Thank you.
First, I would like to remind our colleagues that this topic has been on the agenda a number of times. However, we're discussing the matter for the first time. We can't say that we've been talking about it for long.
It's our job to set the amount that reflects the use of resources. It isn't the procedure and house affairs committee's job. Even though the committee recommended an amount, this matter falls outside its purview. The committee may recommend an amount, but the Board of Internal Economy must set it.
I gather that we must first determine whether the Members By‑law was violated. I think that you have the answer, Mr. Chair. By using resources in this manner, the Speaker violated the by‑law.
We must now assess the amount that reflects the use of the resources. Based on its analysis and the elements of comparison used, the House of Commons administration is proposing between $500 and $1,500. That's the information that I have. When we read the administration's entire presentation, we see the elements of comparison used to set this amount. By comparison, the administration shows that renting a conference room in downtown Ottawa costs between $500 and $1,500, and that a hotel room costs between $190 and $370.
The elements of comparison aren't enough to assess the resources used by the Speaker. I believe that the use of the Speaker's office and robes sets a precedent. If we want to assess the resources properly, we must use other elements of comparison.
I agree with Mr. Julian. A proper assessment of the amount that reflects a Speaker's use of House resources for partisan purposes shows any other speaker who might want to do something similar how much it would cost.
I totally disagree with $500. In my opinion, the use of the Speaker's office and robes and all these resources carries a much greater value and even a much higher value than $1,000.
I don't want to get into a debate that would take up three meetings of the Board of Internal Economy. I'm just asking the administration to find other elements of comparison, so that the amount truly reflects the cost of using the resources of the Speaker's office, such as the robes and telephone. We aren't talking about a backbencher. We're talking about the Speaker of the House of Commons, the highest office in the House.
I think that the elements of comparison should be reviewed. For example, the cost of a large suite in a major hotel in downtown Ottawa could be assessed. It seems that comparing the Speaker's office to a mere conference room for a day undermines the significance of its use. The cost of a suite in a major hotel seems more comparable.
A proper assessment of the real cost of using the House's resources as Speaker would make people think twice before doing it again. This use has a cost. However, that cost can't be compared to what I have in front of me.
I want to reassure my colleagues that I don't want to turn this into a debate. I want only a review of the amount that reflects the Speaker's use of the House's resources, such as the office and robes. I think that the amount established is insufficient.