[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, April 22, 1996
.1518 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
Mr. Duhamel, I am much more used to having you up here and me down there. I don't know; it's going be hard to adjust to.
Mr. Ronald Duhamel, MP (Chair, Parliamentary Working Group, Improved Reporting to Parliament Project, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): We all have to take our place at the bottom of the table on occasion.
The Chairman: That's where the power is, Mr. Duhamel.
Welcome. We're looking forward to this. The material has been given to members of the committee in advance.
I will let you, Mr. Duhamel, begin by introducing the people with you.
[Translation]
Mr. Duhamel: I will start by summarizing the project, and then make a few additional comments.
The project began a few months ago. It's main objective is to give parliamentarians and others who use these documents more relevant information, presented in perhaps a simplified or different form, and probably provided in a different manner.
.1520
We are asking you to evaluate our six pilot projects and tell us whether we have succeeded or not. It is very important that you evaluate them and tell us what you think about what we've done.
[English]
As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to be here to chat with you very briefly. Our project officers will in fact deal with the major essential elements here. This is the improved reporting to Parliament project, with which you are familiar. You were a member of it.
We really want to ask your assistance at this critical stage in our deliberations. This is a project I continue to chair. I had it while I was parliamentary secretary to Treasury Board, and I've been asked to continue.
A group of members from all parties, including senators, have reviewed and commented on a broad range of ideas on ways to improve reporting to Parliament. Over the last year, we think we've built a strong consensus on ways to improve reports to Parliament. The one part III you have received represents a first step toward achieving this particular goal.
A report of the working group contained a number of recommendations to officials. One recommendation - and I want to read this, because I think it's critical - said:
- That revised part IIIs be subject to an evaluation of whether they represent better information
for members in committees and that members in relevant committees be included as part of the
evaluation process.
As you can well appreciate, we freely admit there is still some distance to go with individual documents, but we believe the direction in which we are heading is the right one. I would ask you, therefore, as you examine the new documents, to focus as much on where we are going as you do on how far we have moved so far.
[Translation]
It is very important that we get your evaluation of the project. We want to know whether the information we are compiling is better in any way. If so, in which ways is it better? Are there still some weaknesses? If so, please identify them.
[English]
With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close and pass it on to Mr. Hopwood and to Brian Pagan, his assistant, who will provide you with more detail. Subsequent to that, you may want to raise some questions.
The Chairman: Mr. Hopwood.
Mr. Tom Hopwood (Director, Improved Reporting to Parliament Project, Program Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
What I'd like to do is just describe very briefly what the project is all about and relate it directly to the document, Transport Canada's part III, which I think you all have in front of you today, and just to indicate that the reason we're here is to ask your help in allowing us to move to the next stage of the project. We're at a very critical point in the project, and we have basically only a few weeks to turn the corner and go back to Parliament with a request to go ahead with the next step. So we're at a very critical point.
A key part of what we're doing right now is asking for the assistance of the committees that deal with the part IIIs for the six pilot departments we're working with to give us some feedback on whether the committees feel we're going in the right direction. So that's basically what we're here to do today.
The improved reporting to Parliament project was initiated about a year ago. Our overall objective is to provide better information to Parliament. A key part of the project is to take the planning information and the performance information contained in part III of the estimates and separate it into two separate documents.
If you take a look at Transport Canada's part III, you'll see in the table of contents that you have a very distinct breakdown of the information. We have a departmental plan, which is section A; a departmental performance report, section B; and supplementary information, section C. We did this to focus very specifically on performance and results as a key element of where we want to go with the government's expenditure management system. We wanted to be able to provide this information to Parliament as well.
So that's a very key element of what we're asking you to assess as you look at the document: does that breakdown or separate categorization of planning and performance information help you understand, one, where the department is going overall, and two, where the department has been or how well it has done over the course of the last several years - which was the intent of the split that we made.
.1525
We'd also like to get your ideas or your views on the proposal that we have to shift the timing of the documents. Right now we have the budget, the main estimates and the various parts of the estimates all stacked up at one time of the year, and it makes it extremely difficult for officials to get relevant information into the documents. So we're also proposing to split the timing of the information that we're providing.
On page 2 of your deck, the objectives of the project, overall we're looking at three things. We're looking at the documentation, which we're dealing with today. We're also looking at the control framework - that's the way Parliament wants the information categorized for approval purposes, so the vote structure and that sort of thing. And there's a large element of technology that we're looking at as part of our project. Today I'm emphasizing just the first part of that, which is the documentation itself.
On page 3 of the deck we describe the project approach and scope, and a couple of points are important. One is that we're dealing only with the information that Parliament receives; we're not dealing with the supply process itself. We're working very closely with the subcommittee on the business of supply that's being chaired by Mrs. Catterall. She is looking at elements of the supply process; we are looking at the information that feeds the process, and our notion is that we want to make that information as useful as possible for parliamentarians. So that's the first bullet on the deck that indicates that we're dealing only with information.
On the other hand, our project deals with much more than just the estimates documents. The kinds of changes we are talking about will affect the form and content of the budget and the public accounts documents, the outlook documents, about 400 other statutory reports that are provided to Parliament on a regular basis, and the president's report on review. These are all part of what we're looking at as part of this project. We want to look at it in a very integrated way in terms of how best to meet the needs of Parliament.
The third bullet indicates that we're being extremely - in fact completely - transparent and open in the changes we are making. We're consulting heavily with members of Parliament.Mr. Duhamel has chaired - is chairing - a parliamentary working group that has considered a variety of ideas that have been put forward, and we're making an attempt to consult with each of the standing committees affected by the pile of documents, to get your views and ideas. Feedback from the committees is obviously a critical part of what we're doing.
We're at the point now where we want to evaluate these documents. As I indicated, a key element is to split the planning information and the performance information. Another key element is to adjust the timing a little bit. What we'd like to do is to submit the performance information in the fall - about six months earlier than it's now submitted. Section B of your part III would be actually taken out of this report and tabled separately in the fall as a separate departmental performance report, and that would be provided six months earlier than the information is now provided to parliament.
Another change we'd like to make to timing is to submit the departmental plan - the first section - about two or three weeks later than the main supply and estimates bill. What happened this year was that a number of departments - agriculture and revenue are two good examples - could not get the budget information into their part III in time to print it this year, so what you ended up with was part III documents that don't reflect budget decisions. We would like to get Parliament's permission to take two or three weeks to include that information in the departmental plan before it's tabled in the House, and that's another key aspect we would like to get your feedback on.
As Mr. Duhamel indicated last December, we made a commitment to evaluate this new approach and to report back to the committee on procedure and House affairs. If this evaluation turns out to be positive, then we're going to go forward with the later steps of changing the control framework and technology, but right now we need your assistance in terms of evaluating the approach we've taken on these documents.
What I'd like to do now, Mr. Chairman, is pass to Brian Pagan, who will describe the specifics of what the evaluation is all about, and lead us into any questions you might have.
.1530
Mr. Brian Pagan (Improved Reporting to Parliament, Expenditure Management Sector, Program Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): The evaluation process that has been developed was designed within the Treasury Board Secretariat by Robert Hilton and Carmen Abella, both of whom are here today and may be able to answer any detailed questions you have.
Essentially what we are doing is seeking the views of the appropriate standing committees and as well the independent or objective views of some external evaluators.
This more comprehensive process would include comparisons of disclosure standards, cost-effectiveness and the actual success in meeting the guidelines or objectives set for the project. But in terms of the evaluation for the standing committees, there are three questions we'd ask you to consider.
Do the revised part IIIs better meet the information needs of users? Are they effective communication instruments? Does the process provide the capacity for committees to influence events in departments and the development of plans?
It is important, therefore, that we determine your reaction to the changes from three perspectives: first, your reactions to the part III that was provided to you this year and the three evaluation questions I've just mentioned; second, your reaction to the idea of splitting the information between plans and performance, and the timing of those documents and processes; and third, whether you agree with the idea of tabling the performance information six months earlier and allowing departments a few weeks to update planning information before tabling their planning documents.
Timing for this evaluation is quite tight, as it's our intention to report back to the procedure and House affairs committee by mid-May in order to seek permission to table separate performance documents this fall.
In terms of the impact then on committees, essentially our request is that we encourage you to scrutinize this performance information and provide suggestions on how to improve it. We recognize that the documents tabled are at varying stages of development. We suggest to you the transport document is among the best, if not the best, of the documents prepared, but we recognize there is still room for improvement.
We allowed departments a great deal of discretion in the design of the six pilots, which resulted in different documents and different approaches. But departments will be very interested in receiving your feedback and ideas since it is important to identify deficiencies and adjust for those in the fall performance document.
In terms of timing for our project, we have made considerable success since this project was initiated a year ago. The last time we came to the House was in December, when a motion was tabled to permit the tabling of these six revised documents. It's our intention, as I mentioned, to go back to procedure and house affairs in May to provide them with the results of our evaluation in this project and seek permission to table separate stand-alone performance documents beginning in the fall of 1996.
That concludes our introduction. We'd be happy to answer any detailed questions you might have.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): Unfortunately, I missed the beginning of your comments. Could you please summarize, in a simple fashion, the improvements that have been made, so that we can determine how parliamentarians will be further ahead?
Mr. Duhamel: If after studying these new documents, the members of the various committees, like yourself, believe that the information they are getting meets their needs better and is more meaningful, we will be further ahead. If, on the other hand, most do not share this view, we will not be any further ahead. So we are relying heavily on your evaluation.
.1535
We've tried to simplify the information and to choose that which best met the needs identified by members of Parliament during our discussions. What we want to know from you is whether or not we have succeeded in achieving this objective.
[English]
Mr. Chatters (Athabasca): I've already been through the process on the natural resources committee, of course, and I say the same thing I said there. I think it's a vast improvement and it makes the information much easier to find and to dissect than the old method. So I think it's a step forward.
Mr. Duhamel: Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them.
The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan (Leeds - Grenville): Mr. Chairman, I feel I'm working at quite a disadvantage in that I didn't know what was wrong with the previous method that brought about the need for change. But if you people who are working at it have seen some weaknesses in it and think what you're doing is going to make it simpler and more efficient, then I don't know who I would be to object to it. I assume it isn't going to cost you a lot more money. So full power ahead.
As I said, I'm working from a position where I didn't know there were a lot of problems with the other one. So I couldn't make any recommendations at all as to whether this is a good direction. For me, personally, I didn't have any problem with the other method but if you had, then more power to you.
Mr. Duhamel: The officers in charge may want to elaborate some more, but just briefly there were basically three problems in terms of the timing of the information.
First, it was sort of bunched up and we got a whole lot at the wrong time. Second, there was a whole lot of information and a lot of our colleagues were saying they weren't using it all, only very little bits. It was difficult to find and it wasn't always terribly relevant. Third, there may be some better ways of transmitting or accessing that information if one looks at new technologies today, recognizing that not everyone is at ease with that.
So those are the three points I'd make and perhaps if Tom or Brian have others, we could just add them on. I'm not looking for them unless they want to do so.
Mr. Hopwood: I would just add one other point. The readers found the documents were too accounting-oriented and too focused on the short term. Many of the departments, for instance, in the area of performance, when they wanted to describe what their achievements had been over the years, found themselves heavily constrained by the format of the previous documents. We had performance information scattered throughout the documents with no real focus on overall departmental performance. So we wanted to bring that together and give departments more scope for looking at the longer term, going backwards.
In addition, the forward-looking information almost stopped at the next fiscal year. You really didn't get a good long-term view of plans and priorities. So we wanted to extend it out a little further into the future, as well ask overall in the area of public administration where the department was going as opposed to dealing with just the next fiscal year and then dealing with a lot of reconciliations between what they said they would spend last year and what they actually spent last year. We wanted them to focus more on longer-term plans, priorities and performance over the year. That's really the characteristic we wanted to introduce.
This is not a reform along the lines of the 1968 or 1978 reforms where there was overwhelming pressure to change the system. I'd view this as more of a natural evolution, taking advantage of technology, of changes that have happened internally and of communications technology as well - just getting the message out more clearly.
The Chairman: Are you finished, Mr. Jordan?
Mr. Jordan: I'm finished. Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes (Hamilton West): Just as a follow-up to what Mr. Hopwood has said, I want to congratulate the Treasury Board Secretariat for what they have accomplished thus far, Mr. Chairman.
As it says in the preface to part III of the expenditure plan - for the benefit of some of the members, although I know Jim was around in the last Parliament, we'd get these books on expenditures, Mr. Chairman, and quite frankly, unless you were an accountant, you couldn't make heads or tails of the darn things. You'd have to sit down with department officials and someone who knew something how to read specifically into the documents to glean any kind of information from them.
So I think it's important - especially the third paragraph of your preface - that the intent of the changes is to make the documents more useful and readable.
.1540
If asked by my constituents in my riding or any member's riding, I could make these documents available and the constituent could actually start from the beginning and make some sense of the expenditures of government. Clearly this is being done, most important to note, without any reduction in the level of disclosure.
I think to separate out performance of departments from longer-term plans and planning is for all honourable members a much-welcomed tool. In particular, speaking for constituents, it gives them an idea of what the planning is and where the money is going to go. To put it into plain English, in part III it's a vast improvement over what I'm used to seeing in past Parliaments.
The Chairman: Any other questions or comments?
Mr. Jackson (Bruce - Grey): Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see that Treasury Board is acting as a learning organization. These things should evolve and there should be better techniques.
Would there be a delay in the budgetary process because of this new accounting method of disclosing the information?
Mr. Hopwood: The documents we're designing are based on the assumption that the budget would occur when it normally occurs, which of course has been a problem for us. The budget has come down at a certain time of the year, then within a few days we've had to table $12 million worth of documents. So bureaucrats have been scrambling to get the information from the budget, from the part IIIs, and to get it out to Parliament.
We built this new approach on the assumption that the budget would continue to be at the time that it occurs near the end of February and we would then give departments a few weeks to reflect that information in their plan. So there would be no impact on the budget itself.
Mr. Jackson: That answers the second question, which was the confidentiality of it. Is all this stuff being done by Treasury Board?
Mr. Hopwood: What do you mean?
Mr. Jackson: Normally, in a lot of ways the budget is secret because there are money implications, and you said it comes in after the budget, so that's fine. I think you answered the question. Thank you.
The Chairman: If there are no further questions, I just happen to have a couple of them.
First, in your three questions I like the change in format. I prefer the idea of splitting it. It would put an onus on this committee that we take some time in the fall to look at the performance sections of this. Will you be making that change by this fall?
Mr. Hopwood: Yes, our intention is to table six or more pilot documents this fall.
Mr. Duhamel: That's of course assuming we get the kind of feedback we're hoping to get, and that in fact has been shared with us today.
The Chairman: Just one comment on the format. I notice where you lay out the number of years of information. It tends to vary depending on the table. Sometimes you have four years of information, sometimes you have six. Is it possible to move to a common amount?
Mr. Hopwood: I think our goal was three - at least three years out - but that's a good suggestion.
The Chairman: Finally, I notice in the front there actually is a survey form with an envelope. Are you asking each member of the committee to fill that in?
Mr. Hopwood: Actually, we have separate questionnaires for the members of the committee. So we've gone to a little more detail with the members of the committee to get your views.
The Chairman: Will we circulate to those members now or to their offices?
The Clerk of the Committee: To their offices.
Mr. Pagan: To expand on that, the questionnaire was added to all printed documents and we're getting feedback from all over the country, from people who work in departments, obviously, and just general users of the information as well.
The individual questionnaires prepared for this committee are the basis of our feedback to the procedure and house affairs committee, so it is important that we get this feedback from members.
We welcome the positive response we've heard today, and undoubtedly there may be more specific or detailed suggestions or comments. I mentioned Robert Hilton and Carmen Abella are prepared to meet with members individually to get into more detail with the documents if in fact that's necessary.
.1545
The Chairman: Thanks very much.
We'll see the rest of you tomorrow at 9 a.m. as we continue the hearings on air navigation services.
The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.