[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 15, 1997
.1104 
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy - Royal, Lib.)): I call to order the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Colleagues, I apologize for being absent from the last meeting, but you were well and ably served by other members and I thank you for being here and filling in the gap.
.1105
PARLIAMENT
- House of Commons
The Chairman: The matter of today, as you see on your orders of the day, is resuming consideration of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, vote 5 under Parliament, and Mr. Williams's notice of motion of April 8, 1997.
Mr. Williams, I understand your motion is that vote 5, less the amount voted in interim supply, be reduced by $209,466 from $213,600,000, less $160,200,000 voted as interim supply, to $53,190,534.
Is the committee ready for the question?
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): We should debate.
The Chairman: We'll debate.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois: I want to make sure I fully understand Mr. Williams' position. I chaired the meeting last week and I made a point of ensuring that we followed the rules of procedure, but as far as the substance and the merit are concerned, I did not come to any conclusion. I'd likeMr. Williams to take a few minutes to explain the situation he described last week.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Williams, please.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you may be aware, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and I have had words in the past. Basically, what happened was... As you know, there are a number of parliamentary associations, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, or the IPU, being one of them. I understood that the role of these parliamentary associations was to further cooperation, understanding, and development of issues in their respective spheres. The Inter-Parliamentary Union, of course, has no geographical designation, such as the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. It sees itself, if I may quote the chairman, Senator Bosa, as being ``the informal association of the United Nations''. Apparently there were claims that it was instrumental in the creation of the League of Nations after the First World War, and so on.
I thought this was an instrument of communication around the world that had been somewhat lax in using the opportunities available to it to further Canada's role in the world. When I studied the agendas of these inter-parliamentary associations' semi-annual meetings in places such as Istanbul, Paris, Copenhagen, New Delhi, and so on, where I understand about 600 parliamentarians from around the world meet on a semi-annual basis, the issues were so general in scope that they basically accomplished nothing on the international stage.
The Reform Party has always tried to ensure that the taxpayers receive value for money. Therefore, back in December 1995 I put forward a resolution to the executive of the Canadian Group that the Canadian Group Inter-Parliamentary Union focus on establishing a set of long-term targets and objectives to be accepted within the next three years by the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The motion continues by stating that should the Inter-Parliamentary Union fail to establish these targets and goals, the Canadian Group would draw its membership from the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
By that motion, Mr. Chairman, I wanted the Canadian delegation to take its responsibilities and its potential role quite seriously and say that Canada has a wonderful reputation on the international stage and that we should see what we can do to further and enhance that reputation. Rather than having any serious discussion on my motion, Mr. Chairman, to put it mildly, the executive of the association just went plain ballistic. They went through the roof when I dared to suggest that this organization should try to achieve anything, least of all that they would actively contemplate withdrawing from this organization. As I said, Mr. Chairman, there was absolutely no intelligent discussion of my motion. There was discussion only on the motives by which it was put forward.
.1110
Further to that, Mr. Chairman, they felt my membership on the executive of the association was an embarrassment, and they wished to have me removed. As you know, the constitution of the organization requires that each major party be represented on the executive.
First, they changed the constitution to ensure that only those people who concurred with the aims and objectives of the organization could sit on the executive. But there's actually nothing to say by whose assessment one did or did not endorse the aims and the objectives of the organization.
The Chairman: I'm glad your feelings weren't hurt, John.
Mr. John Williams: I was devastated, Mr. Chairman. I was totally -
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): While you're being devastated, I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I just want some clarification. This is a very interesting story.
I want to know whether the motion we're voting on is strictly to reduce the overall amount by $213 million. It's not necessarily to stop all inter-parliamentary committees. That's not what the wording of this says.
So I'm wondering whether, when we speak on this matter, we speak to simply reduce it wherever we feel like it, which is how this motion reads, or whether we speak to get rid of inter-parliamentary committees.
The Chairman: I understand that Mr. Williams is providing some background forMr. Langlois as to why he was proposing that this particular vote be reduced by this amount. Is that correct?
Mr. John Williams: Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chairman. While the motion is to reduce the vote by $209,466, that is the amount that is voted for the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That's not clear. If this motion passes, it could be reduced from postage. It could be reduced anywhere, could it not?
The Chairman: Madam Clerk, the question that's being asked is, if we were to pass this motion - Mr. Williams has given us the rationale, which is that the $209,000 is in fact the amount for the union - that $209,000 could then come out of anywhere, not necessarily out of that amount for the union.
The Clerk of the Committee: The motion is to reduce the votes and would obviously have to be applied where the committee decided it had to be applied. But the way the motions are worded on reducing votes is that it's on the total amount and not focused on a given association or...
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: So my understanding is correct.
The Chairman: So Mrs. Parrish would be correct.
I'd like to hear from Mr. Williams in one second. So that I understand it, the vote would reduce it... He's explaining to us why he's come up with that amount, but the effect of the motion is that the $209,000 would just come out of that pot.
The Clerk: Yes.
The Chairman: Mr. Williams, you have a different impression.
Mr. John Williams: The vote is as stated in the agenda, Mr. Chairman. If the motion is adopted by this committee and reported to the House, the report of the committee specifies why the reduction is being made. Therefore, while the vote states that it is to reduce it by $209,000, the report of the committee to the House states that it is to eliminate the budget for the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
The Chairman: Mr. Williams, I would like to advise you that this in fact wouldn't be the case the way the motion is drafted, according to what the clerk is advising me. All we report is the vote. What you're suggesting is in fact a second report, which would be a report that would indicate, presuming its adoption, that this committee was predisposed for this reason. That also would be a separate report.
To answer in a strictly technical way - legally, so to speak - Mrs. Parrish is right, unless there were a separate resolution that formed part of a vote, that formed part of a second report. Am I right, Madam Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: With respect, Mr. Chairman, all you'd have to do is amend this to say ``from the budget to''... You'd have to specify it.
I would be more than delighted to reduce any budget.
.1115
The Chairman: I'm sorry to interrupt again, Mrs. Parrish, but procedurally it would not work. You would need a second report.
The Clerk: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, it's the same principle as that for a bill. A committee can only report a bill as amended. They don't append comments. It's the same thing for main estimates.
What could be done, what the chairman was explaining, is this. Let's say the committee decides to reduce the vote, report the vote as reduced -
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Budget.
The Clerk: Yes, the main estimates, with a reduction in vote 5, under Parliament, which is the House of Commons. Say it decides to issue another report to give the reasoning behind the reduction. That's why there's a second report.
The Chairman: To answer Mr. Langlois, I think Mr. Williams has given you the explanation. If this motion were to pass, there would be this amount reduced from the global amount. I would presume - not to presume what Mr. Williams might then do - you would then move another motion that would form part of a report...without prejudging what my colleagues would intend to do.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I would like to defend parliamentary associations, which I think have been done well by other people. There's one I happened to sit on, which is the North Atlantic Assembly, and slowly and incrementally over many years - that's how things work in politics, and you've seen it work around here - what has happened is that we have moved anti-personnel landmines onto the world stage. A Canadian thrust has done that and we've been consistent.
If an election is not called at the end of April, I will be presenting a paper, which I was asked to do with the help of Foreign Affairs and the military, on the complexity of anti-personnel landmines and how difficult it is to remove them. It's one of those things we have to keep going back to. It's almost like the nagging child. The more you nag, the more people start to move it up on the agenda.
I believe these associations are invaluable. I know that when I go to them I'm working very hard. I believe they perform a very important national and international function, so I won't be supporting this motion. I'd love to support a motion to reduce any budget by $290,000, but if you're specifying it for this particular purpose, I'll be voting against it.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I fully endorse the comments of Mrs. Parrish and the fact that these parliamentary associations can, and sometimes do, achieve some objectives on the international stage.
You just mentioned your own. You also stated that it takes time, perseverance, and doggedness to get that issue up on the agenda and to achieve success. That concept is totally strange to the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
As I mentioned, my motion was for the IPU to adopt an issue. I didn't feel that I had to impose one upon the association, but I wanted them to adopt an issue they felt was of concern and could be moved forward on the international stage. If they were to do that, I would support them and try to accomplish something for the association. The association was not interested in entertaining that idea.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Strahl, please.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): I don't know that it's necessary to labour the point, but two or three things are unfortunate in the way this is developed. One is that when confronted with an alternative, the parliamentary associations chose not to work with it or debate it or try to find the reason for it or to find a middle ground; they just changed the constitution. That is a sad way to get around your problems with somebody on the committee. It's just like saying the member will now be heard and then say let's just change the rules, now he can't be heard. That solves it. Isn't democracy easy when you do it that way?
Of course, Mr. Chairman, it's not easy. One of the reasons democracy is a little messy is that you do have to listen to dissenting opinions, as hard as they may be to stomach sometimes. Whether you agree with them or not, you listen to them regardless.
We have the whole separatist movement in the House of Commons. I don't agree with a single one of them, but it's one of the things we put up with because we say that's a different opinion. We're not going to change the rules and say everybody's kicked out now if you don't agree with me. That's the part that's a little alarming about this.
.1120
I've never cared much for the way the parliamentary associations do their budgeting or the way they come for interim budgeting and all the rest of it, because there are only something like three people in the whole place here who understand what they're doing at any given time, and that is the truth. You can go to those meetings and try to figure out how they're doing it, and outside of a senator or two who have been here for 40 years, the rest of us sit there and say we don't know. I've never seen budgeting that's carried on like they do it.
That aside, though, whether I agree with Mr. Williams or not isn't really the point. The point is that's a lousy way to deal with a dissenting opinion, which is making sure that if you don't agree with whatever rules I say there are...because I make up those rules when I get up in the morning. There are no rules. They just say that if you don't agree with the objectives of the committee - and the objectives are not written down, it's just whatever I say the objectives are - we'll kick you off the committee. So the Reform Party has no voice in those committees.
It's pretty hard to support this spending of any money when they say if you complain, we change the rules, and the rules are unknown to you, so you can never really get back on again, because the rules are whatever we say they are when we get up to the table. That's a pretty damn poor way of running an association.
It's pretty hard for us in the Reform Party, although I agree with Mrs. Parrish that they have done a lot of good work and some of them are better at it than others. But to merely ask them to detail for us what they're trying to accomplish - that's what the motion was - and they say that's too horrendous a chore, you're so obstinate, we're going to kick you off and won't let you back on again until you fulfil the mandate, but we won't tell you what the mandate is because it's just in our opinion, and we won't tell you what it is and it's not written down... Well, how on earth can we support that?
The Chairman: The chair is sympathetic to the things that are being said, but perhaps Mr. Kilger could address something before I go to Mr. Harb.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont - Dundas, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know a tremendous amount of frustration is being expressed, and I think Mr. Williams put it straight to us that his experience with the IPU specifically has not been a pleasant one.
However, I would submit to the committee, to all of us here, if that issue is going to be pursued, it should be through the Joint Interparliamentary Council, which is the umbrella governing body of the parliamentary associations. The JIC answers to the Board of Internal Economy, of whichMr. Strahl and I are members.
Certainly, I want to tell my colleagues that I will not be supporting that motion put forward by Mr. Williams, and I echo very briefly the words of my colleague Mrs. Parrish with regard to the merits of the parliamentary associations. If Canada enjoys a worldwide reputation in many areas, it's in large part to the work that has been done by Canadian parliamentarians, both House of Commons members and senators on different parliamentary associations for many years.
If this issue should be discussed further, I think it should be with the Joint Interparliamentary Council to see what measures could be adopted to rectify the situation, or the injustice if it's so deemed, as per Mr. Williams. I don't feel this is the forum for this discussion, and I certainly will not be supporting the motion presently before us.
The Chairman: The chair is curious about something that's been raised. Not to labour the point, but it's been a couple of weeks since I've been in the chair. I'm curious about the change in the constitution. Could someone remind me now, Mr. Williams perhaps, as objectively as possible on this?
Mr. Bob Kilger: Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, we're getting into an area that's outside the jurisdiction of procedure and House affairs. I'm sure Mr. Strahl, on behalf of his colleague, would be glad to bring the issue to the Joint Interparliamentary Council, and as a member of the council I would be receptive to hearing any member with an issue such as Mr. Williams is raising. But, respectfully, I don't believe this is the forum for it at this particular time with this particular group.
.1125
The Chairman: I would agree that it may not necessarily be the forum, but I think it's legitimate. As your chairman, I would respectfully submit that it is legitimate. If it's the subject of a money issue for the forum, on the relevancy issue it is a very legitimate issue to debate. I would have to -
Mr. Bob Kilger: If that's the case, let's have a representative from the IPU here and we'll hear their testimony. This is a matter that goes before the JIC.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): It's really a little bothersome, though. The IPU in particular, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, is the only international association that really... All parliaments of all democracies around the world have a chance, from time to time, on an annual or a biannual basis to meet and discuss very important issues to parliaments around the globe. I had the pleasure of attending one of those meetings in Istanbul, where we in fact had a chance to debate the landmine issues as well as, I would like to submit to my colleague, the human rights issues in different countries. A number of subject matters were discussed, from the advancement of women's issues to other issues of interest to everyone.
I think the submission of my colleague from the Reform Party, that we should close our doors to the outside world and not speak with anyone, is perhaps a little bit unfair and unfortunate. It's almost like somebody who has a child -
The Chairman: That isn't what he said, though.
Mr. Mac Harb: What he's saying is that we should not become members of any national associations or that -
Mr. John Williams: I didn't say that at all.
Mr. Mac Harb: Well, Mr. Chairman, the last time we had a chance to travel abroad, and in fact every time we've had a chance to travel abroad, none of my colleagues from the Reform Party chose to join any of the delegations. If that isn't an indication that they don't want to have a part of it, what is? We can't have it both ways. If we want to have relations with the outside world, we have to travel to the outside world and speak to the outside world.
What perhaps might be refreshing for my colleagues in the Reform Party is to have a briefing about what's happening at those meetings to open their ears and minds and hearts and try to find out what takes place at those meetings. Perhaps if there are some legitimate issues to be discussed, such as the one he has brought up - and I'm quite interested in finding out the facts about it - I think they should be addressed and I think they should be corrected. But to turn around and say because of unfortunate trouble areas in one of those committees, or at one of those meetings, we should close our doors and shut it out completely...I think this is the wrong approach.
The Chairman: Okay, I'd like to hear from Mr. Langlois. Then we'll wrap up withMr. Williams before we have a vote, please.
Mr. Langlois, please.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois: I can understand Mr. Williams' frustration in the present case, but in order to take a decision, as we said previously, we have to be able to see the other side of the coin and look at it from an overall perspective.
Either we begin an investigation as suggested by the member for Charlesbourg or else the committee endorses the expression of a frustration that may only be fleeting and temporary. That is why I am extremely reluctant to vote in favour of this motion at the present stage. UnlessMr. Williams can bring forth other arguments, I will not support the motion.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Williams, can we wrap up? The chair is trying to be as flexible as the chair can be.
Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have two things. To wrap up my presentation, as I mentioned, the IPU did change the constitution and along the lines that I indicated. The constitution also requires that all members be represented on the executive. When the Reform Party put forward a name, they refused to accept it and they're therefore actually operating outside their own constitution.
I would also like to refute the comments of Mr. Harb, who said we want to close our doors on the world. Far from it; I asked the organization to participate on the international stage and they said no, we would rather just go around talking about issues - one issue this meeting, a different issue the next meeting. As Mrs. Parrish has pointed out, unless an organization sees an issue as its own to advance on the world stage, talking on the odd occasion about an individual issue, no matter how important it may be, will accomplish nothing and we know that.
.1130
Therefore, I would like to refute these comments. I nonetheless feel that since this organization is operating outside its own constitution, and feels quite at liberty to change its own constitution to eliminate democratic expression, as my colleague, Mr. Strahl, said, it should not be deserving of our support.
Those are my closing comments.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Amendment negatived on division
Vote 5 agreed to on division
The Chairman: Shall I report vote 5 to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: We have two issues here. One is that you report the vote to the House, which is what we have to do technically. On the other side, what are we going to do to deal with this? This is a problem, and this Parliament looks like it's probably wrapping up here pretty quickly, so maybe it's not going to be... But we should send some kind of notice to somebody that this needs to be dealt with.
The Chairman: Mr. Kilger has been helpful in this matter and has given you a legitimate suggestion.
The next item is consideration of the report from the Subcommittee on the Business of Supply, tabled with the clerk on Friday, March 21. I invite Brian O'Neal from the library to come forward to the table.
Colleagues, this is obviously a large piece of work, and a good piece of work. Mrs. Catterall, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Laurin are on the committee.
Colleagues, I'm in your hands as to how you wish to dispose of this matter. Mrs. Catterall, you chaired the committee, and maybe you'd like to have some comments.
Ms Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that I just give committee members an overview of what's in the report. It has perhaps three main themes. In certain places it does call for recommendations to the Standing Orders. Whether the House or this committee might want to adopt those recommendations may depend on the wording they see in actual proposals put forward.
I would like to suggest that after I've gone through the report, we report it to the House with appropriate editorial changes, but that the Clerk of the House prepare draft amendments to the Standing Orders in accordance with the report. Then, if that's the situation we face, a new committee of a new Parliament would be able to look in depth at those recommendations and see whether it does or doesn't concur with them.
It is a consensus report. It takes in a lot of hard work over nearly a year and a half. I want to say a particular thank you to those members of the committee who've been there and who had the patience to struggle through some rather esoteric issues that are not of general interest to many Canadians, or to many parliamentarians. These are nonetheless crucial to the functioning of Parliament and its main role, which is to determine how much the government may spend, how it may raise money, and by how much.
I want to thank particularly Mr. Williams, Mr. Laurin, and Dr. Pagtakhan, who have been the most consistent members of the committee over that lengthy period.
So, Mr. Chair, if you're agreeable, I will try to take the committee through it as quickly as possible.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bob Kilger): I think we would all agree that Mrs. Catterall could take us through the report and ensuing discussion.
.1135
Ms Marlene Catterall: Let me add a word of thanks to our researcher, clerk, and the other staff who've served the committee.
As a bit of background, as I said, this is the main function of Parliament. How much does the government get, how does it get to raise it, and how does it get to spend it? It's been an ongoing issue Parliament has struggled to deal with. I think it has become even more important in this Parliament, as there is an increasing public demand, and recognition by the government as well, that members of Parliament who are not cabinet ministers should have more influence, and particularly more influence over how money is spent.
We can go back many years and note that this issue seems constantly to preoccupy Parliament. In the last three decades alone we've had two major reports dealing with Parliament, its procedures, more influence for members of Parliament, and particularly more influence over the money-raising and money-spending process of the estimates. Yet there's ongoing dissatisfaction in our own Parliament, which is the main reason this subcommittee was set up.
There are further changes coming. The government is dealing in a massive way with how information is reported to Parliament and potential changes in the vote structure. They've brought in performance documents. They've brought in plans. That whole area is very much in flux and is going to continue to be so for many years, and perhaps permanently so in the Canadian Parliament.
So our prime first recommendation - central to others we make - is that Parliament establish an ongoing estimates committee to be seized of this process on behalf of Parliament, to ensure that the estimates process continues to improve, and to allow parliamentarians to fulfil their role and play a meaningful role in the establishment of spending and money-raising priorities.
We do not in any way intend the estimates committee to replace the role of the standing committees. That was a crucial point of discussion over some period of time. We believe it's important for the standing committees to continue to link their review of the estimates, their review of plans and performance documents from their departments, to the policy issues on which they are most informed, of which they are most aware, and on which they are spending most of their time.
We also think it's important for the reverse to happen, for them to attempt to link the very important policy work they do with the actual expenditure programs of government.
So clearly the estimates committee is not there to replace the role of the standing committees vis-à-vis their departments and their estimates, but to supplement that role.
If I can comment very quickly, there are a number of areas in which we see the need for this kind of a committee. It's beyond the process itself. There are areas of government-wide expenditures that are never looked at by individual standing committees in their review of the estimates. An estimates committee could in fact bring these together.
There are programs that involve spending in several departments or agencies. Again, the standing committees never have that overview of all the money going into particular program areas, only of what's in their particular department. The whole role of crown corporations, their method of reporting to Parliament, the adequacy of that for the purposes of Parliament, and the whole concept of the role, mandate, and expenditures of crown corporations as entities is something that never gets looked at by Parliament. We think that's appropriate for the estimates committee.
We also believe it's important that it coordinate its activities with the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We have said throughout that it should be working very closely as well in collaboration with, and with the support of, the standing committees.
.1140
The second major recommendation is that committees be able to propose to the House the reallocation of funds up to 5% of the estimates they have referred to them. One of the key reasons Parliament and its committees spend very little time on the estimates, and therefore occasionally let the government get away with murder -
The Chairman: Never. You've been hanging around with John Williams too long.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms Marlene Catterall: There are advantages, Mr. Chair, if one wants to take the long view, in having served on each side of the House.
One of the main reasons members of Parliament and chairs of the committee gave us in indicating why they don't spend that time is the inability to have any influence. Therefore, why spend time on something you cannot change?
Committees now have the ability to reduce expenditures. We also felt that the committees that, based on their policy work, were prepared to put forward a good argument, justify it, and document it should be able to propose not only an expenditure. In line with changing priorities and program needs, there should be an ability to allocate that reduction to another activity. This would still remain, of course, within the control of the government when the House actually dealt with this.
We are proposing that the Standing Orders be amended to allow the government to bring in a modified royal recommendation in accordance with a reallocation proposal from a committee. If the government chooses not to do that, to give importance to the work of the committee, the government should table its reasons for rejecting the committee's recommendation, and it should do so in enough time for that report to be debated in Parliament before the estimates are voted on.
So, again, it's just another method of giving motivation to members of Parliament and some importance to the work committees do.
We have a number of recommendations as well that deal with ways of making committees more effective and providing them with the incentive to spend time on the meetings. Some of it has to do with the information the administration provides. We think committees are interested in the broad priority and policy themes in the estimates, in the budget, but they seldom have the chance to address those. Therefore, we're suggesting that the administration should report to the committees broad policy options it has in front of it over the long term and alternative directions that are being considered. The committees should also be encouraged to put forward alternative directions in terms of the broad policy issues.
We're proposing that if it does a pre-budget consultation every year, the finance committee should pay particular attention to reports standing committees have done on the plans and performance documents of their departments. It should give priority in its public hearings to inviting the chairs of standing committees that have made reports on the plans and priorities documents with respect to what should be in the next year's budget.
The plans and performance reports of departments themselves should respond to reports that have been tabled by standing committees throughout the year. In other words, if the environment committee tables a report on global climate change, when the department brings forward its plans it should be able to tell the committee, yes, we've read your report, and here's how the plan we have for the next two or three years deals with the issues you've raised with Parliament.
We also feel that the committees should be informed through the plans and performance documents, as well as through the estimates, of any outstanding reports by the Auditor General that affect the spending of the department and that the department should report any action it is taking with respect to those outstanding Auditor General's reports.
.1145
Finally, Mr. Chair - and I'm not touching on all the recommendations here but just the highlights - we're suggesting there should be guidelines for both ministers and deputy ministers with regard to coming before committees. Some administrations are extremely forthcoming in their discussions with committees on the budget or the estimates, their plans and performance documents. Others are less so. We believe both committees and senior officials need some guidelines to know what they can and cannot discuss, how open they can be in their discussions with committees, without undermining ministerial accountability while still respecting the right of Parliament to be fully informed.
We make a number of recommendations, and this is the fourth main category, with respect to evaluations. We believe committees as well need to be better informed on what evaluations are being undertaken within the department. Before they approve expenditures, they should know what the departments are doing in terms of evaluating the programs they're being asked to allocate funds to, there should be an ongoing review of programs, and the standing committees and Parliament should be fully informed of the results of those reviews.
There are a number of areas we feel need to be subject to regular review by Parliament, and that means by the standing committees. First, we believe the government should set forward a schedule for the review of all legislation that involves statutory spending.
Of the $160 billion Parliament approves every year, only 30% is non-statutory spending. Until now that's been treated as hands-off expenditures. The committees and Parliament can have no influence on those. But we believe that just the fact that those expenditures are mandated by law doesn't mean the committees should not be concerned about those programs and the amount of money being spent.
We believe they should be able to have a cycle of review. We've suggested, I believe - over a period of ten years, Brian, or did we take that up? - that for each statutory program and the billions of dollars of spending they involve, there should be a clear statement of the public policy objective of those programs, how well those objectives are being met, how well the program is being managed, and whether there are alternative ways of achieving the same results possibly for less money. So we're recommending that kind of cyclical review for statutory programs.
We're also recommending the same kind of review for tax expenditures. Again, that's an area where billions of dollars are spent every year. In many cases, tax breaks, if you want to call them that, have been put in on an ad hoc basis to achieve a particular objective. They tend to stay there and never come out.
Certainly, Parliament never looks at how much money we are spending through these tax breaks. That is, by not collecting money, how many billions are we spending? Why are we spending it? Is it achieving the purposes? Is it being efficiently managed? Are there better ways of achieving the same objectives for less money?
We believe the same needs to be done for loan guarantees. There's no systematic parliamentary review of loan guarantees.
Now, Mr. Chair, despite, as I said, nearly a year and a half of work on this, we have left some questions unresolved. That's adequate proof, I think, that we feel this Parliament and future Parliaments will continue to need an estimates committee that will keep an ongoing eye on the process.
.1150
We have not been able to resolve the whole issue of whether Parliament should approve net or gross amounts of spending, or both. If you have a department with $1 billion of expenditures, it may in fact show up as a $1 million expenditure because it collects $900 million in revenues. We believe Parliament needs to know that department is in fact spending $1 billion, not $1 million.
Similarly, other departments may have a full $1 billion budget and no revenues coming in. One is passed as a $1 billion budget and one is passed as a $1 million budget. That's not a very clear way for Parliament to understand what's being spent by various government departments.
There are pros and cons to both sides of that argument and we believe it needs to be looked at much more thoroughly.
Capital and operating expenditures: how those are reported is not at all helpful to Parliament. That's why I raised the question when we had the Speaker in front of us about this long-term improvement on Parliament Hill.
There's no way for Parliament to know from the estimates how much was originally budgeted; how far along we are in the spending; how much more has been allocated. All it knows is that narrow window of this year's and perhaps the next two years' spending. So a program can go up by ten times its original projected costs and Parliament would never know that.
Finally, the whole business of accrual accounting - and it's tied into the capital versus operating costs - is another thing Treasury Board is looking at very actively. Again, there's divided opinion on that among the professional community as well. We believe Parliament needs to have a much closer look at that rather than simply leaving it to Treasury Board officials to decide whether or not that major change in how public accounts are done goes ahead.
Mr. Chair, the reason that sparked this whole report... I'm pleased to say we were able to show Mr. Williams this is a much bigger question than simply the question of confidence. That's our final recommendation.
The Chairman: He's silent.
Ms Marlene Catterall: I believe he was finally persuaded that one cannot govern confidence through the Standing Orders, through legislation, or through any other means. Confidence, as we've been told by many of our witnesses and certainly by the clerk, repeatedly, is in the mind of the government and nowhere else.
Nonetheless, we have urged the government to consider using confidence sparingly with respect to the supply process and particularly on allotted days when motions are put forward by the opposition. If they're not directly related to government spending, they shouldn't be considered confidence motions.
Mr. Chair, that's my report. I've had a rather full year.
The Chairman: Thank you for a very thorough report. On behalf of your committee colleagues, I want to express our heartfelt appreciation to you and your colleagues, Mr. Williams and Monsieur Laurin. This is a first-class piece of work. It's a book.
Colleagues, the predisposition of the committee, as I understand it, is that the report be adopted and that the chair present this to the House.
Is it the wish of the committee that the chair, in cooperation with the clerk, be authorized to make any typographical or editorial changes as may be necessary without changing the substance of the report?
Obviously, it's a solid and excellent piece of work. I'm very proud of the work you've done. If there's a predisposition, I'd be happy to receive that.
Ms Marlene Catterall: I'll be happy to move the motion.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Ms Catterall also mentioned that the beginning of the presentation - oh, I'm sorry.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois.
Mr. François Langlois: For tabling in the House, will you simply table it or will there be a motion for concurrence?
[English]
The Chairman: Do you have another report?
Mr. François Langlois: No.
.1155
The Chairman: I think the intention was to table the motion, to table the report. Is it not,Mr. Williams?
Mr. John Williams: The intention was to table the report. I can't recall whether or not the government is obligated to respond to this report. Is there a clause in here asking to report it back to the House according to the Standing Orders?
Ms Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I did discuss that briefly with the clerk. We could adopt a motion asking the government to respond. However, if the House is dissolved, then the report and that motion become irrelevant.
I suggest instead that in tabling we might want to make a recommendation that the procedure and House affairs committee of the 36th Parliament pursue a response from the government on the issues raised in the report.
The Chairman: What I hear is the caution going up that we don't want to lose the good work that has been done.
Ms Catterall, perhaps I would ask you to present the report. You might want to make those comments at the time that the government respond...that it be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee.
Ms Marlene Catterall: Can I do that?
The Chairman: Yes, I think you can. By way of comments, yes, you can.
Ms Marlene Catterall: Or should the committee -
The Chairman: I don't need to do it. You could do it. It could be done by way of comments. All right?
Ms Marlene Catterall: Okay.
The Chairman: On the other matter, Ms Catterall mentioned this at the beginning of her presentation that the Clerk of the House prepare draft amendments to the Standing Orders to reflect the recommendations made by the Subcommittee on Business of Supply. Is that agreed as well?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms Marlene Catterall: It should now read, ``to the Committee's report to the House on the business of supply''.
The Chairman: Before I adjourn, colleagues, for our work for May there is the issue on the referendum regulations. Jamie has prepared...
Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): The Chief Electoral Officer has the authority under the Referendum Act to adapt the Canada Elections Act for the purposes of a referendum. Because of the passage of Bill C-63, that regulation needed to be amended. As of last Friday he tabled his proposed amendments with the Clerk of the House. They are now being circulated to members as of yesterday. I have reviewed them and there are no problems with them.
If the committee does wish to make any comments or recommendations, Mr. Kingsley has asked that they be made by next Thursday so that he can put this regulation and these amendments into force as of May 2 so that the Referendum Act and the regulations under it would be in effect.
The Chairman: Mr. Frazer, do you have something to add before we adjourn?
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, with regard to the report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, could you give me the status, please? I'm a little afraid, with the impending dissolution of the House, that the considerable amount of work we put into that might be doomed to failure.
The Chairman: Mrs. Parrish.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I asked the same question of a staff member in Mr. Gray's office. I was told two things: first, that it wasn't urgent enough to put before the cabinet to get their reaction at this time; and, secondly, that there were some difficulties with it as far as the bureaucrats were concerned. So I am not optimistic with this response that anything is going to happen to it before Parliament is dissolved.
The Chairman: Unless you know when the dissolution is going to be.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: No, I don't.
Given that you chair the committee, on behalf of the three of us who have worked so hard, I would really appreciate if you would make more formal inquiries to find out.
The Chairman: As Mr. Gray's parliamentary secretary, I undertake to this committee to get back to the committee members by Thursday.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you.
Mr. Jack Frazer: Mr. Chair, I appreciate that the bureaucrats have a lot of corporate knowledge and history and the rest of it. I do think we made some substantive and reasonable suggestions for improving the way this is handled and I'd hate to see them lost.
The Chairman: Agreed.
.1200
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois: Both the report initiated by Ms Catterall and the report of the committee chaired by Ms Parrish should not end up lost in limbo. I hope that those of us who will be back for the 36th Parliament will be able to make use of this material.
I'd like to point out to my colleagues who are not members of the Services to Members Subcommittee that a questionnaire was adopted this morning and it will be made available to members starting tomorrow or Thursday. The whips will of course impress on the members of their caucus the importance of having from members the greatest response rate and input possible. Several colleagues are already in their constituencies for obvious reasons. It would be useful to bring this matter to their attention. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[English]
The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.