[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 18, 1995
.1530 
[English]
The Chair: We'll come to order.
Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): I have a point of order. I move that the committee ensure that the chairman uphold all rules and practices of this committee and, in particular, a member's privilege to debate each issue before committee as approved for in the Standing Orders; a member's right to question witnesses; a member's right to seek advice from legal counsel; a member's right to request input from committee research staff; and a member's right to move motions in his or her language pursuant to Standing Order 65. This is a motion under a point of order.
The Chair: I would support that, as I think every member would, unanimously.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe - Bagot): What's the problem there?
[English]
Mr. Campbell (St. Paul's): I have no problem with the motion. I just wonder what gave rise to it.
Mr. Abbott: If we have unanimously agreed to that, I will be very happy to explain the background to this.
Mr. Campbell: Let's have the background before we vote on the motion.
Mr. Abbott: There are no barbs in the background.
The Chair: Passed unanimously.
Mr. Abbott: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Please wait Mr. Chairman! Let him repeat his motion quietly so that we can think a bit more.
[English]
Mr. Campbell: Why don't you read it again?
The Chair: Just a second. I have the right, as a member, to legal counsel to look into that motion, don't I? Could you get me legal counsel, Mr. Abbott, so I can have them study that motion?
Mr. Abbott: I think you're sitting beside one.
The Chair: Oh, gee. Don't I get one of my choice?
Mr. Abbott: Not at these prices. Anyway, go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Could you repeat the motion?
[English]
The Chair: This is not a point of order, but that's fine.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Can we know what the joke is about?
[English]
The Chair: A little commentary before we vote on it, Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott: Okay. Before we vote on it.
Basically, it would probably be best if Mr. Strahl explained what happened last night and why this motion is before this committee, as with all committees.
The Chair: Did it happen in this committee?
Mr. Abbott: No.
The Chair: Good.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Abbott has brought to my attention all the good rapport, and so on, that goes on in the committee, which is in some committees more than others.
The Chair: He lied.
Mr. Strahl: Yes, I know he's capable.
As Jim says, there's no hook in any of this; it's just strictly a reaffirmation that the committee affirms the rights of members of Parliament to do the things that are listed there, which is basically the right to question witnesses, seek advice from legal counsel, and so on.
All of this was denied to me last night in the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons.
Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): Mr. Chairman, I don't know if I'm out of order by speaking at this time, but this issue was raised in the House today. The Speaker would not rule on it until he studied or discussed it further. He said he would come back with a ruling.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: What does this motion refer to exactly? I read it and I look at the way we have done things from the beginning. Those rights have always been respected. There were clashes, frictions, but they're part of the normal operation of committees. I don't see any problem, here at least.
Mr. Discepola (Vaudreuil): When you have unanimous consent, some people have to sit down!
[English]
Mr. Abbott: If I may, Mr. Chairman, the point at hand here has virtually nothing to do specifically with this committee. As Mr. Strahl said, I told him, in coming down here, that I have appreciated your chairmanship and the attitude of every member of this committee. While we have, from time to time, had points of contention, we've always very cheerfully managed to work them through, which is fine.
The point is that there was a precedent set in the committee last night that our party is not prepared to stand for in any committee. We are simply asking every committee to reaffirm all of the rights that are contained in this.
It is not intended in any way, shape or form to be detrimental or make any negative comments about this committee. On the contrary, I've been very pleased to serve as part of this committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Chairman, should such problems arise, we will pass any motion to remind the Committee of its rules. But to move point blank this afternoon, which was unexpected, a motion on the proper operation of this Committee and on the right of members to table motions in their own language, and so on... does not seem appropriate to me.
.1535
[English]
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to add something. If this is not meant to be a criticism of this committee, then why is it asked to be passed as a motion with respect to this committee?
You're simply restating things that are in the rules that we have abided by in this committee, and by your own admission a few moments ago, you've not had any problems here.
It seems to me that if there's a complaint against the proceedings of another committee, there are two avenues. One is to take it up with that committee. The second avenue is to take it up in the House, which you've apparently done.
Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned at seeing this on the record, suggesting that in some way we haven't been acting within the rules and respecting members' needs in the committee, which Mr. Abbott says we've been doing just fine.
The Chair: I would suggest we amend this so that the...and that all members will abide by their oaths of office and always respect the constitutions of Canada and Quebec.
Mr. Discepola: There is no constitution in Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: This demonstrates the necessity not to pass such a motion. It doesn't make any sense.
[English]
The Chair: I've got an idea. Why don't we table this motion until we find out what's happened in the House? If you don't get satisfaction there, then we'll reconsider it. Would that be okay?
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Absolutely!
[English]
Mr. Strahl: I'd like to speak to that for a moment, Mr. Chairman. I guess, in a sense, this is an attempt to impress upon fair-minded people of all sorts that the idea contained in this motion needs to be affirmed before you get into a kerfuffle. Kerfuffle is a totally translatable word.
Once you get into the kerfuffle there is no course to achieve...so in essence it is, as Jim has mentioned, recognition of the good work of the committee, and in essence a hope you will ensure that these rules and practices continue. I think, as the Bloc member has mentioned, there is nothing in there that changes any standing orders or anything. It's basically an affirmation of the intent of the committee to continue in fine form. I don't think there is any hook in it at all. It's straightforward.
The Chair: Mr. Discepola, do you have a comment?
Mr. Discepola: Sure there's a hook. The hook is that if I were to vote against this motion, I'd be voting against the spirit of your motion. And if I vote for it, I'd be admitting that this committee had something that was not proceeding in the normal course.
I know you need unanimous approval to withdraw the motion. Jim, I would ask you to withdraw the motion so that we can proceed with the committee. In the future, if you have any reason for doubt, then bring it back, and you can rest assured that you'll always get support for it from this side.
Mr. Strahl: Perhaps I could make an amendment to the motion, Mr. Chairman, an amendment that the -
Mr. Loubier: We don't need it.
Mr. Strahl: - committee - because I understand your concern - continues to ensure or that the committee ensures that the chairman continues to uphold.... You've already been doing it, so it's not something that would....
It's a pat on the back for the chairman and the committee, and there's nothing wrong with saying that we should....
Mr. Discepola: Are you going to do this at every committee?
Mr. Strahl: I don't know. I'm here at this one. Is that amendment on the record?
The Chair: Yes, I think the motion should be in writing. I really would like time to study this. I don't know what other duties and obligations we are supposed to exercise as members in here. It doesn't say that these are the only things we're supposed to do. It might be implied that those are our only obligations.
.1540
It doesn't say that we're supposed to serve our constituents in all ways properly. It doesn't say that we're supposed to treat each other with respect. It doesn't say that we're supposed to not call other members liars or scoundrels. There are a lot of things it does not include in here in terms of a code of conduct.
Mr. Strahl: It doesn't refer to a code of conduct. We're talking about rules and practices of the committee. It has nothing to do with rules of the House or rulings of the Speaker or anything else.
The Chair: I have a heck of a time saying that you have a right to counsel on every issue, paid for by whom. Do we have to adjourn the committee any time anybody says they want a lawyer there representing them before the committee? These are things I don't understand. I would rather take advisement from the House, which is considering these matters already. We can bring it up again some other time.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I agree fully with you. I often happen to disagree but I entirely agree with you on this. It is as if we were telling someone to take some cough syrup in case he or she might be coughing in a month. It does not make any sense. The committee works well and I certainly have no complaints about the way it works. I can't see why we should table a motion imposing rules upon us to make us do things we already do continuously.
Considering that the motion was tabled in the House of Commons and brought to the attention of the Speaker, I support your proposal or that of Barry Campbell, to the effect that we should wait and see what the Speaker of the House will have to say about this. When problems arise in the committee of Finance, I'll be the first to support the Reform Party on a motion it's would table if any of those fundamental rights of parliamentarians respected. However, in the present circumstances, I find this ridiculous. I would ask you to rule quickly on this and to turn to other business. We had planned on an hour and hour and a half, this afternoon.
[English]
Mr. Collins (Souris - Moose Mountain): Mr. Chairman, coming from another committee, and I must say exactly what Mr. Loubier and Mr. Campbell have said, I think you're adding fuel to a fire. If things are going along and it appears that's copacetic in this committee, why not proceed? You could be faced with this kind of presentation every time you come to a committee. I think you've done the right thing. You want to get some insight into what went on in some other committee, but I think that's an issue for that particular committee and for the Speaker. In deference to what has taken place here, if you have a problem, I think it will be resolved.
The Chair: Could I also say this? This motion means nothing because a majority can always overrule it. It's like a majority in the House of Commons can do anything it wants, subject to the charter.
The problem has to be corrected with the rules that govern all of us. It won't be cured by a majority motion because we can overrule it any time with a majority. It has to be the constitution of this committee as set by the House. Therefore, I recommend that it's a proper place to deal with grievances and we will reconsider it if there's something else that comes up - and this is why I suggest you either table it or withdraw it.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Chairman, as I've indicated, I have seriously enjoyed your chairmanship and the cooperation of all members on this committee. I don't wish to continue this any further and I would concur with your suggestion that we table this, but I would like to bring it back the first week of June.
The Chair: Sure. Bring it back and we'll have a better reading from the House then.
Mr. Abbott: Thank you.
The Chair: Tabled with unanimous consent. Thank you both very much. We take this very seriously. I think members should. The rights of members should always be respected.
[Translation]
We continue with Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Loubier: Where do you want me to start? With the dissenting opinion or the motion? Which one is the easier to pass?
The Chair: The dissenting opinion.
Mr. Loubier: The dissenting opinion is easier? Oh God, we had major discussions!
The Chair: It's up to you.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I have the honour to table in both official languages the dissenting opinion on the 16th report of the committee of Finance. You gave me this morning the permission to express this opinion and to append it to the sixteenth report, probably a majority report, of the committee of Finance.
Then, I table it. Do you allow me to read it?
.1545
The Chair: As you wish. You can distribute it as we did, and it will be appended. It's your choice, but I think that everybody can read it.
Mr. Loubier: Listen. I will just sum it up. It is about the discussion my colleage, the Honourable Member for Mercier, and myself had this morning on national standards and on the impact of cuts in the CHST, particularly on Quebec. You wil find there the essence of the arguments we made this morning to the effect that although people in the rest of Canada talk about the need and the desire for Canada-wide and national standards, the situation in Quebec is completely different.
This morning, I reminded you that the part on Bill C-76 dealing with Canada Health and Social Transfer as well as Canada-wide standards is a big deal for Quebec. This is not reflected in the Sixteenth Report you submitted this morning. This is why the Official Opposition tables a dissenting opinion to be appended to that Report. Therefore, I table it for adoption.
The Chair: Thank you. We accept it and it will be appended as a dissenting report.
Motion agreed to
Let's go on to the next motion.
Mr. Loubier: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I see that we make the Committee on Finance work this afternoon. We've been doing this for two weeks now that's what democracy is all about.
The Chair: Very efficiently.
Mr. Loubier: The second motion put forward by the Official Opposition concerns the request I made last week to the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Eggleton, to the effect that we would like to see the program evaluation report, department by department, which led to the decision to lay off 45,000 civil servants.
The Honourable Marcel Massé, who is responsible for Public Service Renewal, has repeated many times since December 1994, that the evaluation which would be made department by department, would be substantial and very documented. It would be based upon six criteria, one regarding the level of government which is the best suited to offer a given service or administer a given program - referring to the federal government or the provinces - which would be used to justify the transfer of responsibility to the provinces and concurrently the laying off of staff at the federal level, if necessary.
Last week, I asked Mr. Eggleton to make that document public. He told me, after my third attempt to obtain an answer, that it wasn't his responsibility and that ultimately the minister responsible for Public Service renewal was supposed to make those evaluations public therefore move that the Committee on Finance asks the Minister of Public Service renewal to make public as quickly as possible the program evaluation, department by department upon which was based the decision to lay off 45,000 federal civil servants. A careful analysis of the situation will reveal that a refusal to make that evaluation public, if there is one, is proof enough that the government has used a hit-or-miss method to put in place his staff cutting in the Public Service and that the Minister of Public Service renewal sold us a bill of goods.
The Chair: I would like to tell you that I gave you my word that I would personally support your motion.
Mr. Loubier: Indeed, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: In fact, I'd like to give the floor to Mr. Walker.
[English]
Mr. Walker (Winnipeg North Centre): Thanks again to Mr. Loubier for giving me the time to talk to the ministers involved.
The news I've brought back for you is probably not the news you want. The documents are confidential because the documents dealing with the cut-backs at this stage are cabinet documents. They were used in the preparation of the cabinet decision to reorganize the federal civil service.
.1550
Now there are a couple of options available to us. I want to repeat what I said this morning, and I don't think this is sidetracking you too much. Each department is responsible for coming to its respective committee and presenting in a new process the outlook document as to how they are dealing with issues such as this, and it includes this question. For example, in front of this committee you will have Treasury Board and you'll have the Department of Finance. We'll be coming here with our report and that's when your opportunity would normally be to ask the departments how they're dealing with the cut-backs.
For example, the Department of Finance is announcing its reorganization plan before the end of this month, and it would be appropriate after that to have the deputy minister in to talk about how they're trying to cope with the cut-backs under the outlook plan. So whether I say it to you now or whether somebody comes back to you later, the reality is that most of the documents would be stamped confidential or secret because they are cabinet documents in preparation for these discussions and policies.
Mr. Chair, normally one of the other members on this side has a suggestion as to how we might proceed. I'd like to hear your response, or somebody else may want to speak about this, but as the motion stands now I think I would have to ask my colleagues to defeat it because the information is of a confidential nature. Maybe ``privileged'' nature would be a better word for it, because it's advice to the cabinet on a major decision area.
The Chair: Could I ask one more question? Would it suffice if we brought the minister before us and asked him to testify and bring any documents that are not confidential?
Mr. Abbott.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier. I'm sorry.
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Chair, since December and even November - and I can produce again the news clippings - the minister responsible for Public Service renewal has been repeatedly telling us that the evaluation of the Civil Service cut-backs and the streamlining of the Civil Service would be made on the basis of a serious analysis and according to six objective criteria which would ensure that, at a given time, we would ask ourselves questions: Is the federal government or are the provinces best suited to administer such and such policy? If the provinces are, then we reduce the staff, in view of those transfers.
There are other similar criteria: Should the federal government still be involved in such and such sector? If not, the federal government should withdraw and we should have corresponding layoffs in the Civil Service.
The minister responsible for Public Service Renewal kept telling us about his serious analysis and also his tight and very cartesian evaluation of the renewal of the Public Service. We have just been told that it is impossible to make those evaluations public because they're confidential and that they are Cabinet documents. So, how can we judge on the one hand that the plan to cut-back 45,000 public servant positions is first, something serious, which relates to a real streamlining exercise and to a genuine exercise which will enable the bureaucracy to adjust to the new realities when, on the other hand, we don't really have an evaluation? If we keep on doing this, saying that serious studies were made whereas when asked to make them public, it turns out in the end that they are always secret or never available at some point, we won't be able to function.
I've already asked the Department of Finance for several studies which were supposed to exist. For example, when the exemption for the first $100,000 in capital gains was cancelled in last year's budget, an official from the Department of Finance said that: ``Our studies and our analysis indicate to us that the impact will only be...''. Then, I asked for them to be made public and I was told the following: ``Finally, there is no study. There were some, but maybe that...'' Well. The minister says the same thing. In the end, all that becomes pernicious and tiresome. I would even say that there are close to being misleading public statements. When the minister says publicly that serious analyses were made to allow for a good restructuring, those public statements confer some seriousness to the actions of the government. However when we learn later that there are no such studies, if this is not outwinking the public, it's very close to it.
Thus, I maintain my motion. We will see afterwards how to implement it and what avenue will be used to obtain the required information.
There is a lack of transparency here.
.1555
[English]
Mr. Walker: This is the point in question. I don't want, in any way, shape or form, to frustrate your desire for information. Is it your hope that when the minister and the officials come that you have all the documentation available for study in the committee? Is it your hope to have all the documents possible for you, as a member of Parliament outside of this committee, to proceed with your research and analysis of what is going on?
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Walker, I submitted my motion in order to try to obtain the paper that the Minister responsible for Public Service renewal has been talking about for some months. If this paper does not exist, we will have to wonder if the government is genuinely committed to renewing government machinery and to be transparent. They keep telling us about their desire to be transparent and open.
If you are telling me that this report assessing the various activities in the different departments and the federal government's involvement is secret, this is very significant. This would mean that at some point in time, whenever we want to access some information on the effect your policies and decisions would have, you could answer on the one hand that you have indeed made several analyses but on the other hand, that we cannot have access to them.
We could use the legislation on Access to Information to obtain information one or two months later, in so far as this report exists. On the other hand, if it does not exist, this could be very serious since it would mean that the government has deliberatly lied to Canadians. It will also mean that the Minister responsible for Public Service renewal, Mr. Massé, will have played some tricks on Canadians and on the House. I must remind you that the Minister often said in the House that there had been an in-depth analysis done of all the programs and according to certain criteria.
If necessary, we will use Access to Information legislation. But if indeed the report does not exist, then the fun will begin.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Walker, do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Walker: It is my belief at this time that when the ministers...as more than one appear, that will be part of what they have to deal with on that issue. We have every right to question them as to what that is, how they're proceeding with their cut-back plans, and, as Mr. Loubier indicated, what level of government is best suited to do what work in this country.
On the question of documents not provided by the ministers at that time, I'm wondering if it isn't more a question, Mr. Loubier - since my understanding is that most of the documents are advice to the ministries and therefore are of a confidential nature - of proceeding through questions on the order paper and questions under access to information to find out exactly what is available.
[Translation]
The Chair: I beg your pardon. Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Loubier: You are telling me that the government plans to lay off 45,000 people within the Public Service and that it plans to do it through memoranda? You are telling me that the minister responsible for Public Service renewal has decided to lay off 45,000 public servants through internal memos, without consulting the largest union representing the federal Public Service, that is the Public Service Alliance?
There are certain things that I'm beginning to understand. If through 45,000 layoffs you are not able still to downsize the government machinery and that the federal government, far from getting out of provincial jurisdictions encroaches even more on provincial authority, it is indeed because you have not proceeded the way you should have. You wanted to rationalize the machinery in order to make it more productive and more efficient. And you are telling me that you have laid off 45,000 persons by sending memos. Well...
[English]
Mr. Walker: I'll return to the point later. I'll let Jim speak.
Mr. Abbott: I think the point that Mr. Loubier brings up is brought up in good faith, and I have some feeling of support for the direction he's going in.
There has been some question on the part of the Reform Party as to how much of a plan has actually been in place, if in fact there wasn't just a decision to take a meat cleaver and do something. That doesn't mean to suggest - and I will go on the record as saying - that the Reform Party would be doing cuts as well.
I would hope that when we form the government after the next election, we will have a plan in place.
.1600
In support of Mr. Loubier's motion, casting no personal aspersions whatsoever, I would suggest that even over the last few weeks there has been a growing arrogance in the way the government has been conducting many parts of its business.
Concerning the responsibility that the government has to the public, I have people in my home constituency environment of Cranbrook who are very concerned about the delivery of services, particularly from the Canada Employment Centre. This has an impact on lives and it also has an impact on communities. In my judgment, it's becoming transparent that the government went ahead and took a slice and then asked how they were going to rationalize this slice. So in that respect, I support this motion.
However, on the other side of the coin, I do recognize that because there is a responsibility to the public, and to the lives and to the communities, that much of the discussion and much of the documentation at certain points would have to be kept in private.
There is also the question on this motion of whether it is the committee that is going to be managing these cuts or the government and its bureaucracy.
The Chair: I hope it's the committee.
Mr. Abbott: I recognize that there has to be some degree of confidentiality, but I would suggest, taking a look at Mr. Loubier's motion.... As I say, I think the Reform Party can support the intent of it.
I'd take a look at the words that have been put in here at the earliest opportunity - and I underline ``earliest opportunity''. It would seem to me that the government should be able to support this motion, because to my mind ``earliest opportunity'' would be taking into account that there must be some confidentiality. I don't believe this motion calls for a complete ``here's everything we're doing'' in The Ottawa Citizen or The Globe and Mail.
I think simply saying ``at the earliest opportunity'' is putting an urgency on the government that these discussions, these perspectives, these directions, be revealed to the committee at the earliest opportunity, and I would hope that the committee or the government would accept that motion in good faith. Saying ``the earliest opportunity'' - this is the instant that we can give it, so there isn't any sandbagging.
Mr. Campbell: I have a different concern, a different aspect, to this that I'd like to raise. I don't think, as a committee, however we feel about this motion, that we should be asking for something we might not be able to obtain. I want to understand better the bounds of what we as a committee can ask for and receive.
Mr. Walker raises the prospect, and Mr. Abbott acknowledges, that some of these documents, I expect, would be confidential, or privileged, or secret. I would hate to see us, as a committee, even if we all support the motion, urging the government to make things available to us that they're not in a position to make available to us. Then perhaps we embarrass ourselves as a committee.
I guess I ask you whether, as a committee, we can simply demand - and the government must comply - that they bring everything to us, notwithstanding the classification of those studies or documents. Do we know the answer to that question?
The Chair: Without me asking for it, the clerk has very intelligently given me something. Shall I read it? The power of committees to send for papers and records:
848.(1) Committees may send for any papers that are relevant to their Orders of Reference. Within this restriction, it appears that the power of committee to send for papers is unlimited.
(2) The procedure for obtaining papers is for the committee to adopt a motion ordering the required person or organization to produce them. If this Order is not complied with, the committee may report the matter to the House, stating their difficulties in obtaining the requested documents. It is then for the House to decide what action is to be taken.
(3) It cannot, however, be said that the requirement is absolute either in the case of government departments or of the public or private bodies, since there are no instances recorded in which obedience to an Order for papers has been insisted on.
Mr. Campbell: Never ask a question you don't know the answer to, and always listen to -
The Chair: Okay.
[Translation]
Now, the counsels....
.1605
[English]
849.(1) A committee cannot require an officer of a department of the Government to produce any paper which, according to the rules and practice of the House, it is not usual for the House itself to insist upon being laid before it. If considerations of public policy can be urged against a motion for papers it is either withdrawn or otherwise dealt with according to the judgment of the House.
Mr. Strahl: Which standing order is that?
The Chair: This is from page 236 of Beauchesne's.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Chairman, don't you think that we checked before we submitted our motion? Please note that we are not demanding of the minister responsible for Public Service Renewal that he sent us those documents; we're only asking if those documents exist. But for further meetings, if our question has not been heard, we might reassess our position. These are not papers that endanger national security nor deal with nuclear tests; these are administrative papers and assessments that led the government to the laying off of 45,000 civil servants.
The Reform Party agrees with the intent of our motion. We are on the same wave length concerning the way one should manage public monies, but it is a matter of transparency. If the Minister says that this document exists and that you still refuse to pass a motion such as this one, we will therefore have to conclude that this document does not exist and that the minister lied to Canadians.
I do not see why these documents should not be made public. The Minister is certainly not a liar, and he has said some 20 times since last December that there is an assessment paper that has been drawn according to six criteria.
I fail to see why the committee should not ask for it. We do not necessarily have to be aggressive, but if we simply ask for it, we might receive it. Or we might not receive it...
The Chair: When I was a child, I always asked for candies... Mr. Strahl.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: If I could just make a couple of comments based on the Bloc's motion.... I have also been trying to get my hands on these documents for some time. My committee doesn't deal with the minister of public service renewal in such terse language, but I think it would be good if it would.
It's interesting how program evaluations and lay-offs have gone from one or two sentences in the first budget of the government to the major driving force of the government all within a few short months. It's interesting how that evolved.
There was a very small mention of it in the 1994 budget; there were just one or two sentences. By September, it became everything to the government.
I agree with the motion, which would help to flesh out whether the program evaluations were done properly. You can't get that any other way. Has there been consultation with different layers of the public service? Has there been an economic impact statement? Has it been done regionally?
I think it would be good to have those documents. Probably the biggest announcement of the budget was the 45,000 lay-offs. I think it's a good idea.
Again, I faced a similar problem with getting Treasury Board reports about contracting out, for example. It's a regulatory thing from the Treasury Board. Every year they have to table the status of contracting out in the country. We're now two years late and they still won't table it.
It's part of the regulatory requirements. It doesn't seem to matter whether it's regulatory requirements or cabinet documents, the government won't release them anyway.
I would ask for them and see what happens.
Mr. Walker: I have a small point of order. Mr. Massé hasn't appeared in front of this committee, has he?
The Chair: No. That's a good idea.
Mr. Walker: Is Mr. Massé considered to be within the purview of the finance committee?
The Chair: We have always taken the attitude that we have purview over everything, such as Parliament, because we deal with the money.
.1610
Did you ever think you'd be dealing with western grain transportation and with the public service?
Mr. Walker: It was always my great fear.
The Chair: We are the committee of all committees.
Mr. Strahl: We are the mother of all committees.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: I have a suggestion motivated by my good will for which I am well known.
I still wish to submit my motion and have it passed this afternoon. You are free to reject it, but one way or another, I would like the committee to invite Minister Massé to appear, since I would like to ask him some questions not only on program evaluation but also on the whole renewal activity within the Public Service.
I believe that my colleagues of the Reform Party would also like to put questions to him. The two are not mutually exclusive, but I maintain my motion and I would like us to vote on it, which should not preclude us from inviting the minister responsible for Public Service renewal and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to appear. Let us not forget that his portfolio is very large and deasl directly with public funds.
[English]
Mr. Walker: Mr. Chair, my suggestion is that we defeat the motion and invite the minister.
The Chair: Mr. Abbott, do you have a comment?
Mr. Abbott: My suggestion is a free vote for the government side, but that's not going to happen. I underscore again, if I may, and try to persuade Mr. Walker that the catch-all phrase in here ``at the earliest opportunity'' would, I think, show good faith on the part of the government members to the people who are charged with the responsibility of taking a look at what the government is doing - the official opposition and the Reform Party - and it would exclude the kind of truly sensitive documents you might be concerned about on the part of the finance department.
The Chair: Let me suggest for amendment ``at the earliest possible opportunity'' providing it is not during the Quebec referendum.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: This has nothing to do with it.
[English]
Mr. Abbott: There goes the goodwill.
The Chair: No. We can accommodate them during the referendum because we understand how important it is. I'm in your hands, as always.
Is there a question?
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: A recorded vote.
The Chair: All those in favour of the motion?
The motion is passed. Yeas 6 nays 5
Mr. Loubier: Mr. Peterson?
The Chair: I cannot vote unless there is a tie, but I already stated that...
[English]
I would honour my word and support it. You can put that on the record.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: Thank you very much.
.1615
[English]
Mr. Walker: Perhaps I can indicate to the committee that Mr. Massé will be invited to come to us and discuss this. He will be told of the motion and the....
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier: [Inaudible]
[English]
Mr. Loubier says it's the spirit of Queen Victoria's weekend. That's the best way....
The Chair: Why don't I work it out to get Mr. Massé before?
This is a wrap-up of a very long and arduous process. Again, I thank the members from all parties for their incredible support and parliamentary nature and their civility towards one another.
I also think we owe a tremendous vote of thanks to our clerks, to our research staff, to the people who are the translators, and to the other person who worked the tables and the microphones. We've had some ungodly hours and they've always come through for us. We've never been let down. They've made our job extremely easy. On behalf of all of us, I'd like to thank them very much. Have a wonderful week off, everybody.
The meeting is adjourned.