Secretive House board opens up
Donald Savoie, the eminent governance expert, once called the House of Commons’ Board of Internal Economy “the most secretive committee that has ever existed — secretive even to its own MPs.”
No longer. Fulfilling a Liberal campaign promise, the House’s governing body, which is chaired by the Speaker and comprises members of all recognized parties, is now open to public scrutiny.
I wandered into its first public meeting Thursday with raised expectations. Perhaps its members would have unique initiations rites and rituals — funny handshakes like the Freemasons or self-flagellation like Opus Dei.
But it turned out to be the most boring secret society that ever existed.
Much of the meeting was taken up with a discussion of the House of Commons’ financial statements for the year.
It was only when the balance sheet was handed out that I was forced to pause in wonder.
This House of ill repute is now spending well in excess of half a billion dollars a year — all within the remit of six MPs you might not want running your office hockey pool.
In fact the House spent an extra $33 million in the year ended March 31, taking total expenses to $545.7 million.
The bad news was broken by Daniel Paquette, the House’s chief financial officer.
His explanation that this was caused by the addition of 30 new MPs was accepted with equanimity by the board members.
That’s because, even if it is in the process of being deodorized by the air freshener of publicity, the board is not an institution that questions itself too deeply.
There is a reason why it has operated in the shadows for so long — it made it easier to bolster parliamentary pay and perquisites without too many awkward questions being asked.
MPs tried their utmost to block former auditor general Sheila Fraser from examining the books, arguing it went beyond the scope of her mandate.
She eventually got her way, after a public outcry, and it turned out that there were no outrages similar to the British expenses scandal, where one MP used public funds to clean his moat and another was the only man in history to forget he had paid off his mortgage.
But that doesn’t mean House operations are squeaky clean.
News reports would emerge intermittently that the “highly secretive” board had “quietly” boosted office budgets, approved Air Canada Maple Leaf lounge passes, increased expense allowances and awarded MPs whopping pay rises.
MPs now earn $172,700 a year, with ministerial bonuses reaching $82,600. The prime minister has a salary of $345,400.
That basic sessional indemnity has increased 163 per cent in the 20 years since MPs took home a miserable $65,600.
In addition, MPs can claim $102 a day for meals, not to mention accessing generous accommodation and travel allowances.
Office budgets are $355,400 for each MP, with a top-up of a further $63,480 for those with large ridings.
They can spend three per cent of office expenses on hospitality and an additional 10 per cent on advertising (universally known as “ten-percenters” — partisan flyers produced on House of Commons printers that MPs bulk mail to their constituents, or as often as not, other members’ constituents).
The ten-percenters are just the most blatant example of an operation that is marbled with waste.
Anyone with the inclination, or incentive, to cut some of the bloat could surely do so.
But there is no incentive. It’s a cozy little arrangement and it’s small wonder no one has been blowing the whistle on their parliamentary colleagues — with the curious exception of the decision to order the NDP to repay $1.4 million for breaking rules governing mailing privileges (a case the New Democrats have taken to the Federal Court, after calling the board a “kangaroo court”).
The conflict of interest inherent in the board’s mandate would have debauched a choir of angels. The move to open it to public scrutiny should be hailed as perhaps the only way to remind politicians who gave them their power.