[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, October 23, 1995
.1107 
[English]
The Chair: I call the meeting to order. This is the Sub-Committee on the Business of Supply.
This is primarily an organizational meeting. We have the issues paper listed first on the agenda. What I thought we could do - we have heard from three sort of global witnesses so far - is have a look at the issues and hear any comments people have on the issues and decide whether in fact they are the issues that we want this committee to address. It would be very nice if we could agree on three or four principal themes that we think we should be reporting back to the House on.
I think the other thing we have to consider under future business is whether we can meet our time line of reporting back through the committee by November 23. My feeling is that we can't. However, I don't want to leave it too wide open as to when we do report back, because this is the kind of job I think it's good to focus on, get it done and feel you've finished it.
Primarily because of the other work the procedure and House affairs committee is doing and the other meetings that we're all involved in, I think it would be extremely difficult to finish a report in basically the next two weeks. What would we have to do, Brian - report back to the committee or report back to the House for an extension of the deadline on reporting?
Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): I have to ask your pardon. I'm not sure exactly which steps need to be followed to ask for an extension. I have gone through the calendar, and you're quite correct in saying that the deadlines would be fairly tight, especially if the committee wishes to hear from additional witnesses before sitting down to consider a report.
Actually, I have started preparing some of the background documentation that would be necessary. What I'd like to do for the committee is to prepare an issues and options paper that sets out the issues that have been discussed and then provides a brief summary of the kinds of options that have been presented by witnesses, for the committee to go over. Once the committee has done that, then it's possible for me, acting on the basis of the committee's preferences, to draft a report for the subcommittee's consideration.
Again looking at the calendar -
.1110
The Chair: I know issues are first on our agenda, but perhaps we might do better to look at the proposed work plan and start there, if that's agreable to everybody. I think you had that in the memo -
Mr. O'Neal: Certainly. This is something that hasn't been distributed to committee members, but I think I could go over it quite briefly.
The Chair: Okay. Let's go over it now.
Mr. O'Neal: This Thursday is October 26. Assuming the subcommittee will be meeting on Thursdays - and mind you, the subcommittee could decide to meet on other days - Thursday, October 26 is perhaps a little too late to call in witnesses - Oh, we're not having a meeting this week?
The Chair: No, because the procedure and House affairs committee is dealing with the electoral boundaries report.
Mr. O'Neal: So that leaves us with November 2, 9, and 16, before November 23.
Mr. Williams (St. Albert): If I may, Madam Chairman, I have to give a speech in Vancouver on November 2, and I'm talking to my local chamber of commerce on November 8. I might be able to get back here for November 9, but I do know I'm going to be in Vancouver on November 2.
The Chair: So we should try to find another meeting day for that week.
Mr. Williams: If at all possible.
The Chair: I presume usually you're not here on Mondays, John?
Mr. Williams: No. Mondays are 50-50. I'll come in on a Monday if I have to be here, so Monday is not that much of a problem.
The Chair: What about you, Guy?
Mr. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur): I try to be here on Mondays but it's not always possible. Depending what the date is, and if I know well enough in advance, I can try to be here.
The other option, Madam Chair, would be to take one of the other dates and start at 9 o'clock in the morning and go through to Question Period and then come back after Question Period if we want to. From 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. is a good block.
The Chair: Yes. My problem, of course, is between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. I have to be involved with getting Question Period ready.
Mr. Arseneault: I thought the morning went very well the other day.
Mr. Williams: Even the 9 a.m until noon, which gives us three hours, is a good solid block. You do notice that extra hour and I think it's beneficial as well.
The Chair: Yes, your mind starts working in the right way.
Mr. Williams: You have time to get focused on what you're trying to do here.
The Chair: Unfortunately, Thursday mornings is really the only time available to do that, unless we try to do one Monday.
Mr. Williams: Why don't we try Mondays, because I am heavily committed to public accounts on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and I have a duty day on Thursday, so Mondays might actually be preferable to me.
The Chair: Now, next Monday, of course, is October 30, so I don't know that we want to try to have a committee meeting that goes from -
Mr. Williams: Is there anything special about next Monday?
The Chair: Yes, rather.
Mr. Williams: It's the day before Hallowe'en.
The Chair: Yes.
Wednesdays, John, for you are what?
Mr. Williams: Public accounts in the afternoon.
The Chair: And Tuesday afternoon?
Mr. Williams: Public accounts.
The Chair: Both days - hard-working committee.
Mr. Williams: Busy boy.
The Chair: And of course, if we tried to do it Tuesday morning we'd conflict with procedure and House affairs.
Mr. Williams: It seems that Monday is about the best day. How about 9 a.m. to noon - of course, next Monday is bad, as we were saying. We seem to have our attention focused somewhere else next Monday.
The Chair: Could we agree to do this: from 9 a.m. to noon on Thursday the 9th, maybe even 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., and can we arrange to have sandwiches brought in so that we can carry on through until 1 o'clock?
Mr. O'Neal: Yes, I think if the clerk is agreed.
The Chair: Okay, we'll do that, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. We still have to find a way, if we can, of making up for that November 2 meeting. What about the Monday of the week of November 9?
.1115
Mr. Arseneault: Is the House closed down that week?
The Chair: The week following that.
Mr. O'Neal: November 13.
The Chair: So we could do Monday, November 6, plan a rather longish meeting?
Mr. Arseneault: From 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.?
The Chair: Yes. And if we felt we could do all the witnesses we wanted to do in those two days, we could presumably put together a report.
Mr. Williams: Which two days are we talking about, Madam Chairman?
The Chair: November 6, which is the Monday, and November 9, which is the Thursday.
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
The Chair: The only way we could get a report together is to meet the week of the break, which I I don't imagine either of you is particularly interested in, or again, early the week of November 20, when the House is back. But I think that would be really pushing it.
Mr. Williams: I think so, too, Madam Chairman. I presume that because the committee was a creation of the House, it would require unanimous consent to extend the reporting date, but I would imagine that's achievable if we ask the House for unanimous consent.
The Chair: Let me suggest, then, that whatever the proper procedure is, a motion to authorize me to report back through the committee to the House asking that the date be extended to the last day the House sits December 15. December 15 only gives us an extension of two weeks, and our deadline now is December 1, but we have to get the request to procedure and House affairs by the 26th to allow them to do that.
Mr. Williams: Why don't we just put the request forward now?
The Chair: Okay. Now, does December 15 in fact give us time? You've seen the other reports that have been done on this business in the past. Or do we want to put it in after the House comes back in February? I wouldn't want to do it twice.
Mr. Williams: I just have a concern that if the House is prorogued, where would we stand?
The Clerk of the Committee: The order of reference would have to be renewed in the new session.
The Chair: I think we're just saying that we really don't have time to do a good report and get it back to the main committee by November 26 so they can report back to the House. We're just talking about a report back to the House asking for an extension of the deadline.
What we certainly could do is ask for a longer extension but still have our own target as reporting back before December 1. Even if we felt at that time there was more we wanted to do, we could make an interim report by December 1. I think that's entirely achievable.
Mr. Williams: I'd like to try to do as good a job as possible. We're not going to be revisiting this situation every six months or a year. Therefore, since it is on the agenda now, I think it's our responsibility to do a credible job, and I would rather take a little bit of extra time to do the credible job than to rush something forward that is either half thought through or only half the accomplishment that we otherwise could have made. I have no problem with an interim report. I think we'll have a hard time coming up with a concrete, well-thought-out, looked-at-all-the-options situation, even by December 15.
.1120
The Chair: I think so too.
Mr. Williams: The concern I have is that if Parliament is prorogued, we'll end up having accomplished absolutely nothing because we will not be able to report, period, unless the terms of reference are renewed. I would like to think that our terms of reference could be renewed in a new session of Parliament.
The Chair: I think it's an issue everybody really wants to have a look at. I think members of Parliament -
Mr. Williams: Well, if there seems to be agreement that we could have our terms of reference renewed, why don't we just move that reporting date back until maybe the end of February. Then, of course, we have the five weeks off during Christmas, and we come back about the middle of January, if I recall.
The Chair: Actually not until February 5, John.
Mr. Williams: So we come back on February 5.
The Chair: Yes. We sit until February 23.
Mr. Williams: That's only two weeks.
The Chair: Three weeks.
Mr. Williams: Then why don't we plan to report -
The Chair: It could be the first week in March?
Mr. Williams: Yes, the week we come back after that break.
The Chair: Okay, by the end of that week. That would be March 8.
Mr. Williams: If there seems to be a desire on the part of all parties to have this report presented, then we would have our terms of reference renewed in a new session if that actually did materialize.
The Chair: Okay. So we'll find out what the procedure is.
But there's a motion before the committee. It is moved by Mr. Williams that we report back to the House through the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, requesting that the deadline be extended to March 8.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: But not wanting to let up on the pace and wanting to make good progress on this, we have our two meetings established then for Monday, November 6, and Thursday, November 9. Both meetings will go from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. We'll arrange to have some kind of sandwiches brought in to keep you all going.
Then the following week we come back on November 20. The weekend is on November 24. Do you want to try to have two in there, or just deal with November 23? Our regular Thursday meeting would be November 23.
Mr. Williams: Why don't we leave that, Madam Chairman, until we have a discussion on the number of witnesses we intend to have?
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Williams: That would have a bearing on whether we want to have a meeting on the Monday as well as the Thursday.
The Chair: Can I just suggest that we change the starting time to 9:30 a.m.? I'm sorry, but it's just impossible for me to be on time for a 9 a.m. meeting. This would be for the Monday and Thursday.
Mr. Malhi (Bramalea - Gore - Malton): Agreed.
The Chair: Then we'll just assume we're going to have our regular meetings on the Thursdays following that, and they will be pretty full morning meetings, unless we decide otherwise.
Mr. Williams: So the regular meetings on subsequent Thursdays would be at 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Malhi: This Thursday?
The Chair: Not this Thursday, because procedure and House affairs is meeting on the electoral boundaries, and we're not having a meeting on November 2 because Mr. Williams is out of town. That's why we're doing two the following week, Gurbax, on November 6 and November 9.
Shall we carry on with how the committee might conduct its business, Brian?
Mr. O'Neal: Certainly. I was going to propose that the next set of witnesses be academics. The committee may wish to hear from them in a round-table situation; that is, each of them would be given something like 10 or 15 minutes to speak, and after that you could have a free flow of discussion between them and between yourselves and them.
.1125
I was also going to suggest that the committee may wish to get the academics who are available in the Ottawa area. They're easily available, and also it would be relatively inexpensive to have them come to see you.
Now, I don't think the quality of the information you'd be receiving from these people would suffer as a result. Fortunately there are a number of academics in the area quite well versed on the subject of supply and the way Parliament functions. They ought to be able to provide some excellent material to work with and to think about in weeks to come.
I don't know how many of you have your lists of suggested witnesses, but we could quickly review them. Dr. C.E.S. Franks may be known to many of you. He is probably the leading expert on Parliament in the country today. He's quite well versed in this subject. He's also very good at being a witness. You couldn't ask for better. He's also coming from Queen's University, so I think he should be easy to contact.
I was also going to recommend Professor Robert Jackson, who is very knowledgeable about Canadian politics and the way Parliament functions. He is out of Carleton University.
I would like to put in a plug for Dr. Mallory, whom many of you may also know. He is one of my former professors. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Mallory. He is a renowned student on the subject of Parliament and could speak to you quite knowledgeably. He is also in the Ottawa area.
Apart from these three, the committee might consider having Dr. Katherine Graham, the director at the School of Public Administration at Carleton University. Also, in particular, there is Dr. Sharon Sutherland, who is also at the School of Public Administration at Carleton University. Both of them are also quite knowledgeable and I believe would make excellent witnesses before the subcommittee.
The Chair: Sharon Sutherland appeared before the committee on code of conduct a couple of weeks ago.
Now, what about Donald Savoie?
Mr. O'Neal: Donald Savoie would also make an excellent witness. The reason I haven't listed him higher on my list of priorities is that he's down in Moncton. If he were to come up -
The Chair: But he's also Ottawa-based.
Mr. O'Neal: The clerk had mentioned that occasionally he is in town. It would be a matter of checking to see if he were available. Certainly if he were, he would be an excellent witness.
The Chair: The chances of him being available on Monday might be greater than for our Thursday meetings.
Is there enough difference of opinion among these people to create a good cross - My only concern is whether an academic panel is a little bit too one-dimensional. It doesn't look like it consists of a broad background of these people, though.
Mr. Williams: You were talking about five or six there, Brian. Maybe we could get that down to three or four. I did want to talk to Dr. Donald Savoie and Dr. Sharon Sutherland. The others like Dr. Graham from the School of Public Administration would be - These are the types of people.
Maybe four would be sufficient. If we have too many, as you say, we'd have a one-sided argument, and too many are not going to give us a debate that is free enough. Everybody is going to be trying to say their piece, and it may just be repetitious.
The Chair: Rely on your chair, please -
Mr. Williams: Oh, oh!
The Chair: - to keep them under control.
Mr. Arseneault: Madam Chair, I agree with what John had said. I'd like to see Donald Savoie here as much as possible. That would be my preference.
I'm not that familiar with the others. I've heard the names. I've read some articles here and there. But I'd like to see Mr. Savoie here.
I have another point. I'd like them to focus a little more on how to fix the system or make it better. I think we can find a fair amount of agreement around the table that the system as it now exists doesn't function very well and has to be upgraded. To get these renowned people in here to tell us that again will be a waste of their time and a waste of our time. They have to realize that in the committee, if I can read it properly, we acknowledge the fact that the system as it now exists doesn't function properly. We want some improvements.
.1130
I'd like to hear how they would improve the system, what recommendations they would make. I would like them to be more specific in what they're going to tell us.
The Chair: Can I suggest, too, if we get through the issues and agree on the things we would like them to tell us how to improve, or at least comment on them - One of the key things we're trying to get to here -
What I've heard from the subcommittee is greater accountability: how do you hold the ministers and departments accountable for what they've done, greater influence over the pattern of spending - those two, certainly. But if we could give them an indication of three or four themes we want them to address, if possible, we might be more likely to get what we want out of it.
You can certainly discuss that with them as they're contacted.
Mr. O'Neal: Yes, absolutely. I should say that I think the potential for disagreement among them is good when it comes to solutions.
The Chair: Good.
Mr. O'Neal: One or two of them are fairly traditionalist in their outlook. They may feel that some of the ideas that have been proposed are not feasible or desirable. So you should be able to get a debate from them, which would be ideal.
But certainly when we speak to them, when we arrange for them to come and see you, we'll make sure they're aware of the issues that are of greatest concern to you so they will be prepared to address those issues.
I was also going to suggest that one or two of them may have considerable knowledge of the way the supply process is handled in New Zealand, Australia or, for example, the United Kingdom. We could be asking them to comment on those systems as well, and whether they're relevant to the situation here.
Mr. Arseneault: And the American system as well?
Mr. O'Neal: Yes, certainly.
Mr. Arseneault: Will we be getting an expert on the American system? There just seemed to be an indication from our witnesses the other day. It's well worth investigating. Maybe if we could get someone to come in who's Ottawa-based as well, who's with the embassy, or someone who is visiting in the area.
The Chair: Probably not for this particular panel.
Mr. Arseneault: Not for this round table, but later in our program of witnesses I would certainly appreciate it if we made an effort to find someone with American expertise.
The Chair: After we hear from our witnesses, it would not be out of line for the committee to decide that it wants to go to Washington and directly talk to people, not that I'm sure we would want to start providing the kinds of budgets that their committees or members of Parliament have.
So who are we agreed on here, then? Dr. Franks from Queen's?
Mr. Williams: Dr. Savoie.
The Chair: Dr. Savoie, Dr. Mallory. That doesn't preclude us from doing the same thing with the others if we want to pursue other things.
Mr. Williams: And I like Dr. Sharon Sutherland too.
The Chair: What is Dr. Sutherland's area of expertise?
Mr. O'Neal: It would be on the administrative side of things. But she does know a considerable amount as well about how Parliament functions.
The Chair: Would we be better to get the school's director, Katherine Graham?
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chairman, it's also a question of asking these potential witnesses how comfortable they are about commenting. It's possible that one or two of them may say, no, we don't really feel we're in a position to offer the subcommittee any advice.
But that being said, it's also worth asking them. It could be that they have a valuable contribution to make. It might not necessarily be reflected in any of the articles they've written on this issue.
So certainly if Dr. Graham or Dr. Sutherland has a contribution to make, I'm sure they would be glad to come and would make good witnesses.
The Chair: I'd like to suggest, John, if that's all right with you, that we invite the school's director rather than one of the professors in the department and let them decide between them if they think Sharon Sutherland might make a better contribution.
.1135
Mr. Williams: Yes, let them decide who should make the representation. It need not necessarily be the director who is the most knowledgeable in the area.
The Chair: You're right.
Dr. Dawson was on our list, and we're leaving him off for this round; Robert Jackson we're leaving off for this round, unless one of the others can't come and then we could add either of those; and Paul Thomas, from the University of Manitoba, again, just for the sake of convenience, if we're going to try to keep it to people who are within easy reach. We can always revisit that later.
Okay, if one of the four we've identified - Donald Savoie, Dr. Mallory, Katherine Graham, and Dr. Franks - isn't available, who is next on your chosen list? Robert Jackson?
Mr. Williams: Yes, he's local.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Williams: So there'll be a round table of four academics for three and a half hours.
The Chair: Yes, and that will be on November 2.
Then we'd be looking at our meeting on the 9th. This is hard; it's nice to hear one batch of witnesses before you decide who you want to hear from next, but on our meeting on the 9th I think you were suggesting people from outside of government?
Mr. O'Neal: Yes, Madam Chair. This is something that occurred to me last week. So far, the subcommittee is planning to hear from those who are more or less intimately acquainted with the process. We've heard from senior officials in the government and we're are also planning to hear from academics who are fairly well acquainted with this subject. But it occurred to me that the subcommittee might like to hear from some witnesses who are not really part of that inner circle and who might be able to address the issue in terms of what Canadians outside this area would like to see Parliament doing in the area of supply.
So I was going to recommend that we hear from someone from the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation and also from Mr. Arthur Kroeger, who is probably on both sides of the fence but who is now in the private sector. He was formerly the director of the Public Policy Forum here in Ottawa and I believe he's now with Corporation House, a government relations firm.
I was also going to recommend - and this may be a bit of a controversial suggestion - that someone from Democracy Watch come and address the subcommittee as well.
The Chair: Is that the group we had in front of the committee dealing with the code of conduct?
Mr. O'Neal: Yes. One drawback to Democracy Watch is that it doesn't necessarily speak on behalf of a large constituency of people. They do have some ideas that may be worth hearing, but it's certainly evident that they speak for themselves. One couldn't say that they were representing the opinion of a large number of Canadians.
Oh sorry, there was one other suggestion, too. It's quite possible that somebody from a journalistic background might make a good witness. This is the suggestion that's coming from the clerk, and I mentioned Allan Freeman, who is with The Globe and Mail and writes quite extensively on these kinds of issues. Mr. Freeman is also fluently bilingual, so he could address the committee in both languages. He has participated in the past in a number of seminars that the library has had on the supply management process. I think he has some very interesting and some very well-informed ideas. He might make a very good witness, if we could get hold of him.
.1140
The Chair: It seems to me there's a whole sector where we're missing practically oriented think-tanks.
Mr. Williams: We have two committees - this committee and the one chaired by Mr. Duhamel. The way I see the two committees, they complement one another. One is the bureaucratic/civil service preparation of the estimates and style and substance, and this particular committee deals with the political approval of the estimates. In my own mind I was thinking that Mr. Duhamel's committee is up until the estimates are tabled in the House or become seized by the House, and this committee deals with it as the estimates are being processed through the House.
The academics should be able to supply some insights into how the House would deal with that. There must be a few organizations or people outside academia who understand the nuances of the process in the House, although I'm sure that everybody on the street has an opinion. I think we have to focus on witnesses who are aware of how the House deals with the issue, and that does restrict us significantly to the witnesses that we can have. But I do like the idea of journalisms and I do like the idea of think-tanks like the Fraser Institute or the C.D. Howe Institute or whatever. We've had Dr. Dobell from the Parliamentary Centre, which is another area of expertise that lies outside government. These are the people who interact with the public at large, yet are familiar and knowledgeable about the procedures through the House.
The Chair: What about somebody like Judith Maxwell?
I think different people around the table have different views on the dimensions of what we should be addressing. John obviously has a bigger interest in how you pick apart the estimates after they've been tabled, while I have a bigger interest in how you get them to the table in the shape you want them in the first place. These views reflect the priorities of our constituents. So I don't think we need to close off either parts of that.
I think there are better sources than Democracy Watch. How does the public interest get fed into the estimates process? I don't know if that's the Institute for Research on Public Policy or the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre. Maybe you could give some more thought to that angle and see where that might come from.
Mr. O'Neal: Certainly. I think we've received some good suggestions from around the table this morning. I think Mr. Williams' point is a good one. We need to get informed opinion.
When I was putting together this rough list, I was seeking to achieve this balance. There is no point in getting someone before us who isn't aware of how Parliament handles these things already.
Mr. Williams: The comprehensive auditing committee, for example, I think would be a better witness for Mr. Duhamel's committee than for this committee. That's the way I perceive it.
The Chair: They're on here at my suggestion, John. In the last five years, largely arising out of the investigations around the Toronto Stock Exchange, the foundation has taken on this whole issue of responsibility of boards for their functions. Essentially, we are the large board of the corporation of the Government of Canada.
.1145
Governance is the word. They're starting to look at doing some assessments of how various public bodies exercise good governance.
Mr. Williams: The House and provincial legislatures are rules unto themselves and operate on an entirely different basis from any other, even public, body. Therefore, if they have addressed their minds to how it should be in the House of Commons and provincial legislatures, I wouldn't be opposed to them coming - only if they have something serious to contribute, rather than the concept that better governance is always desirable.
The Chair: What in fact their executive director might do is suggest one of their board members who might be more appropriate.
Mr. O'Neal: They have given this some thought. I was in touch with them quite some time ago, and they are interested. If you'd like, I could quote from the letter they wrote back to me.
The Chair: Sure.
Mr. O'Neal: They told me:
- In the context of the current House review, CCAF's research would suggest how the Estimates
can more effectively address the information needs of the House, and how they can be better
linked to a means of measuring actual performance.
The Chair: Yes, but Mr. Duhamel's committee is not going to be hearing witnesses. It's strictly an administrative kind of thing: this is where Treasury Board is going and we want to consult with members of Parliament as we develop this. That's all they're going to be doing, John.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, if the committee thinks it's appropriate, I could phone them and discuss with them in greater detail some of the subcommittee's actual concerns and see if they'd be interested in addressing those concerns more succinctly.
Mr. Williams: I wasn't aware that Mr. Duhamel's committee wasn't calling witnesses. I thought they were.
The Chair: No, as far as I know, John, it's just a group to consult with members of Parliament as we're changing the process.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
The Chair: So we had Arthur Kroeger, somebody from journalism, and potentially Judith Maxwell if she's interested.
For this second one, do we want to follow again the round table format? I find it very helpful to hear the exchange of views.
Mr. Arseneault: We could. Where does the other list of witnesses - people like Jean-Robert Gauthier - fall in? Are we planning on calling them later, are we going to try to mix them in with some of the other witnesses, or are we not calling them whatsoever?
The Chair: I think we're trying to get a group for that second meeting that would bring in an outside view. Then we'll go back to that list and see how, and how many of them we want to hear from.
Mr. Arseneault: Is that the plan?
The Chair: Yes.
So that gives us three. Maybe the Comprehensive Auditing Foundation is the fourth.
One thing you might discuss with the foundation is whether there is.... I'm thinking of companies that do value-for-money auditing and usually tend to get brought in when we have problems on major projects, and that have a very good sense of how internal accountability is either working or not working and whether members of Parliament really know or don't know what's going on.
Mr. Williams: There's the Canadian Evaluation Society, which that might be able to add again to the style of presentation in order for people to be able to focus in on the level of detail that they would like.
.1150
I know Treasury Board has some great ideas. I think from their perspective, with modern technology and communications, the whole estimates process is not only going to be revamped, but completely redesigned. I am quite enthused about what they are saying. I can see us having an entirely different method of presentation in the not-too-distant future.
It is different from the House of Commons being able to feel that the estimates process is working well.
The Chair: Yes. I see Treasury Board looking at what information they present and how they present it while we're looking at how Parliament deals with that information in many different ways.
Mr. Williams: That's right. As I say, this is where I was thinking the Comprehensive Auditing Foundation would be more appropriate in style of presentation rather than how we handle the information once we have it, hence the difference.
That's how I saw how two committees interacting or complementing each other.
The Chair: One other option is a major company that does work for government like Coopers & Lybrand, for example.
Mr. Williams: But again, I think you're dealing with style rather than process.
The Chair: No, I don't think you are, John, but you'd have to hear them before you could make your own judgments, because their issue really is how governing bodies exercise their responsibilities.
Mr. Williams: You are talking from a management consulting position rather than an accounting position.
The Chair: Yes, definitely.
Mr. Arseneault: Would it be possible to get a former Auditor General here? I know we heard from our sitting Auditor General, but I would to get a -
The Chair: Do you want to get him back?
Mr. Arseneault: - former Auditor General here. Sometimes people who are presently in office are not as free to give opinions. They'll give you the facts. We have had former deputy ministers here, former chairmen of committees, and former this and former that. I wonder if a former Auditor General may not be an advantage to the committee. What are your thoughts?
Mr. Williams: I think we're getting too carried away in trying to get witnesses. I think perhaps we need more time for our own internal deliberations. After we've heard the witnesses we have the testimony, and I think perhaps we should allow for some deliberations amongst ourselves. Then if we have a stumbling point where there seems to be a divergence of opinion on a particular issue, we may want to call any specific witness who has credibility in that area rather than trying to line up all the witnesses now and finding out some of them are irrelevant.
The Chair: The only problem is that it does take time to get the people you want. It does take time to -
Mr. Williams: I appreciate that.
The Chair: You can't call them on a Wednesday and ask them to be here the following Monday, although we're getting close to that for the week after.
Mr. Williams: But I think we're taking witnesses now to the point where we're getting into the area of redundancy.
The Chair: We're just talking about putting together one panel for that second meeting the week after next.
Mr. Williams: Who do we have so far?
The Chair: We have Arthur Kroeger, a journalist, Judith Maxwell -
Mr. Williams: Yes. Are you saying Judith Maxwell is the journalist?
The Chair: No.
I'm sorry. Who were you were suggesting?
Mr. O'Neal: I suggested Allan Freeman from The Globe and Mail.
The Chair: Allan Freeman. It sounds good to me, unless anybody else has another suggestion.
We were talking about one more to round out the public interest.
Mr. O'Neal: The names mentioned have been the Fraser Institute or the C.D. Howe Institute or Coopers & Lybrand. We will be making phone calls to see if these people are available and if they feel qualified to comment on these issues.
.1155
Mr. Williams: I would like to have the Fraser Institute come in to give us their opinion.
The Chair: Frankly, John, I'm interested in not excluding them, but I'm more interested in finding somebody who is interested in the broad public interest, in how Ottawa spends.
Mr. Williams: They are going to have a different attitude or perception. It's a fact that they're going to be different rather than traditional. I think that would lend some life to the discussion. If you bring in Arthur Kroeger, former deputy minister and former director of Public Policy Forum, and a management consulting firm like Coopers & Lybrand, I think you're going to find that there's a significant degree of an agreement between the two. And I would think that if you had either of these two and the Fraser Institute, you're going to have a different perception between the two. Therefore, there's room for dialogue.
The Chair: And I'm not sure, frankly, how much the Fraser Institute has done on this whole issue of public -
Mr. Williams: Again, I premise my remarks on the basis that they have examined the issue in significant detail and they can make a valuable contribution. That's a preface to my remarks that we bring them in. I would expect they likely have looked at this issue in reasonable detail.
The Chair: Why don't we have Brian contact them and find out.
I'm still looking for somebody who brings a broader perspective of the general public interest out there, of the average person on the street just slogging off to work every day, volunteering for their church, worrying about what's happening to welfare in this country, what's happening to health care.
Mr. O'Neal: If I might make a recommendation, the Fraser Institute represents one end of the spectrum. You might want to call someone from the Caledon Institute, which is really at the other end of the spectrum, to balance them off.
The Chair: It might be interesting to have those two.
Mr. O'Neal: Yes, we would get a debate then.
The Chair: We could do it separately from the second meeting, perhaps in the third meeting.
Mr. O'Neal: Apart from its other shortcomings, this is why I suggested Democracy Watch. They do try to present what they feel are the views of just average people out there.
Mr. Williams: I wouldn't want to be accused of categorizing, but maybe I have to. The average person out there wants the job done and done well. They have no real comprehension of the intricacies of the approval of the estimates but they do have this notion that Parliament controls the public purse. Beyond that, though, I'm not sure they have any real comprehension of it, and they certainly don't have a comprehension of the details.
When I talk and give speeches on it, even when I tell them that we only vote on $48 billion and not the $165 billion, it absolutely staggers them. They have no idea that we don't vote on the entire amount.
So as I say, my perception of the general public is that they want the job done and want it done well. We're paid to do it, so let's get on with it.
The Chair: You have a different constituency than I have. I want to know how you're spending my money. I want to know how you're explaining it to me.
Mr. Williams: That's right, and they want to know -
The Chair: And that's very central to the role of this committee and what Parliament does with the estimates.
Mr. Williams: But when I say do it, I mean to say that Parliament has to have control of the process. Parliament has to control the process. That's what they want.
The Chair: Okay. We have Mr. Kroeger, we have journalists, and we have Judith Maxwell. I would urge you to consider agreeing to have the foundation here, John, just so that we're looking at this whole issue of accountability from a broader perspective than just within these walls.
I'd encourage you, Brian, to maybe talk to Jean-Pierre about one of their people who's active in the field.
.1200
So that takes us up to November 9. Do we want to plan beyond then? I think the Fraser Institute and the Caledon Institute at the same table with the Institute for Research on Public Policy would really be something.
Mr. Williams: Well, I would like to see the Fraser Institute if they have something to contribute.
The Chair: How much is it going to cost us to bring them here?
Mr. Williams: It's going to cost a plane ticket and a hotel room.
Mr. Arseneault: We could ask them when they next plan on being in town.
The Chair: Okay, let's leave it this way: Brian will contact them and explore timing with them. Maybe it's not going to cost us $4,000. A plane ticket, hotel room and expenses do end up costing.
Mr. O'Neal: I'm sure they would be just as anxious as the subcommittee to save the taxpayers any expense.
Mr. Williams: After that, I would like to see us have some deliberations amongst ourselves to see which direction we feel it is possible for us to move in.
The Chair: There is one exception I might make to that. Would you want to have Ron Huntington and Claude-André Lachance here? They did the previous report and made numerous proposals that weren't implemented.
Mr. Williams: When do you propose they come in?
The Chair: It would probably be during the week after the break.
Mr. Arseneault: - [Inaudible - Editor] - to give us an indication of what could happen to our report?
The Chair: You're getting to be cynical. Is your answer no?
Mr. Arseneault: I was just checking.
The Chair: We thought about somebody from a crown corporation.
Mr. Williams: Why would we want someone from a crown corporation?
The Chair: How much time do you spend on the estimates on the crown corporations? I believe the thinking was that they have very little accountability to Parliament for fairly significant amounts of spending.
Mr. Williams: Well, of course.
The Chair: How can we improve that?
Mr. Williams: The Auditor General mentioned that in the report he just released.
The Chair: Do you want to delay that, then?
Mr. Williams: Crown corporations are not part of the estimates per se. Spending by crown corporations is not in the estimates.
The Chair: Yes, it is.
Mr. Williams: But the procedure of us approving the estimates is not. Off the top of my head, I can't think of why anyone in the crown corporations would be involved in our procedures. Now that I'm thinking about it, however, they have a perception of public policy that fits in with their request for money approved by Parliament. Maybe the whole procedure needs to be tightened up. That is what the Auditor General has been critical of, along with the fact that they seem to be lacking any real public policy focus.
The Chair: I do think that sooner or later we're going to want to address how Parliament can get a better handle on the statutory spending. The fact that it is statutory and that we have to do it doesn't mean it is necessarily being done as efficiently and as well as Parliament would like.
Crown corporations are in much the same position. They get a certain chunk of money, but it's subject to very little scrutiny by Parliament. We can't even get the Auditor General's reports on crown corporations unless they choose to give them to you.
Mr. Williams: That could perhaps widen the whole debate and just make it a bit more complex. We may want to leave it to the idea of another committee being constituted at a later time because the statutory programs are not part of the estimates process per se. In effect, they are only for information purposes.
.1205
The Chair: Then I suggest that we go with this second kind of round table that we set up, and tentatively line up Huntington and Lachance for our first meeting after the break. Following the two round tables we might have other ideas on people we would like to have for that meeting. Ar we agreed that we will just start getting our own thoughts together?
Mr. Williams: Okay.
The Chair: Shall we turn briefly to the issues paper or would people rather look at it and provide comments to Brian, who can redraft it based on what he hears? I think he's tried to include issues that were identified by others in the past.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, this list was put together at an earlier stage. My experience has been that as the committee holds hearings, other issues are put on the table. Especially as a consequence of the meeting that was held last week, I think a number of other issues have come up that perhaps should be incorporated into this document.
Committee members may wish to look at this and give me their thoughts on it later.
Mr. Williams: I would rather do that than try to speak - we just got this a few minutes ago.
The Chair: This is Monday, so why don't I suggest that by the end of the week, if you have comments, you either draft a note or phone Brian? We would then ask him to put together a new draft that could be circulated to everybody, and then at a subsequent meeting we'd be prepared to discuss it. Is that agreeable?
As you're doing this, try to think about - this is several pages and every issue has several aspects to it - the three or four main issues or principles that you think this committee has to get at. That would be helpful in terms of what questions we're asking our witnesses, so that we're keeping on the themes that we think are important to our task.
Mr. Williams: So the next meeting is November 6.
The Chair: Yes.
Are there any other issues to raise? This meeting is adjourned.