monday or Tuesday, we'd quickly get together, look at it and circulate it to our caucuses right after that and get some good feedback as to our task here.
Ms Marlene Catterall: I like the idea of a questionnaire. Obviously some members themselves should know how they feel about whether or not the services are adequate. If we're doing a questionnaire, I wonder if we shouldn't look at the other elements of members' services we want to ask about.
Mr. Ray Speaker: Yes, we want a broader base of benefits.
Ms Marlene Catterall: Yes, broader than that.
On this particular aspect, one possibility of handling it is that virtually every member at some time does some travelling on parliamentary business. In fact the costs of that for all members should not have to come out of your housing allowance. It should be separate.
You have your expenses reimbursed just as any officer of the House would if that person were travelling on government or House of Commons business. If that were taken out, that means this $6,000 will go further, and then we can also deal with the issue of whether or not it's adequate.
Mr. Ray Speaker: You could ask whether the $170,000 you receive as a member's budget is adequate, inadequate. Would you add to the different priorities?
Ms Marlene Catterall: If you go down to Atlantic Canada to make trouble on political business, your expenses should be paid.
.1635
We're doing the business of the country, we're doing the business of democratic politics, and it shouldn't be a question of your having to try to squeeze your housing allowance to provide your normal accommodation here in the capital to pay your expenses when you travel on what is legitimate political business.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Could I ask a question of the clerk, or even the researcher? About members' services, when, if ever, was a questionnaire done? I've been here nine years, and I can't remember... I was sitting on members' services. A complete review of members' services was obviously undertaken by the Board of Internal Economy. Are there historical documents we might be able to start to look at in advance of meeting, a questionnaire or any other stuff?
Mr. Jamie Robertson (Committee Researcher): We can check, but I suspect no questionnaire has been circulated to members, certainly in the last Parliament, unless you're aware of one. I think the board has been reviewing it in terms of cost-cutting, but that's more of a management exercise than seeking input from members.
The Clerk: The only questionnaire sent to all members was a questionnaire from the subcommittee on members' travel about the 64-point system and the budget allowed for it.
Mr. Joe Fontana: That's the one I remember.
Ms Marlene Catterall: It would be helpful, as Joe said, to have a look at issues that were dealt with by the previous committee on members' services. I should remember from the material you prepared for us, but I don't even remember why that committee ceased to exist.
Mr. Robertson: It was wrapped into what is now Procedure and House Affairs. I think it was felt there wasn't the same need for it. When it was originally set up there weren't representatives of the opposition parties on the Board of Internal Economy, so to some extent there was felt to be an avenue for making the board aware of issues through that. Then they wanted to reduce the number of committees in 1991. So it was a political decision.
Mr. Joe Fontana: If I'm not mistaken, I once sat on that very same committee. I remember reviewing the 64 points and some of those members' services, including the parliamentary restaurant and all those other issues. I think there are some previous decisions and documents which might be helpful to some of us in reflecting on some of those issues which were considered by our colleagues before.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Are there any other comments?
I would like to raise an issue that affects me personally. I represent a vast rural riding where the situation and the distances involved force me to keep two riding offices, with the same budget as a member for the Ottawa region. It seems to me that an adjustment could be made. There are very large sparsely populated ridings in Canada. That would perhaps be an issue we could address.
Personally, I do not want to focus on too many things at once; I don't know how we should approach this. I am open to your suggestions. We could probably obtain information on the issues that have been raised, through our researcher. He could perhaps obtain some objective information on the cost of housing in the region from the City of Ottawa and the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton for reference purposes. That should be available. What does it cost a person or a family to live here? The answer he obtains would enable to us to have an objective idea of the situation. I do not know what you think of that idea. We do not really have any reference point. We could ask members what their housing costs are, but it would be more accurate to determine the average cost of housing in the National Capital Region.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker: I think that could be part of the questionnaire. We could ask this current group what they have been paying and what accommodations they have arranged. I think we should also ask the other question, the one you've raised, about extra funds for two constituency offices, for example.
.1640
Maybe there's a formula by which you could ask the question: would you be prepared to provide extra funds for those constituencies that have an area beyond something, where the two major -
Ms Marlene Catterall: I think we already do that, don't we? There's a supplement for a large rural area.
Mr. Ray Speaker: Yes, there is something in there.
Mr. Robertson: I don't think it's related to the number of constituency offices, and that's where there might be -
Ms Marlene Catterall: No. It's related to recognizing this is one of the implications of having a large office.
Mr. Ray Speaker: One of the criteria could be, say, that the two major population centres are 50 miles apart, that there's some kind of distance factor that allows for it. It has to fit into a formula some way.
Mr. Robertson: What I suggest we could do is get some information on accommodation costs. I'm sure there are some statistics that show Ottawa-Hull compared to other urban areas in terms of different types of accommodation. I think the other suggestion of looking at what various provincial jurisdictions do for accommodation costs would be useful too.
Mr. Joe Fontana: We'll find out where the chintzy part of the group is.
Mr. Robertson: I can go ahead and prepare that.
I will also put together, if you wish, a questionnaire, which I can have ready for you by next Monday for your consideration, to discuss the whole range of these issues. If you have any suggestions, let me know what those are.
Mr. Ray Speaker: I know my own members. If we'd given them the questionnaire in the fall of 1993 or January 1994, they would have responded in a certain way.
Ms Marlene Catterall: They would have answered quite differently than they would now.
Mr. Ray Speaker: Now that the reality has set in, which you couldn't explain or describe at that time because the world here was so new, I think there could be some very good recommendations from our group at this point in time through the questionnaire. That's what I suggest, that we pick their brains, because it's reality, in their minds.
Mr. Robertson: The other suggestion you made is that it should be one that is fairly easy for them to check off, with perhaps extra space if they want to make comments. But the idea would be to make it quick so that over the next few weeks they have time to fill it out in 15 minutes, as opposed to spending a lot of time.
Mr. Ray Speaker: Right. You might want to put a column on the side entitled ``other''. If they want to write something about the question, they can put it in the ``other'' column. Then leave some space at the end where they can add their thoughts. Some like to do that, while others don't.
Ms Marlene Catterall: I hear Carolyn talking about how she has managed to serve a constituency of 250,000 people on the same budget as everybody else, who have smaller constituencies. Frankly, I don't know how she can do it. There's an extra workload when your constituency is located here, believe me. My budget is really stretched in order to provide the level of service I think my constituents deserve.
Given that it's usually 10 years between redistributions, I do think we need to look at how we can accommodate a riding that has grown tremendously in size beyond the average. We could try to establish an average number of constituents a member of Parliament should have. I think what we've tried to do is to establish an average budget, and if the constituency grows well beyond the average, then I think the budget has to be allowed to grow well beyond the average too.
Mr. Joe Fontana: I would hope that one of the questions would deal with the member's overall budget in terms of whether or not members feel that is adequate and that it would perhaps give them an opportunity to say what that extra amount should be. I think what you'll find is that because it has been frozen for six years and because even before that it might have been inadequate, taking into account rural areas as well as population growth, I don't care who you are, you couldn't run an office here or perhaps others on $180,000-plus or whatever.
Again, there is the whole question of flexibility. That's why I liked your proposal. When you were talking about the $6,000 being moved up to a $12,000 housing allowance, you weren't saying that the overall budget needed to go up $6,000 or $12,000, but that in fact the MOB essentially be a flexible budget so that members can pick and choose where in fact they want to priorize.
.1645
That's the other part of this thing. Right now the $6,000 is a separate part of the budget on its own. It has absolutely nothing to do with the MOB. But if in fact there is a way of being able to incorporate it into the global budget and the global budget is very flexible, I think that should be allowed.
I'll give you one other example. A number of members had written to the Board of Internal Economy and the Speaker... That $1,000 miscellaneous budget that's available in our MOB for the purposes of doing other things, advertising in a university yearbook... When certain members had constituents come to their offices, they couldn't even offer them a coffee or a glass of juice, because there was no way to put that somewhere.
Surely the budget ought to be flexible enough that the member - because this is all public funds, and you have to account for them, that it's all there - should have opportunity and flexibility in where they want to spend their money. If they want to spend a little more on housing because they want to do it, or a little more on some other item, that becomes a matter of personal choice and accountability. As long as it's transparent and members know they need to be accountable, I don't think the public is going to have too many concerns about the budget.
Even though the budget has been opened up somewhat, I think it's very restrictive now. When we're talking about members' services, it would seem to me we ought to think about how flexible that budget should or should not be.
Ms Marlene Catterall: Another point that comes up is equipment in our offices: what is provided by the House of Commons, what we have to provide out of our basic office budget. I think we should be asking members whether they regard the equipment in their offices as adequate. It's impossible to believe in this day and age a fax machine is considered an option you have to pay for out of your own budget even though it's here in your Parliament Hill office. That's absolutely ridiculous.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Maintenance contracts to keep your equipment updated or in good repair come out of your own budget. That sounds a little weird.
Ms Marlene Catterall: Do we still have to provide our own photocopiers? I'm not sure about that.
Mr. Ray Speaker: You should put this into a composite. We could come back and have a look at all those questions.
Ms Marlene Catterall: I think we should also look at what our standard of service is to employees of the House. In a number of areas we have allowed service and equipment provided to members of Parliament to be substantially less than what is provided to people who work for the House of Commons. I think we should find out about what computer equipment is provided, what is allowed in office refurbishment, and so on. I think we'll find we're putting ourselves through hardships we're not asking other people to undergo, and I'm not sure that improves our working relationship with the staff of the House of Commons.
Mr. Ray Speaker: I can't complain there. We've been treated very well. I had some gung-ho young people working for me to begin with, when I came here. They went over and saw somebody in Wellington and said this is what we need, and everything came. So we were fine. But it doesn't hurt to make sure there's consistency throughout the system.
[Translation]
The Chairman: In the same vein, Ms Catterall, advances in computer technology now enable us to fax a document right from the computer, without using paper, but we need to buy the necessary equipment and charge the cost to our riding budgets. Regardless of who succeeds us, they will have this equipment; that equipment is here to stay. Members like Joe Fontana, Marlene Catterall or Ray Speaker should not have to use their budgets to pay for equipment that will remain House property.
It is not up to members to use their own budgets to pay for improvements to our computer services that protect the environment because the paper burden, among other things, is reduced, or to pay for improvements that makes Parliament more efficient. These expenditures should be charged back to another budget.
.1650
[English]
Ms Marlene Catterall: I'm wondering if in addition to the information we would get from the members on a questionnaire there isn't some analysis of current spending which might be helpful to us. For instance, how much generally do members spend on staff? I don't want to pry into the individual office budgets of members, obviously. We might also ask them on the questionnaire in what areas of their budget they feel there's the greatest restriction.
We should be able to find out, Jamie, what in general terms is the range in what people are paying for housing and so on, just from the records that are already there, and generally how members' budgets are broken down. I think that is already done, because we get a report that tells you on average how much members spend on certain things.
Mr. Ray Speaker: That's right. A printout may be generalized from the specific.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Do you have enough material to work on for the next few hours?
[English]
Mr. Robertson: I think so.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Depending on the availability of committee members, we could give our researcher an indication of a date by which he could produce a document that we could analyze. Do you have room in your schedules for a meeting at the start of next week?
[English]
Will you be on the Hill on Monday?
Mr. Ray Speaker: Yes.
Ms Marlene Catterall: I usually have my Monday pretty full of meetings. In general the time slot before the pocedure and House affairs committee on either Tuesday or Thursday is usually a reasonable time - 9:30 a.m.
The Chairman: Next Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. Is this agreeable?
An hon. member: Yes.
The Chairman: Do you have enough time to work on it?
Mr. Robertson: I hope we will be able to get a draft questionnaire to you on Monday so you can look at it before the meeting.
The Chairman: Fine.
[Translation]
Are there any other comments? The meeting is adjourned until next Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. Thank you.