PRHA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, November 4, 1997

• 1105

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Chers collègues, before we begin, and before we welcome Mr. Speaker formally, there are a few housekeeping things I would like to go through, if we could. First of all, I think you know our next meeting is November 6. That's this Thursday. The topic is going to be electronic voting. I think you also know the week following our return from the break Mr. Kingsley is going to be appearing before us. That's the Thursday of that week.

About other business following the break, a number of things are on the go. There will be more information about this as things proceed. One is the work of the parliamentary schedule committee. I would point out to all members here, and to each party, that we are still looking for some members of the subcommittee on the parliamentary schedule and for the subcommittee on parliamentary services, our member services. I think we have the members, but there are—

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): We are perfect.

The Chairman: You are perfect, Madam. Oui, c'est vrai, ça.

About the work following the break, I assume we will be getting a report from the schedule committee. We are still looking into Mr. White's request for a review of the standing orders, and I hope to report on that if not this Thursday then the week we come back. It's also my assumption we'll be following up on the work on electronic voting.

To continue with the housekeeping business, I mentioned I would try to mention correspondence I had received. You have all received a copy of the letter from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on electronic voting equipment. Members have it, and we'll see what happens to that.

Our principal agenda item today is the supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, vote 5a, under Parliament, the House of Commons. We are privileged to have appearing before us today the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gilbert Parent.

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to meet you, a pleasure to have you with us.

Mr. Robert Marleau, Clerk of the House, we're delighted you're here.

We also have Mary Ann Griffith, the Deputy Clerk, and Major-General Clouthier, the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Welcome to you all.

Mr. Speaker, we're in your hands.

Hon. Gilbert Parent (Speaker of the House of Commons): I'm going to start off by promoting Gus from major to general.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I apologize, General.

[English]

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: It's no problem.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, thank you for asking me to provide you with information on the House request for supplementary estimates.

As all of you know, the Board of Internal Economy, with the active participation of MPs, achieved a number of efficiencies during the last parliament, particularly in the area of reducing expenditures. Ensuring that funds are well spent will always be an important priority for the board.

• 1120

[Translation]

There are, however, certain instances where requests for additional funds must be put forward. The results of the recent federal elections have had a significant impact on the House's operating budget which has precipitated our request to secure an additional $13.3 million.

In June of this year, the election results substantially changed the composition of the 36th Parliament from that of its predecessor. As we know, six new parliamentarians representing six new constituencies were elected. There was a change in the Official Opposition as well as the addition of two official parties.

All of these changes combined have meant that more money is required to address the reality of the 36th Parliament.

[English]

The House requires an additional $13.3 million in order to meet costs in the following five areas.

One, additional constituencies. Increasing the number of members to 301 has required an additional $1,764,900. These moneys are required to cover salaries, allowances, operating budgets, travel, telephone costs, etc. This ensures that the additional new members can appropriately meet their constituents' needs with the same resources and efficiency as you, their colleagues, have in previous parliaments.

Two, official party research budgets. The election has also resulted in changes to official party research budgets. With fewer Liberal members elected, the budget for the Liberal research bureau has decreased. However, with the New Democratic Party and the Conservatives attaining official party status, more money is required to fund their research bureaus. Specifically, $978,900 is needed to cover the costs of additional space, salaries, furniture, computers, and equipment.

Three, member turnover. In every general election some members choose not to run again, while others are not successful in their bid for re-election. This past election impacted on the House's operating budget in two areas. First, the House was required to spend $2,353,000 to pay the severance allowance to defeated members and other costs associated with closing down the offices of 90 former members. Second, there was a need to provide severance pay to former members' staff, as well as the staff of former House officers. Specifically, $3,324,800 was spent to cover the 60-day severance pay to staff, as well as the termination of leases as provided under the approved guidelines.

Four, accommodation. After every general election, official parties re-examine the office allocation for members and House officers, which results in a certain number of moves. A sum of $1,855,700 was spent on the establishment and fit-up of offices for members and House officers to cover the costs of supplies, telephones, renovations, moving costs, and informatics.

Five, the House officers' budgets. Finally, there was a need to cover $3,004,000 for costs associated with the board's decision to review and adjust the budgets of House officers. This is the first time since 1994-95 that the House officers budgets have increased. This increase is primarily attributed to a change in the number of recognized parties from three to five in the 36th Parliament.

So these five items totalled an additional $13,281,300.

[Translation]

Let me assure the members of this committee that requests for additional funds are done on an "as needed" basis only. The House, like all government departments, is working to reduce its operating costs while ensuring efficient and effective service to its clients, the 301 duly elected members of Parliament.

• 1115

While the House has a rigid and effective planning process for determining expenditures, general election results are not something that can be planned for. The House could not have predicted the addition of two additional official parties to the 36th Parliament, nor the change in Official Opposition.

In fact, it is difficult to budget for an election until a date is officially announced, as you are not certain when the money will be required. After every general election, the Board of Internal Economy reviews the budgetary allocations for research groups, party leaders' offices and other House officers in light of party standings.

From this review, the members of the Board come to an agreement on the budget amounts for the new Parliament.

[English]

So the increases I am presenting to you, my colleagues, are necessary to reflect the new reality of the 36th Parliament. I want to thank all of you for inviting me here to bring you up to date on the House's submission for supplementary estimates, and I am sure you will understand and support the requirement for additional funding.

I have a cost breakdown here that I am going to have distributed to all of you right now, and we might use that or any other thing that you want as a point of departure. I am here along with my officials to answer any questions you might have about these moneys.

That, Mr. Chairman, is my presentation.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Randy White.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Speaker, for your comments and introductory remarks.

I do have three initial questions. The first relates to the MP pension plan and those members among us who opted out. Could you tell me the cash account that was reduced from the House of Commons budget and also the amount of the liability under the RCA account that was reduced?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We don't have it here, Randy, because it's not directly related to the supplementary estimates we're talking about, but we can get that information for you and see to it that it's put not only in your hands but in all our hands. We'll do that for you.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

Are the government telephone operators included in this budget? If not, where are they?

Major-General Gus Cloutier (Sergeant-at-Arms): They're under GTIS, the Department of Communications.

Mr. Randy White: Public Works.

As well, I presume there are no costs within the supplementary estimates for the potential of having electronic voting in the House of Commons. Could you explain at what point that kind of budget would be considered and where?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I would imagine it will be considered when the House takes a decision to have this electronic voting. If you can tell me when the House is going to decide that, I guess I could tell you—

Mr. Randy White: Shortly, I trust.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: When that comes up, those estimates will be introduced.

Bob, do you have something to...?

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): If the House makes a decision next week, it could be part of the main estimates package for 1998-99, which will have to be submitted before Christmas. If you make the decision in late December, then it could form part of the supplementary estimates package (C) in the winter.

Mr. Randy White: I suppose it would be preferable before December 10.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Yes, that would be a reasonable time.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

The Chairman: I have John Solomon, Chuck Strahl and Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

John.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see you here before the committee.

I have a question concerning the costs related to the moves of offices and so on, the $1,855,700. As whip of the NDP, I've made a recommendation to other whips that we take the administrative function of office allocation, which the House of Commons has politicized, and return it to the administration.

• 1120

What I mean by that is that in other jurisdictions, such as Saskatchewan, for example, which I know best, there is a wing of the legislative building for government offices, a wing for the official opposition, a wing for the third party, and a wing in which there are independent members. The offices are pretty much similar, but they're grouped. Everyone knows that when they get elected, whether they're elected to a third party or a second party or the government, that's the office they get.

In the House of Commons we have a much different system. We've taken this administrative function and politicized it. After the last election in June, it took us months—months—to get offices for our members because of the negotiations that were under way.

How much money do you think we could save, Mr. Speaker, if the House of Commons instituted a process, as in other jurisdictions, whereby government members would have certain offices and the third party, second party, and fourth party would have different wings of different buildings allocated to them as offices? Could we save any money by doing this or is this sort of a hopeless cause?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Do you mean to say there would be a codification? If you're a member for one parliament you end up here and if you're a member for ten parliaments you end up there.

Mr. John Solomon: No. I guess I wasn't clear. Let's say the government members would be in the Confederation Building. The opposition party would be in another building, where they could contain most of their members. The third party would be in another wing of a same building or in another building. They would have all their caucus research people, their MPs, and their staff centralized. The offices would be much similar in terms of the minimum square footage and minimum equipment and so on that everybody should have access to, rather than this being done on a seniority basis where the government members get to pick all the best offices.

Is there a way to take the politics out of it and administer it in a sense where it would be less costly? If you're in government, you're in building X; if you're in opposition, you're in building Y; and if you're in the third or fourth party, here's the wing of offices where you and your staff would be allocated.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I haven't given a great deal of thought to this and I would be hard-pressed to put a figure on it. In any case, it would seem to me that you're going to have members moving out and members moving in. I'm told—subject to the sergeant-at-arms—that most of the members stay in the offices they've had. Do they not? Or were there moves?

MGen Gus Cloutier: One hundred and five members remained in their offices.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Therefore we had 195 who were moving.

Do you want to address yourself to that, Gus?

MGen Gus Cloutier: Mr. Chairman, one problem I can foresee is that it would be very difficult to predict the number of elected members for each party in planning this sort of approach. It would probably be more costly in that you would obviously need swing space. You cannot define it; you cannot tell someone to go into this, the NDP building, and tell someone else to go into that building as a Liberal.

This new approach you witnessed this time began in 1993. In this particular election I found the fact that the five whips were working together so closely might have delayed the occupation of some of the offices, to a certain extent, but I think it was most valuable if you look at the spending that resulted. Even with 301 new members, you came in lower than any other time since I've been here in the last 20 years.

Mr. John Solomon: In just one follow-up question, what was the system before 1993? Was there an administrative allocation as opposed to the political allocation?

MGen Gus Cloutier: Before 1993, I think the sergeant-at-arms sat with the whips so as to produce a block of space. The whips decided amongst themselves which slot was theirs. There was never a decision to go to a specific building.

• 1125

For example, I recall how a certain party preferred to have smaller offices and be located in the Centre Block—that type of approach.

Mr. John Solomon: What I've suggested actually used to happen, then. You would have an administrative officer of the House say, here is what we recommend, and the whips can amend it as they fit; whereas in the 1993 and 1997 parliaments we've not had that administrative advice in camera.

MGen Gus Clouthier: That's quite correct, because you've held your meetings amongst yourselves. Although you had the block of space, how you divided the space became a decision of the whips.

Mr. John Solomon: In your view, which system was better for the members?

MGen Gus Clouthier: I think for the members it's certainly cheaper the way you did it, because it got everyone in the loop and everyone knew the expenditure that would be incurred. I questioned the business of its having taken us longer. Perhaps it did in that, for example, one party did not have a defined area to go to right away. Before that happened, consultation had to take place between the five of you. As you know, some of the whips were here, others were away, and a time delay was introduced there. I think that was one of the reasons why it took a little bit longer than in the old days.

The Chairman: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Good morning, Mr. Speaker and all, generals and lesser lights.

Sorry, Bob. You're at the end now.

With the Senate expenditures, there are new appropriations for the Senate. Do you answer for that? You don't?

Who answers for that?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Forgive me. The Senate usually answers for the Senate.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But the Senate won't come here and answer for it, usually.

So you know nothing about the Senate.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I know quite a bit about it, but I would prefer that you asked the Senate about the Senate. You could ask me about the House of Commons.

A voice: They won't answer.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

When we approve the supplementary 5a's, do we have to approve the Senate supplementaries? Is that part of that? I'm just interested in how the supplementaries for the Senate are approved. I'm not sure if this is properly directed to the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: The Senate approves it.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The Senate approves it. Don't we have to approve it on the House of Commons side?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: For the House we do, yes, but the Senate approves it. Over the years usually, when it comes to the floor of the House.... I guess we can either approve it or reject it. We have that option.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: It has not happened in my 23 years of hanging around here that we have rejected it.

The Chairman: Chuck, if you could leave that with us, we'll try to find out the technical point of where it goes. It's 5a, not 1a, that we're discussing. We'll try to get the technical point.

You can carry on.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure that when we approve your estimates, we aren't also approving that just as a kind of add-on.

On the comparison, as you say in your remarks, a lot of this expenditure has to do with the addition of new members and five parties and all that. Of course it's a big budgetary increase, $13 million, and that's only the supplementary (A)s. We have yet to deal with the other issues that are being tossed about, including members' office budgets. Who knows what the commission might recommend next year on salaries and benefits and so on.

I'm just interested in the comparison between 1993-94 and where we are right now, overall. Where are we in the budgetary process? It's come down some, but now we're going back up some. How close are we getting to where we were?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Let me take you back to 1993-94. Give me a little bit of leeway, but the overall budget was about $245 million. The last budget I believe was $212 million.

Isn't that right?

• 1130

Excuse me, it was $238 million, and now it's $215 million.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Then the $13 million we need to approve now is on top of the $215 million.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: That's correct.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So it'll be $228 million. That's without any of these other items coming in.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: That's correct.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. I wondered whereabouts we stood there.

My other question had to do with the early retirement incentive and the early departure incentive, the programs that were successful as part of the Gagliano plan.

What were the net savings to the House of Commons from that? We shed some employees.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Quite a few.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't have the estimate in front of me, but there was a pay-out to encourage the ERI and EDI programs. Are we anticipating a year-to-year saving on that?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: The saving comes to about $8.9 million through the early departure incentive program. What we had was a cost at one time of 1,712 employees. We're projecting for 1998-99, which is where we are, 1,370. Because of that, we have a saving of $8.9 million that occurs every year.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So it's an $8.9 million saving each year that we stay to the hiring levels we're at now, over where we would have been.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: That's right. When someone leaves now, for the most part that person is not replaced. If a lawyer leaves, or someone like that, we have to replace them with a lawyer, or a computer expert. But by and large, once a person leaves a particular position, generally speaking, that person is not replaced.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So the optimum hiring level you're aiming for.... It was 1,712, and it's 1,370 now. Eventually it would get to a level where, you know, if everybody dies around here you don't wrap the place up. Is there an optimum level of employment that you're looking at?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We had a target figure. I believe the targets, generally speaking, were met.

Mr. Robert Marleau: We had estimated that about 200 employees would take advantage of either the ERI or the EDI. We're close to 300. If the program closes in March 31, 1998, it's still early to tell how many will also take the program, but we estimate maybe another 20 to 25.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: What you're looking at, then, as the optimum level of employment here on the Hill, is 1,350 people. Is that the baseline? Because there are other people who may quit for other reasons, and they're not being replaced right now. Is that level about where you're going to end up?

Mr. Robert Marleau: If people take either plan, the salary mass is cut, so the manager loses that salary mass as part of the insurance that there won't be any rehiring. If someone leaves on pension voluntarily, or leaves voluntarily, there may be a replacement in that kind of case.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. So we're approaching the baseline minimum number of employees.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I'd say we're approaching the floor.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's what I wanted to know.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Again, Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, then right back to Ken, René Laurin, and Bob Kilger.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Daphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, as opposed to Mr. Chairman, you stated that five sectors have generated supplementary expenditures of some $13 million. I'd like you to be more specific on item 5, especially for my own understanding, having to do with the leaders' budgets. I'm of the opinion that the $3 million or so allocated for the budgets of the leaders are more particularly due to the two new parties. It could be that, but it is possible that that is not the case. I'd like to know exactly how that money was distributed and what criteria you used to decide that $3 million was the right amount.

• 1135

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Adding the two parties cost $978,900. Is that your question?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's it. So for the two parties it was a bit less than $1 million. That is it?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: A bit less than $1 million.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: How were the other $2 million parcelled out?

There are $3 million in the budget for House leaders, in item 5. There are two new parties. I can understand everything having to do with research, the whips, the leaders and so forth but if you are telling me that it's a bit less than $1 million for the two parties, I'd like to know where the other $2 million are going. I am curious this morning, but I'm not yellow.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We have figures here and Bob will explain all that.

Mr. Robert Marleau: In part, it's a reconfiguration for the five parties. We added about $250,000 for the fourth party and $240,000 for the fifth. This was for research services and the leaders. For the other leaders, like the whips and the caucus chairs, for the fourth party we added $111,000 and for the fifth, about $100,000. As for the caucuses, it's 20 and 20 and for the House leaders, it's 64 and 71. I'm rounding off to 64 and 71. For research services, we allocated $440,000 for the fourth party and $425,000 for the fifth.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The research budget for both recently arrived parties and for the Bloc and the Official Opposition are shared out pro rata.

Mr. Robert Marleau: They're shared out pro rata based on the number of members: 155, 60, 44, 21 and 20. So that means $1.3 million for the government, $1.1 million for the Opposition, $860,000 for the Bloc, $440,000 for the New Democrats and $425,000 for the Progressive Conservatives.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Do I get a second question?

The Chairman: Yes.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: At the beginning of a new Parliament, there are always briefing sessions. Could we know how much it costs to prepare these information sessions? Do you have any means of evaluating the degree of satisfaction of the elected members and perhaps also of their staff concerning these briefing sessions?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Of course we can. I don't know if we have the figures here, but to know it's been of benefit to the members, we'd have to ask them what they think. I think this is the second time we've done this.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Do we have the exact costs?

Mr. Robert Marleau: We don't have the exact costs of that operation, but I can tell you it was taken from House resources that are already made available to services to members. So there wasn't any extra staff hired and so forth. There might have been a bit of overtime from time to time but, once again, that was absorbed by the different responsibility centres.

As for the satisfaction of members, I haven't seen the results of the questionnaire we sent them out after the exercise. We had a very high rate of participation. Over 95% of all new members registered as well as a few of the veterans.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We just went along to see if the same things were being said. Thank you, gentlemen.

[English]

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Mr. Chairman, before you go to your next questioner, I have information for Mr. White.

The pension plan contribution for MPs was reduced by $3.3 million in 1997-98. That's the figure you wanted. We haven't received the projections yet for 1998-99.

• 1140

I believe that was the specific question you asked.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have some information for Mr. Strahl. Vote 1a goes to natural resources and government operations.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's a natural fit.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, the item on additional constituencies reflecting $1,764,900 will be spent to cover salaries, allowances, and operating budgets. So they are part of your estimates.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: That's correct.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I just wanted to be sure and to clarify.... In the briefing notes we have on the Library of Parliament, there are other amounts that are statutory in nature and not covered by the estimates process. This includes salaries and allowances of members of Parliament as well as certain office expenses. How do I reconcile that?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Although they're statutory, they have to be paid from some place.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I understand that. The amount you have here is over and above the statutory expenses.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: No. They are the statutory expenses that are coming in. These are new people. These are brand new. They didn't exist. Now they exist. There are six of them, and that's what six new members cost us.

This is for salaries and allowances for six members—64 travel points is included; House costs for telephone expenses; member's office budget for both personnel and operating costs; and finally, furnishings and supplies. This is what that extra money, the $1,764,900, is for.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: So they are statutory?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: They're statutory, which means everybody has to have them. As soon as you become a member of Parliament, you get this. These six members didn't exist. Now they exist. They have to be treated the same as all of us, so the cost for those six new people...that's what it comes out to.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I realize that. I just want to be very clear that we are voting not on statutory expenditures, but on estimates. I understand that statutory expenditures are not part of the estimates process and not voted upon. I want to be clear.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We vote on 5a, which is the House of Commons expenditures, but you don't vote on the statutory; no.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I just wanted to be clear on that.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: The answer to your question is yes, you are correct, you do not vote on them.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: You indicated that one of the bases is the addition of the six new MPs. I understand that in the March 1997 table of estimates you indicated that anticipating the six new constituencies would be able to be supported by the House administration without the allocation of any additional resources. How did you come to that conclusion? What is different from that statement and now, seeing an increase in resources?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Perhaps I may respond to that, Mr. Pagtakhan.

The statement that was made for the 1997-98 estimates that the House administration would absorb all of the other costs related to supporting the six new MPs, other than the statutory.... Obviously we felt we couldn't absorb, within the existing resources, the extra statutory costs, but other attendant costs in the support of MPs we felt we could absorb within existing levels of funding.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Such as?

Mr. Robert Marleau: The extras members get as part of managing, serving their MOBs, equipping their offices, the staff required for cleaning, maintenance.

It is to be noted that six members represent roughly 2%. In other words, we've absorbed a 2% increase administratively beyond the statutory costs.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: So the two statements are both correct. I just wanted to clarify that.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I would hope so, sir.

• 1145

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: They had better be.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: You indicated it's because there is a change in the official opposition. A natural question would be what is it in the change from the Bloc as the official opposition to the Reform as the official opposition—

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): More demanding.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: —aside from what might be expected from the increase in the number of the opposition, which would create an additional expense, and what is that additional expense? Is the occupancy of Stornoway in any way related to the estimates cost?

An hon. member: That's a good question.

Mr. Robert Marleau: For the use of Stornoway, as part of the return to the use of Stornoway, the funding by the House of Commons is $131,000 for staff allowances.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The last question, Mr. Chairman, relates to the fact that the salary freeze has been lifted. Is there anything in this projection that could potentially cover the potential salary increase of staff members?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: No. This increase is for moneys we had to spend because of these additions right here. If it's decided by the House, or by members, that there will be increases, then we're going to be looking at those in another context later down the road. If you could tell us whether the increase is going to be 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, then we could give you an estimate. In the absence of that, we will have to wait, and that too will perhaps call for supplementary estimates.

The Chairman: René Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you said that thanks to the co-operation shown by the members, some monies were saved during the last period. What would be the total of those savings?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Monies saved by the members?

Mr. René Laurin: No, no. How much money was saved in all?

Ms. Mary Anne Griffith (Deputy Clerk, Administrative Services, House of Commons): I don't have exact figures. There hasn't been a decrease over the last three years. I could prepare...

Mr. René Laurin: Earlier on, you talked about recurring savings of $8 million.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: That had to do with people who resigned or retired, who took that package deal, as we say.

Mr. René Laurin: I'm trying to draw a parallel between that and the increase your are asking for. You are saying you need a $13 million increase. If we're looking at savings of $10 million, the real increase would actually be the difference between the monies saved and the increase you're asking for. That's what I'm trying to understand.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The savings of $8.9 million I mentioned earlier are attributable to freezing salaries and voluntary departures. This amount was deducted from the 1997-98 budget. It was not asked for during the supply process. So we can't reallocate it. In other words, the salary base was decreased by $8.9 million. These are not savings that are transferable to the supplementary estimates or which could decrease the supplementary estimates.

Mr. René Laurin: What's the total difference between last year's budget—I think you have it here—and this year's?

Mr. Robert Marleau: It was $216.5 million in 1996-97 and $213.6 million for 1997-98.

Mr. René Laurin: So there's a total decrease of $3 million.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Yes.

Mr. René Laurin: I understand even less. If the total budget is decreased by $3 million, why are you asking for $13 million more?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: It's because of the elections and everything stemming from then.

Mr. René Laurin: Doesn't the amount of expenditures due to the elections figure in the $13 million?

Mr. Robert Marleau: No.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: No.

Mr. René Laurin: This is a separate budget?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We don't know what's going to happen when there are elections. We didn't know who the official opposition would be. We didn't know how many members of this or that party would be re-elected. On the other hand, we did know that there would be six more because that is the law.

• 1150

Mr. René Laurin: Okay. Was there any increase in the supplement granted to members based on the number of people living in their ridings?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Not yet.

Mr. René Laurin: There are more members and the population can vary. Is the total of the amounts paid based on the population in the members' ridings and has the amount of these additional funds decreased in total?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: After the review, we'll decide whether the members will be getting additional funds. For example, ministers got another additional 15% for their office budgets. Are you going to make the same decision? I don't know.

Mr. René Laurin: Fine, but I haven't talked about increases. I talked about a decrease. Has the amount decreased and, in allocating the amounts, was the size of the members' ridings taken into consideration?

Mr. Robert Marleau: The geographic supplement hasn't been reviewed by the Board of Internal Economy yet.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I hope it will be done soon.

Mr. Robert Marleau: There's a review being done presently on the members' operational budgets and within that context we'll review the supplements granted for population sizes.

Mr. René Laurin: So there's nothing provided in the budgets for that?

Mr. Robert Marleau: No.

Mr. René Laurin: Except for last year's amount.

Would any money be saved if the House were to sit only four days a week instead of five? Do you know how much money could be saved in such a case?

Mr. Robert Marleau: We have examined that, but it's most approximate. I don't have the document on that in front of me and it goes back two years, I think. I can get it for the committee. It's a known fact that 75% of the House's budget is paid out in salaries. So it's very difficult to save any money by decreasing the number of days the House sits to four. There would be some money saved on the overtime side. On the contrary, I think it could have an impact on the overtime side if we were to lengthen the number of hours in a sitting day. So that would decrease any possible savings. It's very approximate, but I'd be pleased to provide the document to the committee.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Do you want the document?

Mr. René Laurin: Yes, please.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We'll give it to you.

Mr. René Laurin: Can we also put questions that have nothing to do with the supplementary estimates? Is the only item on today's agenda the supplementary estimates?

The Chairman: That certainly is the main topic. But it's your time.

Mr. René Laurin: Anyway, I'll try to put my question and you can tell me if I'm out of order.

Okay. There was an answer before to the question I wanted to get in here. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Bob Kilger.

[English]

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Clerk, Madam Deputy Clerk, Mr Sergeant-at-Arms, bienvenue.

I'd like to take off on the original intervention of Mr. White to the Speaker regarding MPs' pensions and the follow-up information provided through the clerk. First of all, maybe Mr. White can give me some clarification. Was he asking in terms of what the savings were by virtue of the members of the Reform Party not participating in the MPs' pension plan in the last Parliament? If that is the question, I'm wondering could he answer that.

• 1155

Mr. Randy White: It was in reference to all of the members of the House of Commons. I believe there are two or three Liberals as well. But I was asking for the cash amount as well as the full liability amount. There are two different amounts.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Thank you very much, Randy.

On the cash amount, would the figure put forward by I think the clerk be a reflection of the change in the accrual rate from 5% to 4%? I think approximately 11% of a member's earnings go into the actual pension plan. If you multiply that factor by.... Let's estimate that at $7,000 per annum, as an example, multiply it by four years for an average sitting of a parliament, then multiply it by the number of people who would be outside the plan during that period. You would probably come up with something slightly over $1 million.

Going back to the clerk's intervention, I'm just wondering if the $3.3 million isn't actually a saving more attributable to the accrual rate being reduced from 5% to 4%.

Mr. Robert Marleau: It's partly that. It's the whole actuarial recalculation that was done following the amendments to the legislation, which reduced our contribution in 1997-98 by $3.3 million. We will receive shortly—we usually receive it in November—the actuarial recalculation as a consequence of the elections—members who were elected and who qualify for pensions as well. So it will be a different amount this year, but it's a whole actuarial recalculation.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I look forward to that information being provided to the committee. By way of a general comment on this issue, and not to revisit that debate, whatever the savings might have been from members not participating in this plan through the last Parliament, there is still a huge question of equity here. I think as members who are presently outside the plan and their vested period would become fully vested...I would hope that at some point in time all members would be in an equitable position.

Notwithstanding their party affiliation, for men and women who come to the House of Commons to represent their constituents in the best interests of their country...as part of the remuneration package for them...the pension plan continues to be something that should be available to each and every parliamentarian. I leave it at that as a general commentary on that issue.

Going back to comments, if I may, of Mr. Solomon, I think we would also find that in terms of the long-term objective of members' offices being standardized, I think we're presently going down that road, with the refurbishing, for instance, of the justice building and eventually the west block. His objective has laudable support, I believe, from all political parties and all their members, but it will take some time to achieve that laudable objective.

I'd just like to ask the clerk, through the committee, to give us information about.... Recently we disclosed members' expenditures. I believe this is the first occasion we've had to table that information, making ourselves more transparent and so on. I believe we still have a way to go to inform the public as to what in fact is being disclosed. When I read a headline last week of a local paper, I'm assuming the amount of $33,000 was correct, but in fact that amount was to travel from Buckingham to Parliament Hill.

I think there's a huge injustice being done, first and foremost, to that member, and secondly, to all members of Parliament from all political parties if in fact we allow this type of misinformation to continue.

I would simply ask the clerk if he could inform us all as to what types of expenses are covered in that disclosure.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I think I'm familiar with the article you're mentioning.

There are two forms of disclosure. The first is the public accounts disclosure, which is done by the Auditor General and contains three pieces of information. First is the member's base salary and expense allowance, the tax-free allowance. The second is the travel information that is related to the 64-point travel system, and the $6,000 travel status payment, which is spent on travel within the constituency. In the case of travel by car it's a reimbursement at 36.7¢ per kilometre.

• 1200

The disclosure document that the Board of Internal Economy, through the Speaker, tabled in the House on October 10 has eight columns. I believe what the article represents is the tabulation of the two travel columns, travel under the member's office budget and travel provided under the 64-point system. The 64-point system is established on an equity basis for all members.

The first column in the travel report is the staff and other expenses, which include mostly employees' salaries and service contracts a member may have made. The second column is travel done by members or their employees, from time to time, because members may authorize an employee to travel within a constituency and be reimbursed accordingly, or within the province, for that matter, up to a maximum of $1,000 for staff, I should add, when the $6,000 has been reached.

The third column is simply the lease costs for members' riding offices.

The fourth column, as I alluded to a moment ago, is each member's expenses on the basis of the 64 return trips.

The fifth column is the long-distance calls attributable to the use of the telephone system by the member.

The sixth column is printing, householders, ten-percenters, the printing the member has done.

The seventh column is office supplies for both the Ottawa and the constituency office.

There is a miscellaneous column for the various small pieces of furniture or software or minor renovations a member might have done in a constituency office.

That is what is being disclosed, but I think there is some confusion out there between what is being disclosed and the Public Accounts of Canada, which is a statutory requirement over which we have no control. But I can confirm that our figures and their figures are consistent. They match.

The Chairman: You may have a short supplementary question, Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I'd like to get back to the separation allowances in the estimates here.

From what I know, people leave in different ways. You can leave political life voluntarily. You can leave at the end of a term, for example. You can also leave because you lost your elections. You can leave during the term, either because of death or something else. Are voluntary departures at the end of a term and the defeated candidates' allowances accounted for differently in your estimates? Does one kind of departure cost more than the other?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: If they leave voluntarily, they don't get any money. If they're beaten, they get some money.

Mr. René Laurin: For a voluntary departure you don't get any allowance.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: That's it, you're right.

Mr. René Laurin: Is that really the case? It seems to me that half of the allowance was paid for a voluntary departure.

Mr. Robert Marleau: When it's a voluntary departure, some allowances, for example moving and travel allowances are granted to the member, but there's no six-month salary allowance paid.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: That's the big difference. Six months is a substantial sum.

Mr. Robert Marleau: A member who is defeated and another who doesn't run again get the same allowance, which is six months' salary.

Mr. René Laurin: A member who doesn't run again is a member who leaves voluntarily. You are telling me he gets a six-month allowance?

Mr. Robert Marleau: If I recall correctly, the legislation provides that if a member serves out his term, then he has a right to the allowance. If he leaves voluntarily before the end of his term, then he doesn't have that right. I don't have the Parliament of Canada Act here with me.

Mr. René Laurin: Fine. So it's the same allowance in both cases whether they leave at the end of the term or don't run again. If they're beaten or don't run again, they get the same allowance. So one mode isn't more expensive than the other.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: They do get a pension.

Mr. René Laurin: Yes, but I'm not talking about the pension. I'm talking about a separation allowance at the end of the term.

• 1205

Mr. Robert Marleau: If memory serves, if a member leaves during his term, he doesn't get any separation allowance.

Mr. René Laurin: Fine, that's settled.

Mr. Robert Marleau: If a member goes the full term and has the right to a pension, then he doesn't get a separation allowance.

Mr. René Laurin: Fine.

Mr. Robert Marleau: If he's not pensionable, then he gets a separation allowance.

Mr. René Laurin: Fine.

Mr. Robert Marleau: If he's defeated and isn't pensionable, then he's entitled to a separation allowance.

Mr. René Laurin: Are all those situations included in the separation allowances that are set out at $2,353,000 in the Supplementary Estimates?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes.

Mr. René Laurin: That's what we're talking about?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, and other allowances to close down offices, do the filing and so forth.

Mr. René Laurin: That's in another item or in the same item?

Mr. Robert Marleau: That's included in the $2,3 million dollars.

Mr. René Laurin: Fine, thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: John Solomon. Exactly the same point, if it is.

Mr. John Solomon: Just a follow-up, Mr. Chair.

It's not clear to me. Let's say a member is defeated, will qualify for a pension six or seven years in the future, but doesn't qualify for one after termination under the new plan.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Oh, I see.

Mr. John Solomon: He has to be 55. Would a severance be provided at that time, or not? For example, if you're 50 years old and you lose—you haven't reached 55, when you qualify for your pension—is a severance provided?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: I don't know the answer to that.

Do you?

You are saying, do you get the pension in seven years, and, oh, by the way, in between you get the severance period to tide you over. The answer is yes.

Mr. Robert Marleau: It's only if a pension is payable, I believe, that you don't get the severance.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I just had a brief discussion with the clerk about the way estimates are referred to committees. I'm not clear on exactly how that process works, and the clerk has agreed to look into it for me. In essence, my question is, who picks which committee gets which estimates?

You're going to look into that for us, but maybe just as a notice of motion—I won't move it now because it's best to hear back from the clerk—I should say that I will move a motion at the next meeting along the lines that the estimates and supplementary estimates of the Senate be referred to the procedure and house affairs committee for consideration and disposal. I think this is a better committee to deal with that, but I'm not sure of the process on how to get that done. I'd just like to put that on as a notice of motion.

The Chairman: I will take it under advisement and we will look at it the next time.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to follow up on the question of reporting, disclosing expenses incurred by MPs with respect to travel. To make it more meaningful and, following the comment by our whip, so that it will be fair to all members of Parliament and that the public may be fully informed and therefore the media will find it easier to report, I would suggest, if it is not already done, that we indicate with each member the distance in kilometres or miles from the constituency to the House of Commons and at the same time indicate as well the size of the constituency. I say this because to show that one member would have incurred such an amount of expenses for travel, while it may be known to many, the distance of a particular Northwest Territory constituency that would also be the.... It is essential that we know exactly, so that Canadians will know that those expenses were incurred primarily to travel those great distances between the constituency and the House of Commons.

• 1210

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: What we do now, Rey, is this. Constituencies are listed as either urban, rural, or urban-rural, whatever they are. That gives you an idea that an urban area is going to be a little bit more compact than a rural area, and an urban-rural is one where you have a combination of the two.

If I understand correctly what you're saying, it seems that a headline came out that said a member was using moneys to travel from his constituency that was very close by. What we've just seen is that included in there are the 64 travel points, I believe. Now, if that member or any member from any constituency travels from his constituency in the east to Vancouver, let's say, that's going to incur that cost. This particular member may never have claimed for mileage within his riding. All that it shows there, because it's travel, is all of his travel—and we've put it all together.

If what you're suggesting is that we split those up, again that would be something the Board of Internal Economy could look at if that's what you want to do. But when you put it all together—for this particular article that I read anyhow—in my view, that headline was unjust and uncalled for because it was surmised right away that this was in-constituency travel, and it was not.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Board of Internal Economy may want to examine that. My comment was only by way of suggestion.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: Well, then, your advice, your question, your suggestion, will be taken under advisement.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Colleagues, do we have any other questions for the speaker? Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): I have one quick one with respect to communications.

It seems to me that communications has to be an extra cost. When I'm in my riding and I want to phone an adjacent constituent for whom I have to go long distance, I go through the call centre in Winnipeg. I mean, we're talking thousands of miles as opposed to fifty miles. I'm wondering whether or not that has been studied, and whether or not we should start looking at including telephone costs in office members' budgets. Let us just dial the one and stop talking to all of these operators and everything.

MGen Gus Cloutier: I think the discount rate we're getting through GTIS makes the cost much lower than it would be the other way on a 1-800 line.

Mr. Ken Epp: Less than 15¢ a minute? I really doubt it. When you start paying the cost of having an operator sitting there on Saturday night, there's no way.

An hon. member: That's true.

MGen Gus Cloutier: I'll look into it if you'd like.

Mr. Ken Epp: Sure.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It is hard to find anything cheaper.

The Chairman: Is there anything else? Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): One quick question. Will the House of Commons, along with government departments, be tabling a performance report on results?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We will next year.

Mr. Robert Marleau: It is the plan to do so next year, Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But not this year.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The board has tabled with the House the annual report that captured the last Parliament's efforts by the board. In the spring, we will be submitting to the board a planning document, against which we would report annually on the results.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay, thank you very much.

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): There's an allowance paid if you have more than a certain number of constituents. What is the cut-off point?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: What is the cut-off point?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: At what point do you get the extra $5,000? How many constituents do you have to have?

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: We have that.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'm also curious as to whether or not you're paying fewer overruns like that given all the realignment of ridings, or more since everything has been reorganized.

Mr. Speaker Gilbert Parent: It has probably evened out, Carolyn. What you were paying before for a large one is now cut in half, so you'd save there. It would more or less even out, but we'll get you the exact information.

Did you get the other one yet?

Ms. Mary Anne Griffith: I don't have all the figures. The difference is related not only to the number of constituents, but also to the geographic size. There are three different categories for geographic size, and there are five different supplements depending on numbers of constituents. We've just gone through a redistribution based on the information the Chief Electoral Officer gave us. Five members' budgets will be going down, and there are about fifty that are going up because of increased numbers of constituents.

• 1215

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: What would be the cut-off number, 140,000 or 150,000?

Ms. Mary Anne Griffith: I believe 150,0000 would put you in the largest category. I don't have the chart in front of me, but I can certainly get you a copy.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Robert Marleau: At 70,000 or more you get the first supplement of $5,000. The largest supplement of $32,000 is for 150,000 people. The geographic supplement begins on an area of 8,000 square miles or more, again starting at $5,000 and change, up to $16,000 where it's 500,000 square miles or more.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I went into culture shock because I had 360,000 people so I was getting every supplement in the world. I was at $198,000. I'm down to $172,000 with 144,000. I thought I'd gone from feast to famine.

Mr. Robert Marleau: We'll look at your case particularly. You may have kept your number-of-electors supplement but gone down in geography.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Is $172,000 the base?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: So I should be getting something.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The urban base is $171,700.

The Chairman: Is there anything else?

Carolyn, is that okay?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ken.

Mr. Ken Epp: I would just like to draw my own personal experience to your attention. Because of the rejigging of the boundaries, my riding is now much larger. Though I have fewer people, they live much farther away. My travel costs undoubtedly are going to be greater, but my budget went down. I think that's an anomaly.

The Chairman: Are you ready for me to call vote 5a, colleagues?

PARLIAMENT

@tf

House of Commons

@ti24 Vote 5a—Program expenditures $10,384,000

(Vote 5a agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall I report the supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank you and your colleagues for appearing before us this morning. We appreciate it. Thank you very much indeed.

Colleagues, our next meeting is Thursday at 11 a.m. The witnesses will be Don Boudria and Randy White. The topic is electronic voting.

Thank you very much.