[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 18, 1996
.1110 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please.
Good morning, colleagues. This will be a brief but nonetheless important meeting. The order of the day is the Sub-Committee on Business of Supply and the tabling of two reports by Mrs. Catterall. I want to thank her on your behalf for all the hard work of her subcommittee, which is proceeding with some significant work that will be of great interest to us as members of Parliament.
Mrs. Catterall, could you please speak on two of your reports?
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): Let me deal with the first report since it's the shortest. This is similar to a report we tabled last year at about this time in the context of the information to Parliament project within Treasury Board. These are efforts in Treasury Board to improve how the estimates are reported to Parliament and to increase the ability of members of Parliament to deal with issues in the estimates and in the budget.
The project is a pilot project. We approved six departments to be part of the pilot project. We've reviewed the evaluations and are recommending that the concurrence in the pilot project continue and expand, that the performance reports be tabled this fall, and that new departments be included in the pilot project for next year's estimates.
The Chairman: Okay. So do we -
Ms Catterall: Mr. Hopwood is here from Treasury Board if there should be any questions.
The Chairman: Do we need a motion?
Ms Catterall: I believe we need a motion to concur in the report -
An hon. member: I so move.
Ms Catterall: - and to report to Parliament.
The Chairman: Seconded? Oh, on the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Chairman, it's a matter of concordance. At the bottom of page 2, it says:
- In addition, by tabling performance reports in the fall...
- On the other hand, towards the middle of page 5, it says:
- ...performance reports should be tabled earlier in the fall, preferably before the end of
September.
- To improve consistency, I would suggest that the wording on page 2 be something like: "in the
early fall" rather than: "in the fall". You would then have consistency between the two
wordings.
Mr. Laurin: On September 16.
Mr. Harb: Agreed, there's no problem.
[English]
The Chairman: Is there a problem with that, Ms Catterall?
Ms Catterall: It's in two places because you'll note that the first five paragraphs relate to the witnesses we heard and the information they presented to us. From the sixth paragraph on are the committee's responses to those recommendations and our comments and recommendations. I think it's important to leave it there as part of what was presented to the committee and leave the other as our response to that, because we felt very strongly -
.1115
The Chairman: Colleague, are you satisfied with that? In other words, she's saying it's not the committee's recommendation. That's what they heard.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I understand what Ms. Catterall is saying except that in the text, in paragraph 3, it's not explicit. It's not clear that we're reporting someone's testimony.
Ms. Catterall: The paragraph begins with:
- 3. The witnesses explained that...
[English]
The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?
Motion agreed to
[Translation]
The Chairman: Ms. Catterall.
[English]
Ms Catterall: The second report is what you could call an interim report, Mr. Chair. The committee was given the mandate, first by the House and then renewed by this committee, to review the business of supply. Given the scope of the work, the witnesses we've heard and the fundamental changes we're looking at, we are simply not able to give you a final report at this time. We're recommending that the deadline be extended until November 30.
This is an interim report to indicate the issues we're looking at and some options we're considering for recommendations. Hopefully it will stimulate some response from members of Parliament who have an interest in this area and perhaps even from Treasury Board, which may want to provide some comments. Then we will proceed in the fall. A draft report will be available during the summer. It will be sent out to members and in September we'll begin working on the draft report.
Since it is fairly comprehensive, we felt that rather than simply having the deadline extended, it was important for other members of Parliament to have an idea of the scope of the issues we are looking at.
There are a couple of typos in here that will be cleared up before the report is finalized.
The Chairman: Let's get a motion for the interim report.
Mr. Harb: I move that the report be tabled.
The Chairman: Mrs. Parrish, is this on the report or the extension?
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): This is on the report.
We had a subcommittee on travel. One thing that kept coming up over and over again, and Mr. Eggleton got involved in it - he's now been moved to another portfolio - is that we have the largest single contract in the world for travel. It's over $209 million. One suggestion was that we get out of the business of tendering it to normal travel agents like Rider and go to a system whereby we give them a flat-fee rate. If a ticket is worth $500, they'll optimize the ticket so they get their 10%. Even though we get a rebate it's still a crazy way of doing business on a contract that size.
Would it be worth while to do a report to this committee or should it go somewhere else? They're about to renew that contract and they're going to issue requests for proposals. I think it's time for us to look at the whole business of using a normal contract with 10%, and say that we want a travel agent that is willing to do flat-rate fees to bid on this contract.
Ms Catterall: The purpose of this subcommittee is to look at the overall way in which Parliament handles the estimates, the kind of information it gets, and areas in which it perhaps needs to expand its oversight of government expenditures. I think that on a specific issue like that, it might be appropriate to ask the government operations committee to look at it, or alternatively the public accounts committee.
Mrs. Parrish: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mrs. Catterall, as I understand it, there should be an interim report reported to the House.
Ms Catterall: Yes.
The Chairman: The question is on the interim report.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: The third item of business is a motion from you, Mrs. Catterall, that the deadline for tabling the subcommittee's final report be extended to November 29, 1996.
Ms Catterall: So moved.
Mr. Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): Is there a deadline for the committee to do a report, or is it simply a deadline the committee imposed on the subcommittee?
Ms Catterall: It's a deadline the committee imposed when it established the subcommittee. Initially there was an order from the House. When the House prorogued, that expired. The committee chose to go ahead and re-establish the subcommittee.
.1120
The Chairman: Are we ready for the question?
Motion agreed to
Ms Catterall: Can I just take a moment to express my appreciation to the members of the committee? This really is not the kind of work that excites many members of Parliament, but we've had some very hard-working members at the subcommittee.
[Translation]
I would like to thank Messrs. Laurin, Pagtakhan and Loney who are new members of this committee,
[English]
and Mr. Williams, who has been with the subcommittee from the beginning.
The Chairman: On behalf of our whole committee, we want to also give you a round of applause, thanks and congratulations for the tough work, because you're right; it isn't the sexy stuff that a lot of members of Parliament like to be involved in, but it's a good piece of business and a job well done. Thank you.
Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): Mr. Chair, I just wanted to point out that I was very impressed with and appreciative of the fact that the subcommittee suggested capturing the costs of following this report. It's very thoughtful and will establish the cost-effectiveness of doing what we're doing. I think it's good.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Harb.
Mr. Harb: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the committee, the House of Commons staff, the translators, the people who work behind the scenes as well as the ones who work around you, the whip's staff and everyone on staff for a job well done. I know we are breaking and this is the last meeting, so I want to wish them a happy summer and thank them very much.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Milliken.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Chairman, can I ask about the business of supply, since we're dealing with the report from the committee on supply? I believe our estimates are deemed reported to the House on Thursday.
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Milliken, you may remember that you had asked for the Speaker, if available or if possible. That was one matter I was going to raise if someone raised it. We've been endeavouring to figure out a time he would be available, and if the committee so wishes, he might be available Thursday afternoon or Friday morning.
Mr. Milliken, since you are the one who requested him to be there, I wanted to talk to you about that. Are you available Thursday afternoon?
Mr. Milliken: No, I'm away on Thursday and Friday, Mr. Chairman. We cancelled the meeting with the Speaker because we were told this wasn't urgent way back when we first got the estimates, and I find it very unfortunate that we're now in this bind at the last minute, trying to make up the time.
The Chairman: I'm sorry. The reason the meeting was cancelled of course was as a result of the business of the meeting -
Mr. Milliken: But we didn't have a meeting. The meeting was cancelled. The Speaker didn't come and we decided it wasn't urgent and would be put off.
The Chairman: No. The Speaker has been here once, obviously, and the previous meeting was cancelled because he was ill for a week. I think that's correct.
Mr. Milliken: The first appearance?
The Chairman: The first appearance of the Speaker was cancelled as a result of his illness. It was not as a result of our urgency. He was more than willing to attend; he was just ill. He was out of commission in the House itself.
Mr. Milliken: That's too bad. We could have made do with the clerk. The Speaker is not essential to the thing. The clerks could have appeared and we could have asked them questions. Now we're stuck.
The Chairman: We would be able to have a meeting on Thursday, Mr. Milliken.
Mr. Milliken: Yes, well, unfortunately I'll be with a group of Romanian parliamentarians on Thursday in Kingston.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Milliken: So I presume we're not going to report the estimates to the House this year.
The Chairman: The Speaker's estimates will be deemed reported unless -
Mr. Milliken: What about our study of the spending plans that we're supposed to comment on?
The Chairman: Well, back to the Speaker for a moment, presuming the Reform Party and the Bloc had no further questions for or requests for information from the Speaker, if it were the wish of the committee, Mr. Milliken, they could, at this meeting now, vote the estimates of the Speaker.
Is that correct, Madam Clerk?
The Clerk of the Committee: Sure.
The Chairman: So if it's the wish of the committee, we can do that right now.
Is that your wish, colleagues?
Mr. Harb: No.
The Chairman: We could receive a motion right now to vote the Speaker's estimates; otherwise they're deemed reported anyway.
Mr. Milliken: Since we haven't had adequate questioning on them, I think we ought to just let them go and have them deemed reported.
Ms Catterall: That would be my preference.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: All right.
Mr. Milliken: I have another question. Under the rules, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we're entitled to examine the estimates and make recommendations about future years. When are we going to do that with the Speaker and his estimates?
.1125
The Chairman: I have no knowledge of that subject matter at the moment, Mr. Milliken.
Mr. Milliken: Perhaps you could let us know the deadline for that.
Ms Catterall: There is no set deadline, I don't believe.
The Chairman: The clerk advises me that it's usually done in the fall.
Mr. Milliken: There was a deadline in the Standing Orders, I believe at the end of June, but this year there was a special order that I believe extended that, and that date is what I'm trying to check on.
The Chairman: The clerk advises me that it's her belief that it will be done in the fall. There is a special order that it will be done in the fall.
Mr. Milliken: So we will get the Speaker in and ask more questions of him in the fall?
The Chairman: Yes, if that is your wish. I'm only your chairman. I am in your hands.
Mr. Milliken: It certainly is our wish. We've made that clear for some time.
The Chairman: There's been no intention to keep the Speaker from you. He's available, and but for your schedule, he would be available this week. We can bring the Speaker here this week if that's your wish, colleagues.
Ms Catterall: Having been through what I have been through in this subcommittee, I must say that one of the biggest problems we're identifying is the attention that parliamentarians and parliamentary committees pay to the estimates, for which they have some responsibility, and particularly the new opportunities that are there for Parliament to influence future years' budgets.
I would just endorse what Mr. Milliken is saying. It would be very good if this committee could set an example of taking this process seriously and making some recommendations for next year's budget so that there's some influence of Parliament on the expenditures of government.
The Chairman: If I sounded disinterested, it's not out of disinterest. I think it's probably that the chair is a bit worn out from having the subject matter that we've been charged with for three months, which has completely disrupted the normal agenda of this committee and its work. Frankly, I don't offer any apologies. I'm just reminding the members that it's what we've been busy doing for as many as two and three meetings a week since almost the beginning of this session.
Ms Catterall: Let's do it in September.
The Chairman: I think it would be appropriate to do it in September.
I would like to thank all of you for the opportunity to work with you, particularly the translators and the staff and our clerk and researcher. I would like to extend to them our warm appreciation for all their hard work and wish them and their families a happy and pleasant break.
Mr. Milliken.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Chairman, I think there's another matter that the committee ought to be seized with and it is not. If you check with officials, there's a statutory review required of the Referendum Act that was undertaken by the previous committee in the last Parliament. The committee study was never in fact launched. It was postponed because of the referendum in Quebec. The House was prorogued soon after and that study was never launched.
I believe this committee ought to be getting a reference from the House for such a review, since it is a statutory obligation that there be such a review. It's something that perhaps we should be looking at in the autumn.
The Chairman: Mr. Milliken, I should inform you that we are waiting for an order of reference, as you know. I have been aware of this matter for some time and I think PCO has been seized with that issue. I would suggest that again, because of the work of the committee at this time, it was its preference not to proceed with it until the fall. We would expect to have the order of reference in the middle of September.
Have a good summer. We are adjourned.