[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 15, 1997
.0936 
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ)): Good morning, colleagues. Our researcher has prepared the draft questionnaire for the members. Maybe he could first indicate the way he proceeded to set his questionnaire. Then we can consider the questionnaire.
Mr. James R. Robertson (Committee Researcher): What I've prepared is a brief covering memo from Mr. Langlois, the chair of the subcommittee, and then a questionnaire. I went through the manual of allowances and services and tried to cover most of the issues and topics raised in there, taking into account the points raised at the meeting last Wednesday afternoon, in which members asked that certain questions be put. Essentially that was how I put this together.
Maybe the best thing is just to go through it and see if members like the questions, unless they have any general comments.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Have you had time to take a look at the questionnaire? Ms Catterall.
[English]
Ms Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): My main suggestion is that we should either leave a place for comments - some questions really don't lend themselves to an easy yes or no - or invite people to submit additional comments. Perhaps you can have more one question ask: ``Should other services be available on Parliament Hill to help you do your job better?''
I know we have some questions in there on personnel. I don't think there's one that asks: ``Have you found that the budget restrictions create difficulties in hiring and in keeping good staff?'' That is certainly a problem I'm hearing raised by a number of members.
The Chairman: Any other comments? Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East, Lib.): I'm pretty much satisfied. I think the additions Marlene has suggested are good ones. I would agree that in some cases you might want to put in a little extra space so people can give...even though I think the questions and the range of answers are satisfactory. If we allow politicians to write responses, we'll get 30-page documents on each question.
I like your range of questions. I think they cover the gamut.
Where did we put the housing budget? Is it buried there somewhere?
Mr. James R. Robertson: It's in a couple of places. Under ``Travel'' on page 4 of the English, questions 27 and 28 cover it. That is more as background. At the end, questions 44 and 45 try to get a bit more of an idea of how much members are currently spending in the national capital region and what kind of accommodation they have.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Okay. That's good.
As for question 40, asking how important these services are, is this a list of all the services provided to members, such as the minibus, picture framing, and all that?
.0940
Mr. James R. Robertson: That was based on the manual. I think I tried to cover most of the ones that aren't provided elsewhere. There may be some that are missing. Those seem to be the main ones that are highlighted in the manual and that aren't specifically covered by other questions.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Okay. Do you have the parliamentary restaurant listed separately anywhere?
Mr. James R. Robertson: No. We can add that.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Could you add that one?
Mr. James R. Robertson: Yes. Is there any specific issue you were interested in? Is it just if they are satisfied with the services?
Mr. Joe Fontana: Services and prices. I don't know how you can do the picture-framing and all that, because there's a cost -
Mr. James R. Robertson: For some of them there's a cost, but for other ones I think - -
Mr. Joe Fontana: No. I think for now maybe we'll just get a general impression of what the people think of the parliamentary restaurant. If in fact we find that...I don't know how people would indicate... It's just like cafeterias. From what I understand...what's the next cafeteria that will be closed?
Bob, is there a - -
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont - Dundas, Lib.): There's a reduction of the services in the - -
Mr. Joe Fontana: The Confederation Building won't have anything.
Mr. Bob Kilger: It has a different level of service now. I think we're probably headed towards an agreement similar to what already exists in the Justice Building, which is a privatization agreement.
Mr. Joe Fontana: The West Block is going to be converted at some point in time.
Mr. Bob Kilger: We know that in 1999 everyone's going to be moved out of the West Block.
Mr. Joe Fontana: So there won't be a cafeteria at all there.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Not for a couple of years, no. Definitely not.
Mr. Joe Fontana: I see that you have cafeterias covered off. Perhaps maybe we'll get an idea.
But as far as the parliamentary restaurant is concerned, maybe you could have a 40(b) and perhaps add a few more questions with regard to the parliamentary restaurant in terms of service, cost, pricing and those kinds of things. That'll be fine.
Mr. James R. Robertson: Okay.
Mr. Bob Kilger: I have just a housekeeping matter, and I'll raise the matter in English because I have the English copy. In question 7, you may just want to verify the amount. The Board of Internal Economy has made some changes to that furniture equipment allowance. I believe it's to the extent of $1,000 a year as opposed to the $5,000.
Mr. James R. Robertson: Okay.
Mr. Bob Kilger: It's just a housecleaning thing. You may just want to verify the latest on that.
Mr. James R. Robertson: Yes.
The Chairman: What are the new figures, sir?
Mr. Bob Kilger: I believe it's going to be $1,000 per year as opposed to the global figure of $5,000.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): I'm not sure that we should go to $1,000 a year -
Mr. Bob Kilger: No. I'm just saying that's what's on the books right now with the Board.
Mr. John Williams: It's $5,000 a year.
Mr. Bob Kilger: No.
Mr. John Williams: I'm sorry, $5,000 for the life of -
Mr. Bob Kilger: It's been changed to $1,000 a year. That's why I'm saying we should just get the latest figure. Then the question will be accurate. You may have a different opinion. I understand that. That's what this is going to tell us. It will identify that for all of us. I just want to make sure the question is accurate.
Mr. John Williams: Okay.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Once you have the latest updated version of the board guidelines about that, you may then want to refer to a question in these terms: did you prefer or would you prefer the previous format which was - -
Mr. James R. Robertson: Yes. I think there needs to be some reference to the older one, because people won't know which -
Mr. Bob Kilger: That's fine.
Mr. James R. Robertson: But I agree that we should put the current rule in there. I don't think the manual was updated when I was doing this.
Mr. John Williams: I have a couple of points, Mr. Chairman. For question 6, where it says members are required to pay bills of under $100 and you're basically asking where people are coming from, can't we offer an alternative?
I know that within the caucus when we had the debate about the fact that we had to pay these and claim reimbursements, some people weren't too excited about the idea. For those people who perhaps don't have much accounting background, keeping track of what they're paying out and quite legitimately are able to claim reimbursement of has certainly caused a bit of a headache for them. I wonder if the comptroller's office has any streamlined methodology that they could offer, an efficient methodology of paying small bills rather than today's mechanism of issuing cheques, which is, we understand, fairly costly.
Mr. Bob Kilger: If I can be of assistance, Mr. Chairman, I think you'll find that with respect to the last portion of that question, the accountable advance for office expenses up to $1,000 has been very helpful to a lot of the members in relieving members of having to take out any of their own personal funds to pay these bills and then wait for remittance. The remittance system was very costly because the board was having to issue individual cheques, and for amounts that really were...
.0945
Mr. John Williams: I'm more concerned about the accounting. It's not the fact that they couldn't afford to pay the bills and wait for the reimbursement. It's the fact that they were having to get into a little accounting mechanism of paying, submitting, ensuring they got reimbursement and so on. For those who have no accounting background, it hasn't been a great expense.
The other point, Mr. Chairman, is that those from the other side of the country have a significantly larger travel budget and accommodation budget than perhaps others. I'm thinking of those who either live in and represent Ottawa ridings or are in very close proximity to Ottawa, who have basically a negligible cost. I was thinking the other day, for example, about those who are within very close travelling distance of Ottawa. I was thinking of the Toronto area MPs who can fly up on Monday mornings, versus the people who have to come in from the west, who have to come in on Sunday, so they have an extra night's accommodation.
Is there any possible way we can address that in a proper, legitimate way rather than just saying, here is a blanket non-receiptable amount for everybody? This recognizes that MPs have costs but ignores that they vary depending on where the member comes from.
Mr. Joe Fontana: I think there's a general recognition, at least around the table as we discussed it, that $6,000 surely doesn't seem fair. There's a view that moving it to $12,000 would be the maximum. But that's receiptable, right? You don't get the money unless you've actually stayed or paid rent or whatever the case may be.
The way the $6,000 was initially set up was that people in the national capital region, if they were travelling, could take advantage of it. We covered off in one question that we think travel outside the national capital region should be handled separately, not necessarily taken into account as a housing allowance.
But you make a good point as to whether that $12,000 - if in fact we ever get to that point - is sufficient for those who live at the ends of the country, west and east and north, which are really problematic.
I suggest to you, though, that for people who can fly within an hour or an hour and a half, like the people from Toronto, whether they're flying because they can't afford to stay in Ottawa or because they want to be with their families...maybe the questionnaire would give us some of those answers.
As to whether there should be additional flexibility based on geography, it's not a bad idea, but I don't know how you would do it. Are you suggesting that $12,000 might not be enough for someone who has to come in on a Sunday and leave whenever?
Mr. Bob Kilger: Regardless of whether a member is from British Columbia or Quebec City, when he rents a unit, if that's what he's doing, he's paying the same rate. Probably because of the figure being low at $6,000, members have looked at other options like making arrangements with different hotels to suit their own needs. Otherwise, if the amount was fair, I think most of those members would prefer to have their own apartment. They could use it at their own leisure and not have to be concerned about checking in and out of a hotel for one or two nights.
Mr. John Williams: That's perfectly true, Mr. Chairman. I know for myself that the per diem we are paid is basically to cover meals. Because of the number of days I'm away from home, it consumes the entire $6,000. We get absolutely nothing to cover accommodation.
.0950
Therefore, I think we should recognize the per diem is for meals and that accommodation is a necessary expense as well. Therefore, I do think that $6,000 has to be addressed in some way, shape, or form, to recognize that it's not in any way, shape, or form really doing justice to the actual costs MPs incur either, say, from Quebec City or from British Columbia. Now, for those here in Ottawa it would be a different situation. I don't know how one addresses that, unless one were just to overlook it and allow them to get an extra benefit.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be interesting for the committee to know what our colleagues in provincial legislatures have to say about this. We'd have a basis for comparison then.
The Chairman: Do we already have any information about that?
[English]
Mr. James R. Robertson: We don't have information as to which one is worst. We've started a survey of various provinces. The trouble is that each of them handles it slightly differently. But we will provide to the subcommittee a general idea of how different provinces handle travel accommodation and food and information on the relative housing costs of the national capital region compared to other regions.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Just to follow up on what was mentioned, which questions relate to housing?
Mr. James R. Robertson: Those are numbers 27, 28, 44 and 45.
Mr. Joe Fontana: I wonder if you could ask the question on the per diem and separate the accommodation cost in the per diem rate.
Mr. James R. Robertson: I wasn't aware that used up the $6,000, so I will add that in.
Mr. Joe Fontana: That's how the $6,000 works now. It's accommodation and per diem. Number 27 is a good question on the overall amount of $6,000. Number 28 is a good one, too. But you may want to put in a 27(b) and separate the housing and the per diem amounts in there. That will give you a better idea.
Mr. James R. Robertson: I agree.
Mr. Joe Fontana: I'd like to ask about the question that deals with equipment in the offices, whether you believe that should be paid for globally or should come out of your MOB.
Mr. James R. Robertson: That's covered in numbers 8 and 9.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Is there a general question in regard to whether or not members are satisfied with the equipment on the Hill?
Mr. James R. Robertson: That's number 8. Then number 9 is - and I think this wasMs Catterall's point - that things such as fax machines are currently required to be purchased as opposed to being provided.
Mr. Joe Fontana: So numbers 8 and 9 cover equipment, furniture, computer software, and everything else.
I have just one additional question, and then I think we'll have it all covered. I don't know if you mention messenger service anywhere. You may want to add messenger service to question 40.
Mr. James R. Robertson: It's included in number 33. Internal mail and messenger service is the first one.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Okay. I think you should separate internal mail and messenger services into two items.
Mr. James R. Robertson: Okay.
Mr. John Williams: This is not a trick question, Mr. Chairman. But if when he's submitting his travel expenses and his office expenses, too, I understand, for reimbursement, the member segregates the GST, the GST is not charged to his MOB. That was a little change in the rules I was aware of about a year ago. I'm just wondering if members really picked up on the fact that if they separate that out, only the true cost of the expenditure is charged to the MOB, not the cost plus GST.
.0955
It may be a question just to find out if members are aware of it.
Mr. Joe Fontana: I was aware of it, but I thought any time we were purchasing equipment on behalf of the Government of Canada the supplier didn't charge the GST -
Mr. John Williams: No.
Mr. Joe Fontana: - because it was a special exemption number and you didn't have to separate it out on the invoice.
Mr. John Williams: It used to be that -
Mr. Joe Fontana: It's because the government would be paying itself with the GST. I thought they never charge themselves GST on anything.
Mr. John Williams: No, when the GST came in, the government did say they would pay the GST to suppliers; they were not going to use the exemption. The provinces usually claim the exemption from the GST, but the federal government said it wouldn't. Therefore when you get billed for services...
I'm not talking just about capital purchases here. I'm talking about all services you consume: 99% of the time you have GST added in your bill.
If you send in a bill for $107, if it happens to be $107 including GST, that $107 will get charged to your MOB. However, if you say it was a $100 expenditure and you itemize the GST on your reimbursement from the comptroller's office, only the $100 gets charged to your MOB and the GST gets claimed on some other account in the comptroller's office.
I'm not sure if members are aware of that. I just thought it might be advantageous to put that question in there in order for us to find out if people are aware that unless they itemize the GST the comptroller's office will charge the grossed-up amount to the MOB.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Rather than put it in this questionnaire, if in fact it is a policy matter, perhaps a clarification from the Board of Internal Economy is a lot better to inform members than asking them a question. I don't know what the question would be. Are you going to ask, are you aware of this policy, would you like it changed, would you like it simplified? What you've just said makes a heck of a lot of sense to me, so maybe it's just a clarification from the Board of Internal Economy. It's an accounting matter.
Mr. John Williams: Perhaps the best thing to do is first to check with the comptroller's office and find out if it is a problem, and if it is a problem, then to send out a memo.
Mr. Bob Kilger: You could ask John McCrea.
Mr. John Williams: Yes.
On question 40, I am glad we are asking these questions. We would hope some of these services, which are primarily what we consider private sector types of additional services - I'm thinking of the hairdresser and the barber and so on. I don't think the government should be in the business of providing those kinds of services. If there is demand for them, then the private sector can quite readily cater to demand wherever it sees it. I would hope we would seriously address some of the things, such as the cafeterias and the way they have been run, in the future. But that's not the purpose of this questionnaire. It's more or less to find out what people need.
[Translation]
The Chairman: You've more or less answered the questions I was wondering about. I wanted to see if there were any points we haven't tackled. Mr. Fontana pointed out something concerning that notorious $6,000 allowance and he was perfectly right to say that this allowance was used both for travel within the riding and per diem, which means that someone who has to travel within a large riding sometimes has no budget left over for Ottawa.
There's another point I'd like to mention. I've heard certain members of the National Assembly in Quebec say that they had a budget for travel within the riding which is outside their usual budget and which is equivalent to approximately $1,100 a month, for a riding that is equal to half of a federal riding. I'm wondering if it would be possible to discuss that point as well.
Large ridings are mentioned in Appendix III. Perhaps Mr. Kilger could tell us if this is also in the manual.
.1000
When we talk about the large ridings, we mean northern ridings like Manicouagan or Cochrane - Superior. There are very few, but we've noted that in some ridings - Mr. Speaker referred to them the other day and so did I - it is necessary to have two offices, for geographic reasons, for instance. I'm thinking in particular of my colleague from Témiscamingue who has three. Obviously that leads to core expenditures that cannot be restricted. You can have cutbacks in staff and then in staff payroll. I think it is possible to deal with this issue within the questionnaire.
We also talk about certain ridings where there may be two major political polls and where it would be justified to have two offices because of geographic distance. These are problems familiar to me because I've experienced them.
I don't know if you would agree to include the following question: Do you need more than one constituency office? Why and what would be the consequences for your constituency budget? I wonder whether this is the right way to ask the question.
It is my understanding that we can put all sorts of questions under the heading "Other Comments", but we'll then have to sort those out. Would you agree to include that question?
Mr. Bob Kilger: I agree entirely and I think that it is desirable to get as much information as possible from our members of Parliament. In the next legislature, that will enable us to have very important information in this regard because the Board of Internal Economy will necessarily examine these financial records in a way that will affect the MPs.
[English]
Mr. James R. Robertson: In designing the questionnaire, I've tried to keep away from factual information that we can obtain from the comptroller's office about how many members have claimed certain benefits or how many members have done this. This tries to get more at the kinds of problems that can arise.
I think question 17 deals with constituency offices. I think I'll reword it as you suggested to try to get more ideas from members about the problems that have been created, why they have more than one constituency office, and the problems for the budget that this has created.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Another question springs to mind and I wonder if we could insert it somewhere. Right now, with regard to travel points, according to the rules that were amended at the beginning of the current legislature, 20 points were designated as "special" and the rest as "regular" for most people. I'm always surprised to see that a flight that I take from one point to another within my riding is considered a special trip whereas I'm not even leaving my own riding. I don't think this question should constitute a special point in the questionnaire. I just wanted to point that out in passing.
With regard to telephone service, I think that one of the major problems is the cell phone. Long distance calls are paid, but the usage time is not. This is a modern communication tool and we use it in our cars and everywhere else. I'm not saying that everyone working in a member's office should have these phones, but it's important for a member of Parliament to have a cell phone line.
Therefore, could we ask a question about cell phones? Shouldn't that be considered an expense that can be posted to the House budget and not the member's budget? I don't know whether the questionnaire in its current form allows us to ask that question.
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana: Where are telephones covered off now?
Mr. James R. Robertson: It's under services, I thought.
.1005
[Translation]
The Chairman: That's under question 33. The question on telephone service goes together with the problem of multiple offices. Right now, the Comptroller's office pays for the first 1- 800 line. Thus, a member who has more than one constituency office must charge the cost of additional lines to his constituency budget. People will be able to realize this because we are asking members to identify the problems that that causes.
With regard to the electronic mail network and the integration of the Parliament Hill and constituency networks, it is my understanding that Mr. Marleau has explained that with the Intranet project, we will all operate on the same network. So I won't dwell on that.
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana: I will stick to telephones, if I could, because I think you've raised an important issue.
Under ``Services'' it says: ``Are you satisfied with the following services provided to Members by the House of Commons...?'' Telephones provided on the Hill are essentially included. They don't come out of our MOB. I agree with you on the cellular, but telephones in our constituency offices are not covered by the House of Commons except for the actual calls. The equipment and the lease of the equipment are not covered, right? It's a charge against the MOB.
Mr. Bob Kilger: That's right.
Mr. Joe Fontana: To give you an example, in my case it's close to $900 a month to cover the equipment and everything else.
Because you were talking about telephones, I'm wondering whether that is a necessity and therefore ought not to be in the MOB, just like the telephones on the Hill are not part of the MOB, or whether cellulars, which are a modern means of communication... Does it matter whether your telephone is in your constituency office, in the House, or in your car or on your person for you to communicate with your constituents or office? Should telephone service, just like computer service, be a given?
You asked a question about telephone service and facilities, but I don't know if we separated the constituency office and the House of Commons. There is a big difference between the telephone service on the Hill and the telephone service you might have available to you in a constituency office.
Mr. John Williams: The important thing is that all MPs have to play the same game on a level playing field. I'm surprised that your telephone bill is that high. In Alberta, now that we have a privatized telephone system, we paid, I can't remember, but a fairly significant upfront installation cost and had to purchase the equipment. I know my telephone bill isn't $900 a month for rental.
Perhaps we should find out if there is a significant variance province by province. If there is a significant variance in the flat cost of telephones, then perhaps it should be covered by the Hill rather than some people having to pay the better part of $10,000 just to have telephone equipment and others a significantly lesser portion. It's more important, I think, to have MPs on a level playing field.
Mr. Bob Kilger: I don't want to prejudice the discussions here, because I am a member of the Board of Internal Economy, but I certainly would welcome whatever information this subcommittee can provide to the Board of Internal Economy. It will be very helpful to that new board in the next parliament.
Mr. John Williams: Talking to Bob as a member of the BOIE, if you have changed the policy to $1,000 a year for capital purchases rather than a global budget for the life of a parliament, now that computers and high-tech equipment have a pretty short life and can't be purchased within a budget of $1,000 a year, I'm just wondering if that decision should be re-examined to allow a significant investment at some time during the parliament.
.1010
I think computer equipment should last for at least the life of a parliament, if not longer, but let's say that it should last for at least the life of a parliament. But if that $1,000 a year lapses after a year, if it's not spent or if someone wants to make an investment early in their parliamentary career, it's going to have a negative impact on their budget...rather than their being able to upgrade their computer equipment if it's obsolete.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, I think the point Mr. Williams makes is a very valid one. Again, I think that's why all this information that you're bringing forth and putting together is going to be very useful to that Board of Internal Economy. Obviously I don't see anything changing in the next weeks or months ahead, however long we might remain in the 35th Parliament, but certainly -
Mr. John Williams: Days.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Williams says days. We'll see.
Mr. James R. Robertson: There is a question 34: ``Are there communications facilities that are not currently provided that should be?'' I sort of threw that in.
I think I will reword that in light of the discussion about the cellular phones, 1-800 numbers and so forth, and in light of what Mr. Fontana suggested under 23. We'll divide that into telephone services and facilities on Parliament Hill and telephone services and facilities in the constituency, and we will see if we can get some information on relative telephone costs in different provinces. I'm sure we can get a researcher to get some information on that for the subcommittee's review.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Are there any other comments? When do we ask our colleagues to send the questionnaire back to the Clerk? First of all, when can it be sent out after the adjustments that we've proposed this morning have been inserted? When will it be available?
[English]
Mr. James R. Robertson: I expect we will be able to have the final English and French versions sometime tomorrow. Marie has suggested that the best way to distribute it would be by MS mail to all members' offices. We could also make print copies available to the whips or to the members of the committee as soon as they're available.
Mr. Joe Fontana: The only thing I would highlight here...I'll tell you right now, having done similar questionnaires myself as a caucus chair, members are very squeamish about putting their names to anything. Therefore I think we have to highlight the fact that it's private and confidential. I know you've done that, but also, when you're distributing it, either through e-mail or MS, I think it should be private and confidential in regard to the MP, and not necessarily the staff, only because there are some questions here that are solely the responsibility of the manager of the office, which happens to be the member too, even though obviously a good manager will consult with his staff in terms of what they think about services and so on.
But I think it's an important document, and sometimes, because so much paper goes into the members' offices, if you highlight it by saying private and confidential, ``for members' eyes only'' or whatever, it might get their attention a little more.
The Clerk of the Committee: So what would be best, MS mail or the members' postal boxes?
Mr. Joe Fontana: I don't know how it can be private and confidential if it's MS mail.
The Clerk: It would be private and confidential once completed, though. Or is it private and confidential as is? Because it's once completed -
Mr. Joe Fontana: No. If we want members to fill out a hard copy, then we had better hand out a hard copy. If you put it on MS mail and all of a sudden somebody decides to fill it out there, I'm not sure that it's confidential. I think it should be in hard copy only, for members' eyes only, and private and confidential. And it should be returned to the clerks, only to the clerks.
.1015
Mr. James R. Robertson: We'll highlight or bold that second-to-last paragraph, just so members know their replies will be treated in confidence.
The only reason for having names is that it will affect the analysis of some of the answers to know where they are from and to make sure we get only one answer from each person.
Mr. Joe Fontana: Maybe we could encourage our respective caucuses that it's obviously in their best interests to fill out -
Mr. James R. Robertson: At your meeting tomorrow, if you announce that, then as I say, we will endeavour to distribute the hard copy tomorrow, but Thursday morning at the very latest...in terms of getting it printed.
Mr. John Williams: So we can tell caucus it will be out this week.
Mr. James R. Robertson: Yes, definitely. If we want to get responses, I think we will have to ask for a deadline of next Wednesday or Thursday, if rumours are correct.
[Translation]
An Honourable Member: Perhaps a week.
Mr. Bob Kilger: [Inaudible]... national caucus. This week, we can notify them that the document will be sent to their office by the end of the week, and next Wednesday, we can tell them that it's the last day and that they must send it back. At that point, we'll see whether we've received a good number of responses.
[English]
We would have two weeks where we would have a national caucus where we could remind colleagues - first of all giving them a heads-up that it's coming and secondly a reminder that we need it now if the response is low.
Mr. Joe Fontana: I have a technical question. This is only a subcommittee. Assuming the35th Parliament, however long... If we don't take any action... Obviously to receive all these things, tabulate them, get an analysis, and then for you to give us a report... By the time that happens, hypothetically, if Parliament ceases to exist, what happens to all this work we've done? I suppose a new committee would resurrect what the previous committee did.
If we are doing all this hard work and then all of a sudden it's going for naught... Could we have made a report? Maybe the time lines are such that if we got the questionnaire returned we could have a meeting and we could make a report. Where does the subcommittee report to?
Mr. James R. Robertson: The procedure and House affairs committee.
Mr. Joe Fontana: To the full committee.
Mr. James R. Robertson: I would suspect it's unlikely the subcommittee could complete an analysis and summary - just a summary - and report to the committee between now and the beginning of May. If the election is held in the fall there's no reason why something couldn't happen.
Otherwise I think what we will do is go ahead and do a summary of the questionnaire responses, and that will be available to the procedure and House affairs committee in the next parliament. I would expect they would consider appointing this subcommittee, which has just got started.
Mr. John Williams: Just for a technical answer, perhaps next week the subcommittee could file an interim report stating that it has circulated this questionnaire and it could make that report to the procedure and House affairs committee. If they want to table that in the House it's up to them, but at least it's on the record with the procedure and House affairs committee that this questionnaire has been circulated.
I have a question for the clerk. To try to get these responses back as quickly as possible, next Tuesday afternoon, could he advise the respective whips of the number of outstanding questionnaires for each party so they can make an announcement at caucus next week too?
Mr. Joe Fontana: Two good points. I think we ought to make an interim report sometime next week.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I'd like to get back to the issue of confidentiality that you raised earlier. This committee, indeed like the Board of Internal Economy, can only operate properly if confidentiality is respected. If this becomes partisan, we will be completely missing the point and in my opinion, we should no longer sit as a committee. This subcommittee is to be non-partisan and must ensure that the responses will not be used against those who have answered the questionnaire, under any circumstances. The names will be there solely to help with compilation and will not be disclosed. I want to make sure of that.
[English]
Would it be agreeable if the next meeting were next Wednesday, eight days from now, at3:30 p.m.?
.1020
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: I will receive a motion to accept the questionnaire as amended this morning.
Mr. Joe Fontana: I so move.
Motion agreed to
[Translation]
The Chairman: Is there anything else?
[English]
The meeting is adjourned until Wednesday, April 23, at 3:30 p.m.
[Translation]
Thank you very much.
Home Page
Page d'accueil