[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 3, 1996
.0934 
[English]
The Chair: Order. Why don't we start?
Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): Yes, Madam Chair.
As the chair was saying, it's been some time now since the subcommittee has met, so I'm just going to quickly go over some of the evidence that was given with regard to the first set of recommendations that touch on the creation of a single estimates committee.
.0935
I've also asked the clerk to distribute to you a copy of the summary of the evidence that was given, and I'll point out to you that the evidence on an estimates committee can be found on page 9 in French, page 8 in English.
In any case, I'm just going to quickly summarize some of this evidence.
The witnesses appeared to be equally divided regarding the creation of a single committee to either receive or oversee the estimates process. The witnesses in favour were Mr. Dobell, Mr. Lachance and Professor Thomas, who sent in a written submission to the committee. Those against, or those who at least had doubts about such a move, were the Auditor General, Mr. Desautels; Professor Mallory; Professor Franks; and Professor Lindquist.
Of those who were in favour, Mr. Dobell said such a committee would have a couple of advantages. He said it would attract members of Parliament who have an interest in administration and it would be not be distracted by other issues, since the estimates are the only thing that would be its responsibility. He did see one disadvantage, and that was that it could not possibly review all of the estimates within a single year.
Mr. Lachance was also very much in favour. He said this would allow a committee of the House to get a broad look at expenditures across program areas and across departments. He said this would allow the other standing committees to focus on other issues and allow them in turn to become more effective and more relevant.
Of those who were against, particularly the Auditor General said he felt the current arrangement, where standing committees look at the estimates of the departments and agencies that fall within their mandate, provides them with a certain advantage, because they're familiar with these departments and agencies and thus are in a better place to criticize or look critically at their estimates.
Professor Mallory wasn't enthusiastic about it. He thought there wouldn't be enough members on the single estimates committee to deal with all of the subjects requiring review.
Professor Lindquist didn't like the idea either, but suggested a committee ought to be established to review the quality of the estimates.
I should point out to members that Parliament did have in its past an experience with a single estimates committee. It existed between 1955 and 1965. I've made a reference to this single estimates committee in the opening chapters of the draft report, because its existence is something we ought to be aware of. However, it existed in a different context, and it was basically discontinued because it wasn't very effective. I can go into reasons for that later on, if you're interested.
The series of recommendations that I propose for you here essentially steers a middle course between what the witnesses were saying. On one hand, some felt the focus on the estimates that was provided through the review of estimates by standing committees would be lost if there were a single committee to take over this responsibility, and on the other hand, others felt a broader look at government expenditure was required.
So essentially what this series of recommendations does is create a standing committee that would coordinate the review of the estimates. It could take up issues common to all of government and look at programs being delivered by multiple departments rather than just a single department. It would look at the estimates process itself and make recommendations for its improvement; in other words, in some respects it would take over the work of this subcommittee. It would report on the quality of the work done on the estimates by individual standing committees and in some cases, with the cooperation of those committees, take up the review of the estimates of a single department or agency.
.0940
At this point I think I will stop, Madam Chair, and if members have questions they would like to ask me, I will do my best to answer them.
The Chair: Are there any questions?
Mr. Williams (St. Albert): Would this be a year-round committee? We're not talking about something that would only be created during the time of the estimates. I take it this would be an ongoing issue.
I think that from the various different models we discussed, which were leaving it with committees.... Committees do not have the expertise. The Standing Orders at this point in time deem them to have reported if they don't report. Many of the people don't understand the numbers; they don't want to be seized by this horrendously complex and technical document that is presented to them.
We talked about the concept of perhaps in essence shutting the House down for a week and having the committees focus on the estimates for a week, or of setting up this specific standing committee to review the estimates. Of the three, I think this is perhaps the best suggestion we have come up with. It may be advisable that we hear Brian's synopsis of what went wrong from 1955 to 1965, so we don't repeat the same mistakes or fall into the same traps if we decide that is the way to go.
The other thing I'd like to suggest is that if we do go with the estimates committee, perhaps the chairman should come from the opposition, because again it is very much a money situation.
Mr. O'Neal: There are essentially three things that need to be taken into consideration about the first estimates committee.
The first has to deal with the context. That committee existed at a time when estimates and supply were still handled by committee of supply - that is, Committee of the Whole House. It was hoped at that time that that special standing committee on the estimates would facilitate the procedure in the House by taking care of a lot of the issues that had to do with the details of programs and activities, and that therefore they wouldn't have to deal with those in the House.
Unfortunately that didn't work. The committee's activities didn't result in a lessening of the burden on the House itself when it debated supply.
Mr. Williams: But the Standing Orders as they're now written do not basically allow for a technical debate on minutiae in the House. Therefore that issue would not be a problem.
Mr. O'Neal: No.
The second issue had to do with size. The committee was far too large. In 1960, for example, there were something like 60 members sitting on the committee, so you can imagine that not much was accomplished.
The third issue, which is perhaps more relevant to the work we're doing, has to do with the research capacity of the standing committee back then. They didn't have anybody reporting to them or working for them, and therefore really weren't in a position to examine any of these issues very carefully or in depth. This is perhaps something we should keep in mind later on, when we take a look at support services for committees.
In other words, there is really nothing now that relates to the past that would prevent the establishment of a single committee to review the estimates along the lines that are proposed here.
Mr. Williams: What's your opinion on the chairman coming from the opposition?
Mr. O'Neal: I'm afraid I don't have opinions on those kinds of matters. It certainly appears to work to everyone's satisfaction for the standing accounts committee. Again, at the discretion of subcommittee members, we might be able to propose that.
.0945
The Chair: Do we want to go through this a little bit more carefully?
Mr. Williams: I just have one final question, if I may, Madam Chair.
I'm looking at your report I have here entitled ``Completing the Circle of Control''. You talk about the single estimates committee reviewing the appropriations of crown corporations, committee membership, the reallocation of funds within votes, and so on. Item e, which is the long-term review of existing programs, is certainly something that we really want to ensure the committee has, meaning the tools.
I'm thinking here of program evaluation. The departments perform program evaluations on programs in order for the estimates committee to be able to make an intelligent assessment of the effectiveness of statutory programs.
My position is that if we are to be able to focus the government, we'll only do that through focusing statutory programs.
The Chair: You might be interested in one comment from Treasury Board. It was that basically all but one of the statutory programs are currently under review in any case.
Mr. Williams: We could have these reviews publicly reviewed. You may recall my private member's bill. It said they would be tabled in the House and referred to the appropriate standing committee for recommendations back to the House, where the government can then determine whether legislation is required to be updated and renewed.
I think that process, as a public process, is what we really want to start so that we have the complete program evaluation done by departments brought to a committee of the House with witnesses. An investigation and an analysis of that program review should be done. The report would then go back to the House for the government to consider changes.
The Chair: Are there any specific comments on the responsibilities that are suggested for this committee?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): If I may, Madam Chair, my only comment is that I doubt that the report we are preparing to table will have a great deal of impact, at least, that's the feeling I have - members don't seem that interested in this committee. Just look at this morning. If members really wanted to change, they would consider this committee to have some significance. They would have been a little more eager to attend, and we would not have had to postpone committee meetings once, twice or even three times.
I hope that our work has not been in vain, but I don't have much confidence that this report will have an impact on the government.
[English]
The Chair: Obviously this fall we've had a problem with subcommittees of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that involved our members on other subcommittees as well. That has certainly made it more difficult to organize meetings. Everybody had moved to different committees, so the meeting time we had last year wasn't working out. Other people had personal problems that made it difficult to schedule meetings.
I think our bigger problem, frankly, is that we're trying to do something here about a long tradition of parliamentarians taking virtually no interest in the estimates. They don't see much reason to do this. I would, in fact, hope that by focusing the responsibility in this way in one committee to keep an eye on this process constantly, making sure that Parliament is getting the information it needs and doing the job it must, it's beginning.
Mr. Williams: We don't have an agenda set out this morning, Madam Chair. Are we going to be discussing this draft in detail, point by point? Is that what we're going to do now?
The Chair: That's exactly what we're going to do.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That's fine.
The Chair: So nobody has a particular problem with the basic idea of a single estimates committee and the responsibilities laid out for it.
Mr. Williams: Provided the chair [Inaudible - Editor]
The Chair: Can I suggest, John, that we'll come back to the changes you want to make. Let's see how satisfied we are with what's here. Then if there are some changes or additional recommendations, we can deal with those at the end.
.0950
As for reviewing the appropriations for crown corporations on page 2, are there any problems with that?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Are we working with the same document, Madam Chair?
The Chair: I think we are. My copy is dated November 20.
Mr. Laurin: So is mine.
[English]
The Chair: Do I have the French version?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Reviewing the appropriations for Crown corporations.
The Chair: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Williams: I have one minor technical point here, Madam Chair. We are talking about the reviews of the collective role, mandate, expenditures and expenditure management regimes of crown corporations.
Why do we have expenditure and expenditure management? I think we are actually talking about expenditures and the management of crown corporations. I'd like to see the word ``expenditure'' eliminated so that we actually have the authority to take a look at the quality of management of the crown corporation.
Mr. McTeague (Ontario): I have a question. If we're dealing strictly within the parameters of estimates, why then would you want to get into the administration, unless that administration can be seen as conclusively linked to the budget and the finances of that crown corporation? It's an open question.
Mr. Williams: The work we've done in this committee has to been to expand the horizon of the estimates from just looking at the numbers tabled by the government to looking at the numbers tabled by the government within the context of projections by departments for, say, three years out, and also within the context of performance documents that give historical information presented in the same format for several years in arrears.
The horizon of the estimates is changing because of the complexity of management today. Therefore, in order to make an intelligent assessment of what's going into crown corporations, I think a standing committee of Parliament should have the authority to question the competence of management of crown corporations. Again, as I said, the results would be a report tabled in the House.
Mr. McTeague: Madam Chair, if you are looking to review the finances of a particular crown corporation, would it not be, by implication, that - this is the management of those finances that would give the appearance of the problem, whether it's forward several years or back several years - you would at some point be looking at it from a whole position? This means that if the expenditures of a company or of a corporation are suspect or problematic, it would suggest by implication that there is something wrong with the way in which you manage those resources. Is this correct?
Mr. Williams: That is a fairly reasonable assumption, but if you specifically deny the standing committee the opportunity to comment on management, then they may be ruled out of order, shall we say -
Mr. McTeague: Oh, really?
Mr. Williams: - and I wouldn't want that to happen.
Mr. McTeague: Why would you stop at management? Why wouldn't you go on to other areas of crown corporations, such as divestment?
Mr. Williams: If you take a look here, we are talking about the collective role -
Mr. McTeague: Yes.
Mr. Williams: - mandate, expenditures and management. I'm suggesting management rather than expenditure management.
The Chair: Could I suggest, John, why the recommendation is written this way. The whole principle of this series of recommendations is that the standing committees would maintain responsibility for their departments, which would include the crown corporations under their departments. Standing committees do have the ability to look into the management of crown corporations and go into the policy as well.
.0955
One of the things we're trying to do is not take that responsibility away from the standing committees. In fact, the estimates committee might properly review the controls under the Financial Administration Act that apply to all crown corporations. What are the controls under the crown corporations act that will apply to all crown corporations? But if it came down to this management of a specific crown corporation, that's more in the province of the standing committee under which it falls.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
The Chair: As for committee membership, this obviously can be only advice.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin.
Mr. Laurin: I have a suggestion about the wording in the second paragraph of the French version, which states:
- Que l'on s'efforce d'interdire le remplacement des membres des comités...
- I don't think this is realistic. We should perhaps say: "s'efforce d'éviter le remplacement",
which means making every effort to avoid substituting members. The French version would
prohibit the practice, but you can't half-prohibit. When something is prohibited, it's
prohibited. But I don't think that prohibiting the substitution of members is realistic;
sometimes, the circumstances are out of your control. So we would do better to talk about
making "every effort to avoid substituting members".
Mr. Williams: I had it in before you suggested it.
The Chair: Certainly it says in English: ``That every effort be made'' -
Mr. Williams: To avoid the practice.
The Chair: You mean ``to avoid'' instead of ``to suspend''?
Mr. Williams: Delete the word ``suspend'' and replace it with ``avoid''.
The Chair: Okay,
[Translation]
in French and in English.
[English]
That one's okay.
Next is the reallocation of funds within votes.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I don't think this paragraph is strong enough. It reads:
- That governments announce, when the Estimates are tabled, that they are willing to consider
recommendations from standing committees.
[English]
The Chair: It is a change, though, because right now it's very clear that the government will not consider such recommendations. In fact, if there is such a recommendation coming from a committee, or a motion from the opposition, the government immediately lays down a contrary motion that is dealt with before a motion to change the estimates.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I don't think governments run any major risks with that. It would be different if they were undertaking to consider a recommendation that funds saved by cutting spending in one program could be applied to another program. If governments were to make such commitments and not follow through, our recommendations would carry some weight, and the work of the committee would have some significance. But if all we ask is that governments are willing to consider recommendations, there is quite a risk there: one day they may be willing to consider them, while the next day they may not. That doesn't get us anywhere.
I think it would be a little stronger if we asked governments to undertake to consider recommendations from standing committees that funds saved by cutting spending in one program be applied to another program or activity.
[English]
The Chair: I'm at a disadvantage because I don't have the French version here, but
[Translation]
"s'engagent à "...
Mr. Laurin: That's because I don't have the English version.
.1000
The Chair: You would like the wording to be "que les gouvernements s'engagent à"?
Mr. Laurin: "Que les gouvernements s'engagent à considérer". I know that governments would not undertake to accept such recommendations, but I would propose that they undertake to consider them.
[English]
Mr. Williams: The heading is the reallocation of funds within votes, Madam Chair. I'm wondering if, rather than offsetting any proposed reduction with a proposed increase within the same vote, it was desirable to reduce any particular vote such that the equivalent amount of funds be allocated to another vote. It would be the same or another vote, without getting into details and saying that you have to add it to one particular program.
This is just to say that the money shall be allocated to the same or another vote. This still maintains the same level of expenditure being proposed by the government, but it does allow the transfer from one vote to another. If that was deemed to be more appropriate, then it has to stay within the same vote.
The Chair: You would be suggesting that Environment could suggest an increase in funds under its own programs and take it out of Agriculture, for instance?
Mr. Williams: No, I'm not suggesting an increase. If they were to say, for example, through the estimates and the study of the estimates that they have reconsidered and see no reason why they cannot reduce the amount of money in this particular budget and this particular vote, then the government could allocate it elsewhere.
The Chair: If I'm understanding you right, you're saying that the environment committee should be able to say they think you should reduce the expenditures in this area of Agriculture and allocate it to a certain area in Environment.
Mr. Williams: No, they can only reduce their own estimates under consideration. It does mean to say then that they have to go out to find somewhere else within their own area of responsibility to spend it. It then may be available to be allocated to another vote. They certainly would not be able to steal or help themselves to money from an area outside their expertise.
Remember that committees can only reduce expenditures; they can't say they want more money. But if they find they wish to reduce expenditures and the government agrees, then that money is available to be allocated elsewhere rather than strictly within the vote being considered.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I feel that this paragraph quite adequately renders the notion that funding allocated to one activity can be transferred to another activity. But it can also mean that the budget has simply been reduced, and that the funds saved are not applied to other activities. The two are not mutually exclusive, however. When the committee recommends a budget reduction, that may be all that happens - a given budget is reduced. The other option is to apply the funds saved to another activity. But this paragraph is not strong enough. For governments simply to say "they are willing to consider recommendations from standing committees" is not sufficiently binding.
I'd rather we said: "That governments undertake to consider recommendations from standing committees"...
[English]
The Chair: Okay. Rey.
Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): In fact, to say that you're willing to consider the recommendations is almost to assume that any recommendations from any committee today will not find any government of the day willing to consider them. There is a negative presupposition to that statement.
My suggestion would be to say the government consider.... It is inherent that committee recommendations are considered, but if we put an underlying negative implication, even to say they're willing, would be, I think, even more provocative.
So I would say: ``That governments consider recommendations from standing committees''. Insofar as that statement is concerned, how it considers it, favourably or unfavourably, is the judgment of the government of the day. It's also a challenge to the persuasiveness of the committee and its rationale and strength.
.1005
The onus is on both sides. If it is to be that it really means it ought to be done, then we might as well say it must be done. But if it should be that way, then aren't we potentially saying that the committee at all times is more powerful than the government of the day? There is a serious implication from that kind of statement.
If we say it must do it, then it has the ultimate authority of the committee. If it is a recommendation.... By its nature, a recommendation is a recommendation. It has to be persuasive and it has to be forceful. And the goodwill that prevails in the government from time to time - not all the time - should really take this into account. It has happened in the past. So really, the words ``to consider'' are, to me, unnecessary. We just have to send the bill....
Second, following the point being raised there about how you reduce this and you increase that...I see the point. In other words, the sum total must be either less or the same. Or if we found out that a particular activity does not need that much money, for whatever reason we feel it's not essential, it is not our duty to say that we should spend it for something else when every item in that estimate is already reasonable. There is no need to increase that. If they give it to another department, so be it. But if in fact it is a case of reducing this because you want to increase that, again, it is in the committee's wisdom to recommend it specifically at that time.
I think we should keep that flexibility in our recommendation. I think that is the essence of what I was hearing in the past when you were deliberating with the formulation of this draft.
The Chair: Can we ask our researcher if he has any comments on this discussion?
Mr. O'Neal: I may go over some things that subcommittee members are already aware of. First of all, let me just point out that committees already hold the power to reduce a vote or to negative a vote.
Second, the very heart of this is reallocation, that is, taking money from one area and putting it in another. Currently, or at least until this point, governments have refused to consider such an option. Witnesses have suggested that it was really just a matter of government showing some sort of greater willingness to accept this kind of recommendation, and that if they did, it might encourage members sitting on committees to take a more active interest in the estimates because they would realize that they would be able to make a tangible difference to expenditure patterns.
The other comment I should mention came from some witnesses who felt that the consequence of doing this would be utter chaos. They felt that committee members lacked sufficient knowledge to make these kinds of reallocations. The answer to that criticism is that the information that is now being provided or that is proposed to be provided to committees in terms of performance documents and plans documents should at least in theory give them the kind of background information they need to make these reallocations wisely.
Again, as subcommittee members have pointed out, the recommendation only calls upon government to consider these kinds of reallocations. It still leaves - and I think this is important - the discretion in the hands of the government with respect to deciding whether or not these reallocations are advisable at the end of the day. They can reject them or they can accept them.
Mr. Pagtakhan: But what you would like to do is establish a principle that reallocation henceforth becomes unacceptable parliamentary practice. I think that is the message that we should convey, if only to break a part of the tradition of the past. Is that the essence?
Mr. Williams: I think there is recognition that the government of the present - as well as governments in the past - considers the estimates to be reasonably sancrosanct. It is not prepared to entertain much discussion on change. We want to see that changed.
.1010
I think this is a good first step forward. Down the road we may wish to revisit this, but today I think it's a good middle ground for the government to say okay.
Today, when people are very much concerned about the expenditures of government, in my personal experience they are appalled to find that parliamentarians cannot change. Even if we find something that is totally indefensible, it cannot be changed. This would therefore allow some ability to make changes without the government feeling that the perception of confidence is being eroded.
I would suggest one minor change, Madam Chair, bearing in mind Mr. Laurin's comments that the paragraph seems to be reasonably well written. I'll allow it. I look at the title that says ``Re-allocation of Funds Within Votes''. I would suggest that we eliminate the two words ``Within Votes''.
The Chair: Is there a problem with that?
Mr. O'Neal: No, I think an improvement, Madam Chair.
An hon. member: Okay.
The Chair: Along with trying to mesh what Mr. Pagtakhan and Mr. Laurin have said, we might amend the wording just to say that the government consider recommendations from standing committees. Is that what you're saying, Rey?
Mr. Pagtakhan: Yes.
The Chair: And would that meet your concerns, Monsieur Laurin?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Yes, but...
[English]
The Chair: Then it's basically telling the government to consider not saying that it should indicate it's willing to -
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: In order to reflect this notion properly and give the paragraph greater weight, I have no objection to saying either that governments "undertake to consider" or "consider". However, we should specify in this paragraph that, if a recommendation were refused, governments would have to explain why.
The Chair: Why they refused the recommendation.
Mr. Laurin: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Pagtakhan: That's a good point.
The Chair: It's like they respond to the other committee report -
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: At present, the government can simply ignore a recommendation; it can pretend the recommendation doesn't exist. We should at least request that it make some commitment to considering the recommendation, and, in the event it refuses the recommendation, to justify that response by providing the grounds on which the recommendation was refused.
[English]
The Chair: And that's consistent with other recommendations we've made that the government respond to committee input on the plans and performance documents, for instance.
Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I understand the theory, and the theory sounds good. I'm a little concerned perhaps with the implementation and practice. Remember, there can be a relatively short timeframe between consideration of the estimates and the votes in the House of Commons.
On that basis, for a committee to make a formal recommendation to reduce an expenditure, for the government to make a formal response...we could get caught in the timeframe and just in essence be rejected.
So I have a concern if we get into the formal ``this is what the committee proposes; here is the government's response'' before we sit down and vote on it in the House of Commons. We can drag it on interminably, where the committee keeps pushing the government, the government keeps stonewalling, and nothing takes place. Then perhaps we're into a situation where we're reinforcing the current practice where the government just stonewalls any particular reduction. And if they were to make an annual statement when they do table the estimates that, yes, we recognize that if the committees make solid, genuine, substantive, supportable recommendations to reduce, they're prepared to look at it....
The Chair: Okay, maybe that's some of what we want to include in here, too. The committee can't just say take this money out of here and put it somewhere else. They have to provide a justification for their recommendations - what did you just say, John? - solid, supportable evidence -
Mr. Williams: Yes.
The Chair: - something like that.
Mr. Williams: Madam Chair, we don't want to get into political witch-hunts and political grandstanding. We want to be able to ensure that the committees are not sidetracked by one person's political agenda if the program or the committee happens to be involved in something near and dear to his heart or constituency. That is not the issue.
.1015
The Chair: What could happen, though, is that on one of the supply days - Bill was suggesting maybe the last supply day - the government would report its response verbally in the House. Yes, because you don't want to get into waiting for formal reports, like six months later.
Brian, having heard the discussion, can we ask you to try to bring us back some improved wording that would take care of those particular issues.
Mr. O'Neal: It seems to me that the subcommittee has an option. First, they could ask that the government give explanations. The second thing it could do is simply point out in the text that precedes or follows the recommendation that committee reports on the estimates are in effect like any other committee report. They can require a specific request that the government provide a comprehensive report within 150 days.
Let's face it, if the government is going to reject reallocation, then the answer really in effect is, no, the justification for that response could come much later. I suppose really that what you're looking for here is an accountability instrument, that is, the government has to justify its reasons. Even if those justifications come 150 days later, they're still public and part of the record and can be used in terms of holding government accountable for the decisions it's made.
If you get those justifications in greater detail before you actually vote supply, I'm not sure it's going to make that much difference to the actual outcome, which is still no. Essentially I would suggest something in the text saying that they should be obliged to report their response at some point.
One last comment is that in the past the word ``comprehensive'', in terms of a response to committee reports, has been interpreted rather loosely. Sometimes ``comprehensive'' simply means, no, we don't like the idea; sorry, we won't do it.
The Chair: We could consider something like that before the item is dealt with in the House. The government, if it decides not to accept a recommendation, indicates its reasons.
Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I don't want to get into a bunch of make-work projects of tabling substantive, comprehensive reports 150 days later to substantiate our flat no. The whole concept is to make the estimates a working type of document that has the potential of flexibility, to change what the government intends to do that particular year, rather than go through another exercise of paperwork. That's not what we want to try to achieve.
I do like the idea, because we have been frustrated by the confidence convention for so long, that at least for the next while, maybe several years - and we can leave it to a subsequent committee to make the change - included in the tabling of the estimates there is a commitment by the government that they are willing to consider changes that may, of course, be offset by additional spending in another area.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Laurin.
Mr. Laurin: I don't really like the notion of asking the government to give the grounds of its refusal 150 days after the fact. When the government refuses a recommendation, it knows why it is refusing at the time that it refuses. I'm not asking you to demonstrate that its refusal is justified. That demonstration could require generating 150-page documents. When the issue is debated in the House on a supply day, the government will give its reasons, if we ask for them; that's when it will demonstrate that its decision was well founded.
If the government accepts our recommendation, there's no problem. But if it refuses a recommendation, it should be obliged to give some reason for it. Saying no is not a justification, it's just an answer. The justification for that answer is something else again, and I would not like to have to wait 150 days for it.
.1020
If that's what's going to happen, we do not need to set up a committee to study the Estimates. If members think that their work isn't going to lead to anything, they won't be interested in a committee. By the time we get answers to our questions, the funds in question will be long spent. The government must justify its decisions, but not 150 days after the fact. There should be some justification given at the time the decision is made.
[English]
Mr. Pagtakhan: I tend to agree with them, really. A report 150 days or 30 days later certainly serves no useful purpose. Who would read the reports? It is likely that those things would happen during debates anyway.
Where we can insist on response to a no would be the ideal thing at the time - in a timely fashion. Let's recommend it. It it cannot do it, then it cannot do it. That's one aspect of accountability. I mean, if you cannot justify a law in terms of what has appeared as a reasonable proposal of reallocation from the committee's recommendation, then that's a test of accountability.
The Chair: Could I suggest something. I think it's entirely reasonable that if a committee's done a fair bit of work, has given a justification for a change, a reallocation it wants to make, before that vote is dealt with in the House, the government should say, we're accepting or rejecting this recommendation, and here are the reasons.
I'm not thinking of a formal response such as what it would normally give to a committee's report. But I think Brian could work with some words so that the government would have to state in the House whether it is or isn't accepting this recommendation, and why. Maybe a statement in the House would be sufficient.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Yes, but in a timely fashion.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Pagtakhan: There is a second point. Is it in the body of the report that this does not reflect a confidence vote?
The Chair: We come to that a bit later.
Mr. Pagtakhan: I think this is very critical. In other words, there is a message there to the government and the public.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Why do we need to specify deadlines?
The Chair: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Pagtakhan said: in a timely fashion. I would prefer not to give any such restrictions. The government should simply justify its decision at the time the decision is made.
The Chair: Yes, yes.
Mr. Laurin: It can't make a decision and justify that decision a number of days later. It should explain the grounds for its decision at the time the decision is made.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, I think we agree.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I won't talk about time frames, then.
[English]
Mr. Pagtakhan: [Inaudible - Editor] ...can be interpreted as something else, you're right.
The Chair: But it would obviously have to be done before the vote that affected that particular item, right?
Mr. Pagtakhan: Right.
The Chair: Okay, so we'll leave it to our brilliant researcher to come up with some wording that reflects our diverse points of view.
Okay, do you want to talk about this section 2(b)?
Mr. O'Neal: If I may, Madam Chair, this section has to do with new tools that are available or ought to be made available to committees in their study of the estimates. I thought that as a consequence of that it would be appropriate to make a reference to the availability of departmental plans and performance documents at different times during the year.
This represents a new opportunity for committees, and it has also been at least partially endorsed by this subcommittee in one of its earlier reports. So really this is just a repeated endorsement of this project or proposal to provide separate plans and performance documents. There's no recommendation here.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: The French version means absolutely nothing to me. I'd like someone to explain what this sentence means:
- Suggestion: the endorsement of proposals to provide separate plans and performance
documents calls on committees to make full use of them.
.1025
Perhaps it hasn't been well translated. I don't know. Perhaps if we translate the English word-for-word, we'd end up with: "l'endossement des propositions pour fournir des plans séparés des documents demande qu'on en fasse un plein usage".
Did someone observe that documents were being provided but apparently served no purpose? Is that the idea? I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: I'm sorry, perhaps it loses something because it's in short form. I'll try to explain.
Throughout the report there are references to mechanisms that are already available to committees or are being tried out on a pilot basis, such as reports on plans and performance documents.
The text that follows underneath in the report I've drafted first basically says that this is a good idea, a good step to take. Second, it calls on committees to make use of the availability of these new documents to the fullest extent possible, that is, they should review them, and report on them. Since committees are largely masters of their own destiny, you can't force them to do this, but you can highly recommend that they do this.
That's all that's there, simply. If that's not clear, please let me know and I'll try to expand on that a little.
The Chair: Since it's not a specific recommendation, I think we might want to wait and see the exact wording Brian has put in the report. I think it's part of the whole idea of developing a cycle.
John has always been concerned about changing the estimates. I'm more concerned about people using the opportunities there, from the tabling of this year's estimates right through to the next year's budget, to influence what goes into those estimates before they're actually tabled. But I think we're reaching a balance here.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I would like this suggestion to be re-written so that its meaning is clear. It is very difficult to understand in its present form. I have no problem with your explanation, but I would like the wording to be changed so that it reflects what you just said.
The Chair: Fine. On page 3 of the French version, we read:
[English]
``The Ability to Choose from Among Alternative Plans and Priorities''. This one might be a little more difficult.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I have no comments to make on page 3. I have to leave for five minutes.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: Perhaps it would be helpful for me just to give a quick background on this. This series of recommendations arises from a concern expressed on one of the questionnaires that the subcommittee sent out to members in May, I believe.
Someone writing back said there was a problem. In plans, documents, priorities documents, members are provided with only one set of plans and one set of priorities. He felt there should have been more opportunity to look at different ways of solving different kinds of problems that were coming up, and there should be alternatives presented.
Perhaps I was overstepping myself a little, but at the time it seemed to me that this made a fair amount of sense. Committees ought to be able to look at a range of options, then express their opinion on them and perhaps even add to them. That's essentially what this series of recommendations proposes.
The Chair: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I think that's an excellent point. That reinforces your position, Madam Chair, where you want to take a longer view on the input by parliamentarians in the direction the government is going so that it can influence the departmental thinking as they prepare estimates for subsequent years. As far as paragraph (c) is concerned, I think it's quite well written as it is and we should just endorse it and carry on.
.1030
The Chair: There is one problem with it, and it really goes to the heart of government - ``alternate plans and priorities'', our advice to cabinet. I think this may be rejected by government because it infringes on the privilege of cabinet. Frankly, it would make deputy ministers and other senior officials very uncomfortable to have to repeat for committees, or in writing, their advice to cabinet. ``Here are your alternatives, guys; here's what we're recommending''. I think we would want to see, more broadly, what the possible directions are. That might be a better word than ``plans and priorities'', because that really is cabinet's prerogative.
What was clear from officials is that they really welcome the input of committees on alternatives. I think over time they and government would become more comfortable discussing long-term priorities and alternatives in a broad way with committees. If your specific is plans and priorities, I'm not sure that's going to fly.
Mr. Williams: I can certainly back off on the plans and priorities, Madam Chair. We're not looking for the committees to choose between plan A and plan B. I agree with you that's cabinet's prerogative. I think committees are entitled to know what the department perceives to be society's need that it's trying to address through programmed developments.
Some of the committee's opinions, if it wishes to enter a new area within society that it feels needs to be addressed through a government program, might be encroaching on government-cabinet prerogative even if it were were to ask for specifics. I think it should be giving us some vision of what the department sees the role is within the nation. How specific it wants to get will depend on what kind of questions the committee poses. The department should be able to justify its vision, its raison d'être.
The Chair: Let me take it to the department I am most familiar with. The department should be able to say, for instance, global climate change is a priority of the government and therefore over the next three to five years we expect to be putting more resources into the area of global climate change and reducing the amount being spent on such and such, to ensure we can deal with that priority.
Mr. Williams: And it should be able to justify the rationale for going in that particular direction.
The Chair: Yes. Rey.
Mr. Pagtakhan: In the one very brief experience I had with a school board, knowing the frailty of human nature, when you are asked to give alternatives...I discovered again it has an agenda. You will be given priorities to the point that priority one definitely must be chosen, but priorities two, three, four and five will not be chosen because they are presented is such a way that there is no way you can choose them.
The challenge is not so much that the departments should give us a summary of priorities - that is the obligation of the committees to do - but what the committees should be given is the forecast of the challenges of the departments, the broad view. Then the committee in its wisdom - if it's very committed, conscientious and not lazy - will be able to propose future directions or priorities for government's consideration.
.1035
So it's not making a choice. It's not an easy job. It has to be given the facts and figures and all those things on which you develop priorities. But I would rather the committees be given the initiative to develop the priorities and directions. In that case it is really involvement, initiative and leadership rather than accusing and saying, you are choosing something else that was not really one of the options we gave you. No. We know better than that. Give us the facts and figures and we will decide what the priorities ought to be.
We may all be wrong on the committee level. The department, in its report to the Commons committees or what have you, may not have seen what committees originally conceived, and I would really challenge that. It happened to us at the school board level. They just forget to look at it. I would like to ask for the facts and figures. Then at the end I would say no, on the basis of this I will propose this thing now.
I would rather the onus be on the committee, but at the same time that very onus should be taken seriously. You come with a set of directions that will have the impact of originality. I think it will create a persuasiveness.
If the department asks the witness which of these would be priority one, why should we allow it to choose that priority? Maybe in the questioning we can say, on this basis of this what could be done? A smart committee member could ask that. The department might answer, well, this, this, this and this. In that case, it's almost like making a diagnosis following all the signs and symptoms.
The Chair: To follow your metaphor here, I don't want to sit down at a committee and say five years from now I want peas instead of carrots for dinner, but I do know that over the next five years I want to switch to a healthier diet. Does that mean I should have more fruits and vegetables compared to proteins, or does that mean I should have more starches and greens compared to proteins? Those are the kinds of broad questions I think the department should lay out.
What we may want to do is take number one and take out, where possible, that departments include a discussion of any long-term trends and forecasts that may influence planning beyond the three-year period. Obviously, if they don't have them they can't include them, but most of them are looking beyond three years, at least for certain elements of their budgets.
We can do a bit of reworking on the first paragraph and make it number two so departments understand we're not trying to have committees take over the role of cabinet, but they should be giving us, in broad terms, the alternative directions.
Mr. Pagtakhan: If we were to pursue that, which is more or less what I am suggesting, paragraphs one and two can be consolidated to the effect that the departments and agencies inform committees of the forecast of the challenges the departments and agencies expect to confront in the future. Those are facts and figures that may influence planning beyond the three-year period established for departmental plans documents.
So we consolidate paragraphs one and two. Then the last paragraph becomes the second: ``That committees be encouraged to put forward alternative future directions and priorities for consideration, both during'', etc.
The only thing I object to here is that we will be given it piecemeal, be spoon-fed: These are our priorities; just choose among them. Well, a smart department, I can tell you....
The Chair: Again, I'd like ask Brian, having heard the discussion, to see what he can do to come up with some revised wording that might better reflect what we've talked about. Okay? I think there seems to be general consensus of what we want.
Next is ``Assessing New Program Proposals''.
Mr. Williams: I have one minor editorial change, Madam Chair. In the second paragraph, it should be: ``That performance documents include status reports on ongoing evaluations conducted on existing programs.'' Delete the words ``new and''. It's hard to get a status report on something that's new. It's a minor editorial change.
.1040
The Chair: Where are you? The second line, okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: The French reads "de ceux nouvellement mis en oeuvre". Should the wording not rather be "de ceux récemment mis en oeuvre"? I think that would be more logical. The reference is to the length of the program that was implemented. The program may have been implemented several years earlier or recently, just a few months ago. Is that what is meant here?
[English]
Mr. Pagtakhan: I see. So the message here, I suppose, is that not only the current program that may have been there for the last 10 years but even the new ones...there are two components. I think that was the reason or intent.
Mr. O'Neal: I'm sorry, perhaps I can explain. I drafted this on the basis of some comments that Monsieur Laurin made at one of our earlier meetings. I hope I interpreted him correctly.
When committees take a look at new programs, they look at programs into the future. Supposedly they're going to be able to do this now with the aid of performance reports that tell you how well departments have done in implementing programs in the recent past.
The problem comes when you're trying to judge an activity or program that doesn't have that kind of basis of experience behind it, so you won't be able to check to see how well the department has done in the past in this particular area.
What this proposes to do is to provide you with an evaluation framework that will be used, as the program is being delivered, to evaluate how well it's being delivered. At least you'll have some sort of idea of the standards upon which it will be evaluated and judged. This could in a sense act as a partial, not a full substitute for a performance report.
Mr. Pagtakhan: We have several thoughts here. John raised the question of an editorial thing. I agree, because it's a different thought completely. The idea of a status report to include a report on the evaluating tool...one would suppose that could form naturally a part of the status report.
In other words, today I give you a status report on this newly implemented program. As you may know, this has been there only for six months. We have nothing to do, but this is the framework of our evaluation tool. I would suggest that this could naturally be part of the status report, but if we have to qualify it, so be it. But for clarity, we can say including the evaluation tool.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: The point I was making is that I hope that when the government implements a new program, at the time it does so, it gives us the evaluation criteria it will be using to determine how effective the program is. In other words, it will have to determine ahead of time that there will be an evaluation and the criteria that will be used in making this evaluation.
That is what I was trying to convey. Obviously, when the criteria are set ahead of time, even a new program that is just being introduced... Let me take the example of the infrastructure program. There is now talk about possibly renewing it. Before it is renewed, I would hope that... That's why I was stressing this point. Before a program is renewed, I would like to have an evaluation of what has been done in the past so that we can determine whether or not the program should be continued, or at least assess the likelihood of the success of the second phase of the program. If a program is implemented very quickly without any evaluation criteria, there is a danger that the program could be renewed without any knowledge of how effective it was in the past. That is the point I was trying to make.
.1045
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, as a point of clarification, I'm sure Mr. Williams, who is more familiar with this area than I am, can confirm that Treasury Board Secretariat guidelines already call for the development of evaluation frameworks for new programs, especially for major ones at the very outset. They should have these evaluation frameworks available in any case. The question is to make them available to committees to make sure they know the basis upon which a program will be evaluated.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I am not sure about that. The Auditor General has said in the past that 70% of all programs were never evaluated. So there is some room for evaluation procedures. If 70% of programs are not evaluated, this is either because there were no evaluation procedures, or because the procedures that were set up were never used.
[English]
The Chair: I think it's an important point. We might want to do something here on the second paragraph. I think the first paragraph is fine. It seems to have captured what you were looking for, René: when you start a new program, tell us how you are going to evaluate it.
The second part we might want to strengthen a bit, because the performance documents should include not only ongoing evaluations but evaluations that have been completed since the last performance report, I think.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Yes, that is correct. We could say: "That performance documents include status reports on ongoing evaluations conducted on existing programs and the evaluation criteria to be used for new programs".
[English]
The Chair: We could also say on all evaluations on new or existing programs, whether they are under way or have been completed.
Mr. Williams: I'm not too clear, Madam Chair, about where the discussion seems to be going. The researcher is correct that at the beginning of a program or at the outset of an evaluation period you have to set out the criteria by which you're going to judge a program. You don't judge a program on a snapshot basis at one particular date; you judge how effective the program has been over a period of time.
If we're talking about an insert to the performance documents on the status of an ongoing evaluation that's covering a period of time that hasn't expired, we wouldn't need to expend the money on an interim evaluation. But I do think we would want to know that the evaluation of the program is on budget, if I can use that term, and that it's keeping up with its collection of data to ensure that within the criteria laid out at the beginning of the evaluation period - when the time has expired and they're going to take all this data that has been collected and evaluate it to provide this performance evaluation, we don't find out then that, well, gee, we didn't have enough money to collect this data, or we didn't collect that data, or something else fell through the cracks, and now our final assessment is suspect or less than otherwise complete because along the way something was falling through the cracks.
That's the type of information I would want to know in an ongoing status report rather than interim evaluations. I don't want interim evaluations - that's just spending money to turn wheels. I want to know that they're doing the job of collecting the information and having it on hand so that when the time comes to assess the data it's not found to be wanting.
.1050
The Chair: So in other words, Brian's quite right that if they can give us a status report on all evaluations, then part of your performance report is how you're evaluating what you're doing.
Mr. Pagtakhan: If I may add to that, I like the idea, as well as a time line for completion.
Mr. Williams: That's correct, Madam Chair. Mr. Pagtakhan, each program evaluation covers a specified period of time. So presumably that status report, say at the end of a particular date, has a cut-off period. The data assembled to that point is then evaluated and a report is made.
Mr. Pagtakhan: So it doesn't become an indefinite evaluation.
Mr. Williams: No.
The Chair: I have one problem with that, frankly. The idea of good program evaluation is that it is ongoing. As long as the program exists, evaluation continues. It's not like the infrastructure program, which had a defined period and came to an end. Most government programs aren't like that. Most government programs continue.
Mr. Williams: I agree with you that there is ongoing evaluation, but program evaluation in its formal sense states that you take a certain period within an ongoing program and say that we're going to assess its impact on society, how efficiently it has been delivered, and so on and so forth, within this particular timeframe, and then we make a specific report.
You can't have it on an ongoing basis whereby we may assess one particular part of a program this year, a different part next year, and a different part - a third part - in a subsequent year. We would never get to evaluate the whole program within the context of the program.
We wouldn't want that. We want to ensure that the evaluation is ongoing and that there's a formal, overall assessment on a periodic basis. That's what we want to have.
The Chair: Can we leave that second paragraph then and see if our researcher would like to do some rewriting?
Mr. Pagtakhan: Before we leave that, for the researcher, along that line, you would have a time line for periodic reports. In other words, it's like a book. There are several chapters. We would like you to give us chapter 1 by this date, otherwise I'm not confident that you will have 10 chapters of the book for me by the end of the month. If by the end of the first week you have no first chapter, forget it. I think that's the idea. While it is ongoing, we have to have periodic time lines for periodic reports given the particular focus within given departments.
The Chair: Our clerk has made a suggestion, given that you are handing so much back to our researcher. We should give some instruction to the clerk to have the unedited minutes of our meeting prepared as soon as possible so that our researcher is able to rewrite the draft report.
Consider the long-term review of existing programs. I'm not sure why this needs to be in here, because I think committees already explicitly have that authority, don't they?
Mr. Williams: Madam Chair, I would suggest some changes. First of all, change the words ``on broad areas of program spending'' to ``statutory program spending''.
As we know, the estimates process in my opinion is seriously flawed. There's the fact that we only look at the estimates, which we know only accounts for 30% of government spending. Statutory spending is totally with the purview of the estimates. By and large, at this point in time, it is within the purview of committees to deal with it in detail.
The Chair: I believe you have been anticipated by your research staff. Maybe he will explain to you what he is doing here.
Mr. O'Neal: First of all, with reference to statutory expenditure programs, Mr. Williams is quite right that this touches on that. But it's dealt with in greater detail further on in the list of recommendations. This recommendation ties in with that, so I think it makes a nice shift.
In terms of committees already having the ability to do this, there are essentially two references in the Standing Orders. The first one was inserted just recently, in February 1994, I think.
.1055
This is a tie-in with the plans documents. It's Standing Order 81(7). It gives committees the ability to consider and report on expenditure plans and priorities in future fiscal years. So we're talking about plans and priorities in the future. Sorry to repeat that, but this is what it does.
There's also Standing Order 108(2)(c), which relates to the mandate of committees generally. It gives them the ability to consider and report on the immediate, medium- and long-term expenditure plans and the effectiveness of its implementation by the department.
This makes a specific recommendation as to program spending. It does not make an unnecessary reference to what's going to happen in the future; it's talking about program spending as it is occurring in the present. So in a sense, that would cover statutory expenditures that are occurring now rather than the ones that are planned for the future.
The Chair: But then we also have a specific recommendation later on about statutory spending.
Mr. Williams: So what you're telling me is that the long-range review of existing programs by and large is a reiteration of Standing Order 108(2)(c), which we have already dealt with. This is where we're looking further ahead as to what the departments are intending to do. This is the vision of a department. You're talking here about a more narrow definition of the broad-range analysis of Standing Order 108(2)(c) above.
Mr. O'Neal: Yes. We're talking about what's occurring right now, not just what will occur a year, two years or three years from now.
Mr. Williams: Standing Order 108(2)(c) is the ability to choose from among alternative plans and priorities as forward-looking as to where this department is going within the entire department. This is not looking at any specific program, but at the department as a whole.
Standing Order 108(2)(e) is the long-range review of existing programs. Again, this is a review of the programs offered by that particular department at this particular time, again without focusing on a program evaluation of any particular program, which you're telling me is covered later in the report.
So on that basis I'll say fine, Madam Chair. I'll reserve the right to come back if I don't find it later.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments on that? So that's generally okay.
As for reporting deadlines for departmental plans documents, do you want to explain what this is? Again, Mr. Laurin, that will be spelled out a little more.
Mr. O'Neal: Again, changes made to the Standing Orders in February 1994 facilitated the examination of plans documents by committees. It says in Standing Order 81(8) that the committees can report on plans documents up to and including the last normal sitting day in June.
A number of witnesses said that this deadline was unworkable and that it ought to be shifted forward until the autumn in order to give committees more opportunity to look at those documents.
Now, that proposal runs up against two problems.
The Chair: Reality.
Mr. O'Neal: Both of them are connected solidly to reality.
The first thing is that it's unlikely for committees that are going to meet over the summer. So giving them further time during the summer to consider the outlook documents may not accomplish very much.
The second thing that needs to be considered is that, as I understand it, cabinet starts to meet on estimates and future expenditures toward the end of June. If committee reports on departmental plans are to have any kind of influence or impact, then ideally - perhaps this is just my opinion - they should be available for cabinet to review when it sits down in June. If they were submitted at some time in the autumn, it might be just too late to have any kind of meaningful impact at all.
.1100
Therefore, this section of the report looks at the recommendations that were made by witnesses and then explains reasons why the current reporting date shouldn't be changed, keeping it as is instead.
The Chair: What's the next one?
Mr. O'Neal: If I may, Madam Chair, it's the same thing for reporting deadlines for the estimates. The suggestion was for the main estimates to be reported much later.
Again, I think it's reasonable for the government to want to have reports on the estimates back from committee in enough time to move the main estimates through the House. So this has not been changed.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Say we adopt item f with no change. Are they appearing in the report as having no change?
Mr. O'Neal: They're explained in the report as having no change, yes.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Okay. If that is the case, then they really do not fall under new tools.
Mr. O'Neal: Quite correct.
Mr. Pagtakhan: You may want to rearrange some of the subheadings. I detected something that's not so clear. Under new tools, as for items (a), (b), (c) and (d), some of them are not really tools in themselves. I wonder whether if you have a continuation of your first one, which is new structures, items (a), (b) and (c), then item d, which is the reallocation of plans, and item e, which is plans and performance separately, you then do not need a subcategory of new tools. We can avoid new tools and instead have new ideas.
Mr. O'Neal: Okay.
Mr. Pagtakhan: It's just a thought.
Mr. O'Neal: If I may, Madam Chair, the reason the reporting deadlines were covered off under new tools is that if a subcommittee decides to
[Inaudible - Editor] then they would become new tools. I also felt that because these were recommendations from certain witnesses, they ought to be in the report, so that's why I put them there and dealt with them.
The Chair: This may be legitimate too. In a sense, the plans documents and the performance documents are new tools, and we're commenting here on their use.
As for new incentives, clearly what we're trying to do with this series of recommendations is give incentives for committees to provide some priority to the consideration of the estimates.
Mr. Pagtakhan: A lot of this obviously concerns recommendations that deal with management, as far as I can see. Now, I'm no manager at all. Would it serve any useful purpose to invite a sort of manager from the government department? In other words, we could test one criterion, which is whether our recommendations - this is not to pass judgment on the essence of our recommendations - are doable and realistic in terms of timeframe, load, etc. One of the things I remember is that if your goal is not realistic and attainable, you have failed in your setting of goals.
If our goals are attainable, then we will have assurance. At the same time, we would not have that potential excuse of this not being doable, because we checked it with the expert.
I'll just throw it out as an idea. It's for future consideration.
The Chair: I have not brought forward recommendations to you without testing whether they're practical and workable. It doesn't mean they're acceptable necessarily, but they are workable.
Mr. Pagtakhan: But are they attainable?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Pagtakhan: It just occurred to me. There are many things we may not know about the workings of departments. We may have overlooked things, such as the deadline and the timeframe for the votes, etc.
We detected that. We cannot put a deadline on the report of 150 days, because the timeframe involved in the vote on the estimates is so short.
.1105
If there is anything there.... It's sort of an assurance to me that, yes, in the eyes of the experts, the things we have proposed are doable and attainable.
The Chair: I think Brian's been pretty rigid about going through the material from our witnesses, including Treasury Board. We also had committee chairs before us at one point in time.
Frankly, Rey, I think the bigger challenge for us is not whether it's doable but whether parliamentarians would consider it worthwhile doing. I still think that's our biggest challenge.
Mr. Pagtakhan: One is not exclusive of the other.
The Chair: Yes, I know.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I don't understand very well why this suggestion was included in paragraph (d). It states:
- Suggestion: that Members make use of the authority that already exists to submit minority
reports...
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, this is skipping ahead a little bit in the report, but essentially this isn't to say that the power should be maintained, although I suppose indirectly it does advocate that it be maintained. It's just to bring to the attention of members that, as in any report, a report on the estimates does allow for the possibility of a minority report, and this power exists. If the members are aware of it, possibly they may wish to make use of it.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Is this under ``New Approaches''?
Mr. O'Neal: No, ``New Approaches'' talks generally about new attitudes or the more effective use of already existing authorities and powers. This authority to issue a minority report is an authority that already exists. Therefore, what is here is just a suggestion that if committee members feel it's appropriate, they should make use of that particular ability.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I don't understand why this is mentioned. Is this authority being threatened? Has anyone suggested that this authority of members to submit minority reports should disappear? If the authority is not under threat, why would we mention it here?
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: First of all, the ultimate decision as to whether or not it goes into the report rests with the subcommittee.
Second, it was put there because this section in general deals with authorities that already exist. It's not that they're threatened; it's that occasionally, or often, they are not made full use of by members of Parliament. Therefore, this constitutes only a suggestion by the subcommittee that members use an authority or an ability that already exists.
So it doesn't have to go into the report. It can come out. It's entirely your decision.
The Chair: It's more a reminder then, Brian, that this authority does exist for members of Parliament and they should be reminded that it is there to use.
Mr. O'Neal: The other sections there have to do with things like linking policy to expenditure, knowing and applying the rules. Those are all -
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I would suggest that we start by changing the wording to convey the idea more fully. I would suggest that we say rather "that Members make more use of the authority that already exists to submit minority reports".
.1110
[English]
The Chair: John, I think we've skipped a whole section here. I would like to come back and go through the section on new incentives if we could.
Mr. Williams: I thought we were still on the new incentives, Madam Chair.
The Chair: I thought we were.
Mr. Williams: If I may continue -
[Translation]
An Honourable Member: Excuse me.
[English]
Mr. Williams: On 3(a), ``Consideration of Committee Reports on Departmental Plans'', I am concerned that we are just creating layer upon layer here.
First of all, in the first paragraph you are saying that the Standing Committee on Finance will take into consideration the reports of the standing committees on departmental plans. In the second paragraph you're saying that the Standing Committee on Finance will hear from the chairs of these particular standing committees. Then the Minister of Finance, in his budget, will respond to the departmental plans contained in these documents. And when the performance documents are brought down, they again respond to the committees and even to the committee-specific issues raised by individual members.
I think we have lost sight of the fact that we are recommending a specific standing committee on the estimates. I would hope this standing committee on the estimates would pull together ideas for the estimates and long-term plans of various committees. Yes, that standing committee should make a full submission to the Standing Committee on Finance in the pre-budget consultations via that committee. The standing committee on estimates should certainly have the Minister of Finance before that committee to talk about long-range issues.
But these four paragraphs laid out under 3(a) seem to be creating a fairly significant amount of duplication and paper that I'm not sure is going to lead to decision-making. That's the concern I have: that we turn the wheels without really saying it is going to accomplish something.
The Chair: Can I try to put this in a context from my own point of view? The biggest problem we have discovered in all our discussions is the willingness of members of Parliament to spend any time on the estimates. That is the main function of Parliament: telling the government how much money it can raise and how it can spend it. The next couple of sections sort of focus on how we can make this important for members of Parliament.
Now, the finance committee is going out across the country, inviting all kinds of organizations to consult with it so that it can prepare a report for Parliament on the government and what should be in the budget. This says that the first people you should consult are parliamentarians, particularly the standing committees that in many cases will have looked at the estimates, will have looked at the plans, will have written policy reports throughout the year, and will have some ideas about what they think should be in the next year's budget.
We have heard that members of Parliament don't get any public exposure for the work they do on estimates. If the committee chairs are invited in front of the finance committee for their pre-budget consultation, that starts addressing that.
With the first budget we did in this government, the Minister of Finance held public consultations across the country. One of the documents he tabled with the budget - at my recommendation, and I was pleased to see him do it - was a response to what he had heard in his consultation. It seems to me only reasonable that the minister should respond to what parliamentarians have told him. Either he has accepted their advice on this, or he hasn't and here's why.
The third thing is to make departments aware that a committee report, whether it is on a policy area or on the plans, performance and estimates, is not something to be ignored. When they bring forward the estimates, they should be able to say, we're aware of the committee's report on the need for new priorities in overseas development aid and here's how we're responding to it, or, we noted your recommendation on such and such for this year's budget and here's how we're responding to it.
.1115
In my view, that package is required to give some meaning and some public profile to the work that we hope committees will do on this. Do you disagree with me?
Mr. Williams: No, I agree entirely with you, Madam Chair, but I'd like to see the new standing committee on the estimates that we are talking about be given some credence for the work they're going to do.
I certainly agree that the chairs of the various committees should appear before the finance committee and bring along the reports they have made in the past. They should table them on that particular day and say, this is what we think is important, this is what we think is irrelevant, this is where we think government should be going in the appropriate departments. The finance committee should take that into consideration in its report to the Minister of Finance. Most definitely, if anyone is to be heard, surely it is the parliamentarians. I fully agree with that.
I agree with the concept, but the way this is written, I'm not sure it's going to give the priority to the committee chairs to make these presentations. The new committee on estimates should perhaps be given their own committee meeting with the finance committee, with them and them alone, because I think they would have a lot to say as an individual committee, compared to other committees that are more into policy rather than numbers all the year round. The estimates committee would be into numbers versus policy all the year round, so they should certainly have at least one meeting with Finance by themselves.
The Chair: They would be one of the standing committees, yes.
Mr. Williams: But they should meet with the standing committee by themselves so they can really hear what the people who have been crunching numbers all year and who have been looking at departmental programs from a cost benefit analysis have to say. They should have the opportunity to be heard loud and clear.
I agree with the rest of your assessment, but I'm concerned that it will become a process that turns the wheels rather than leading to decision-making. That's the apprehension I have.
The Chair: Without wanting to dominate the discussion here, I guess my response would be that when you force people to respond, you force them to think about what's been said to them.
Mr. Williams: Well, I hope the second one falls into place.
The Chair: Do you want to add something specifically about the estimates committee, John?
Mr. Williams: Well, let's just put in paragraph two that the Standing Committee on Finance give priority to inviting the chairs of the standing committees, especially the new committee on the estimates. Let's just make a reference in there.
As Brian has indicated, this is not a revamping of the rules; it's just highlighting the opportunities that currently exist and in many cases are not being taken advantage of.
The Chair: I'd like to suggest one change under the fourth paragraph in 3(a). I would like them to refer to committee reports generally, not just the ones on the plans and performance documents. If a committee has done a major report on a certain policy area, I think they should also comment on that when they're reporting to the committee. They should say something such as, we're aware of your report on such and such and here's how we're responding.
A report that a committee has spent six months on can be even more important than its report on the plans and performance documents, for instance, in terms of policy direction and spending priorities.
.1120
Is there any objection to taking that out?
Is there anything else on that? Any problems with that?
Mr. Pagtakhan: The higher profile for review of the estimates - I do not like the public to think that members of Parliament only work when there is television. Perhaps we can put some language there like ``for greater public value'' or something along that line. I think some of us know what it means, but for us to highlight that we only work for television I think will have a negative impact on us. If somehow we can reword it....
The Chair: All right.
Mr. O'Neal: If this is any reassurance, I've drafted it in the suggested text of the report from an information point of view for members of the public, that is, they need to know more about what's surrounding the estimates process. Having a televised hearing of the committee is one way to accomplish that.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Exactly, along that line.
The Chair: Okay.
Next is 3(b). This may be a little more controversial.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I don't understand what this section means, specifically the second paragraph, which reads as follows:
- That between 31 March and 31 May of each calendar year, the House only receive reports on
legislation, from standing committees until such time as their reports on the Estimates have
been tabled.
Mr. O'Neal: Even in English, it is a little awkward.
[English]
The idea is that committees wouldn't be able to report to the House until they had reported back on the estimates during that period, with the exception of reports on legislation that might have been before them at the time. In other words, they have to drop everything. If they want they can attempt to report back to the House on some other issue, but the report simply could not be tabled until they had reported on their estimates.
The chair says this one is a bit controversial. It is in the sense that committees are considered to be masters or mistresses of their own destiny, and this is something that may not sit well with them.
The Chair: We had suggestions of different ways of providing incentives to committees to actually report on their estimates. We all know that if you say ``shall', you'll get token reports. We have reported on our estimates - a one-paragraph report. We might want to talk about these dates, but the estimates have to be tabled by March 1, and they are to be reported by May 31. That's a three-month span. It seemed to me that rather than setting aside two or three weeks in which all committees would deal with the estimates, because they would spend whatever time they wanted to on them anyway, this might be more flexible. It would tell the committees that they have one month after the estimates are tabled - and everybody knows a year ahead of time when they're going to be tabled - to wrap up whatever other reports or projects they may be working on, and then we would like them to turn their attention to the estimates.
.1125
You have two full months there to report - you can do it in two weeks or a month - to provide a real incentive. Parliament won't receive a report on anything else and won't approve any travel for your committee until you've reported on the estimates. We might want to narrow this down. We might want to say starting April 15 until May 31.
As I say, I'm not sure this will be acceptable to our colleagues who chair committees or sit on committees. They might feel it's a little draconian, but either we're serious about spending $160 billion a year or we're not serious.
Mr. Pagtakhan: First, committees are masters of themselves, but they are still subject to the rules. If the rules are amended, they continue to be masters of themselves within the rules. So I think the principle of being masters of themselves is only within the context of the rules. The House can deem to amend the rules for the Standing Orders. So I think the principle is okay. We can handle that.
The flexibility of the committee within the rules to exercise that master authority perhaps we should retain. There are committees, as you said, that may issue a one-statement report. That's a possibility, but this is the information age, and if a committee reports one statement on an obviously important issue, I think the credibility of both the government members of that committee and the opposition members in doing their homework would be tested in the eyes of the public. There is an accountability to the public that happens all the time. So I think we should not lose sight of the fact that the performance of the committee can also be judged by the public at large.
I like the recommendation of ``shall report'', because instead of silently invoking the thing or ``may report'' and therefore not issuing that one statement and therefore they do not know.... They may think ``may report'' means it is not an obligation. If it says you ``shall report'', there is an incentive to produce an excellent report.
Let's face it, by the time you become a member of Parliament, I think we have to assume that in each one of us there is an inherent desire to leave a legacy. It is part of human nature. That legacy means that you do your homework.
From time to time there are witnesses - so be it. That's why there's such a thing as a reporting time every now and then. I favour ``shall report'' and I favour ``shall report by no later than May 31'', if that is the case. How they do their work is still left to that flexibility. They can work evenings and can still travel if they like.
There can be many things we may not foresee - an urgent thing the committee may deem wise to have and to hold travel. So be it. But equally there is an obligation that you ought to know because it is in the Standing Orders, so you rearrange your time. I will allow the flexibility and accountability all put together there.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I don't understand why we are setting a period of time for doing this work - from March 31 to May 31. The proposed wording seems to suggest that a standing committee may table a report on legislation on June 1, for example, even if it has not yet tabled its report on the Estimates. The standing committee could not table a report on legislation between March 31 and May 31 if it has not prepared its report on the Estimates. However, it could table reports on legislation on June 1 or February 28. It is just during those two months that the committee could not table reports on legislation if it has not already tabled its report on the Estimates. I don't understand the idea here.
.1130
If we want to force any committees to table their reports on the Estimates by a certain deadline, we should mention just one date. We could say that standing committees will not be able to table any reports on legislation if they have not first tabled their report on the Estimates by May 31. But let's not provide for a period of time between two dates. I don't think that makes any sense, unless I have misunderstood the text.
[English]
The Chair: I'm not sure I understand your objection.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I understood the second paragraph to require standing committees to table their reports on the Estimates by a certain date. From what I read here, we want to require them to table their reports, and we state that they will not be able to table other reports between March 31 and May 31. However, they could do so at any other time.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Let me give you an example. Say I want to table a report. I've studied a bill, but I have not yet tabled my report on the Estimates. I can therefore wait until June 1 and table my report on other legislation, even though I have not yet tabled my report on the Estimates.
The Chair: No.
Mr. Laurin: Well, that's what I read here.
The Chair: Reports on legislation are not included. Committees can table reports on legislation whenever they like.
Mr. Laurin: What does this mean, then? Does it mean that between March 31 and May 31 committees can table only their reports on the Estimates?
[English]
The Chair: Except for legislation.
Mr. O'Neal: I think I understand Mr. Laurin's point. He is saying it may not necessarily oblige committees to report on the estimates, because they could just choose to not report and then after the 31st they could do what they like. But it's obvious that there are limits to these things and you can only go so far. The alternative is to impose that kind of restriction for the entire year. Personally, I think that would be very tough to do. Maybe a committee that really objected to this particular proposal would simply refuse to ever report, and then you'd have kind of a stand-off.
While the estimates have been presented, while they're in front of the committees - this covers that period. It gives them a little bit of time after the estimates have been tabled to conclude other business they may have been working on. As the members have pointed out, a committee could get around this by simply tabling a pro forma report saying we think these are fine, and that's it. But there are limitations. There's only so far you can go with this.
As background information, and this is something I mentioned in the report to give you an idea of the committee record so far, in 1992-93 and 1993-94 committees held 59 meetings, and 48.8 - I don't know where the 0.8 comes from - were on the estimates. In each one of those years, one report was tabled by committees, and that represents less than 1% of the reports that were issued during the period. So these are tough recommendations intended to address that particular shortcoming.
Committees may do not a great job of living up to what's being asked of them here, but at that point it becomes their responsibility and they have to accept the consequences.
The Chair: Dr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Pagtakhan: The statistics do not reflect the fault of the committee. The committee only exercised its judgment that it may or may not report, so in a sense it is not an indictment of the committee. It is perhaps an indictment of the interest of the committee, but in a sense it is a creation of the Standing Orders. It may report, and if we choose the weakest side, it didn't report, so in a sense....
.1135
The Chair: Yes. And you're letting them off the hook by saying that if they haven't reported, they shall be deemed to have reported.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Yes, that is why when we now go one step further and say we require them to report by this date, because we feel that beyond this date any report they do is moot.... I would avoid any kind of penalties. Maybe the greater penalty is the performance in the eyes of the public with respect to the quality of the report or the failure to submit a report.
Do it that way. In that case, you are not in a bind. You may have to travel because it's very critical to travel. As I said, you can do your estimates study in the evening, so I would -
The Chair: You can do your estimates study in a one-week period and still.... It just means you have to plan other things in that period around it.
Mr. Pagtakhan: I would remove any penalty. I would just demand a report by this date. That's my view.
The Chair: John.
Mr. Williams: I like the idea. I will agree that we should change the reporting from ``may'' to ``shall'', and, like Mr. Pagtakhan, I don't like the penalties. In my opinion, they're rather petty.
In this particular report, we are trying to change the environment within which the committees deal with the estimates. If we take a look at the estimates process so far, first of all, they're given the estimates with no framework within which to make decisions and no information as to where the department is going or where it is coming from. All they have is a bunch of numbers with no real assessment of what they're even trying to achieve with these numbers. That's as the estimates have been presented so far.
That's changing. They're now going to be given appropriate business line estimates within the context of future years and also within the context of the performance reports, on the same basis. Now they're going to have some real information.
They're also going to be given the evaluation of long-term plans for departments. We're talking about program evaluation of statutory programs. There are a lot more opportunities now for committees to seize - with real information - in order to have intelligent discussions and make intelligent decisions, and therefore, the environment within which committees look at the estimates will be changing quite dramatically.
Therefore, I would leave it at changing the standing order only, leaving the penalties off completely, in anticipation that they will now find the desire and the incentive to examine the estimates and report back to the House. Because why would they bother reporting back when they know that the exercise is in vain, as it has been for the last 25 years?
Let's give the process the opportunity to work. And remember, we are saying that in the estimates committee that we're proposing be created, they would be reviewing this type of thing on an ongoing basis. So if they were to find that other committees were not taking advantage of their opportunities, then perhaps they'd let them come back with recommendations at a later date.
The Chair: Okay. May I suggest, then, that what you're saying is this: change the Standing Orders to make it ``shall''and leave out everything else. We might want a discussion of suggestions that were brought in front of us, such as, for instance, setting aside a certain period of time for consideration of the estimates or other things like this. We will make the point that we have decided, much along the lines you just mentioned, not to recommend any such measures, saying that we are relying on the committees to exercise their responsibilities and that we are relying on the new estimates committee to report annually on any further changes.
Mr. Williams: And perhaps to prod them along.
The Chair: Right. We'll say, here's what we almost did to you guys, but we didn't because you're going to do the work.
Mr. Pagtakhan: The time line...they shall report no later than May 31.
.1140
Mr. Williams: Yes, that remains the same. The Standing Orders say that if a committee does not report by May 31, it is deemed to have reported. So now we're saying that they shall report by May 31, so I presume the ``deemed'' will come out.
The Chair: Let me be clear. Do we want to then take out the ``shall be deemed to have reported'' so that it will be known that some committees haven't reported and others have?
Mr. Pagtakhan: Of course.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Somebody imaginative in the future could stand up in the House on a question of privilege and say he is interested in the report from this committee. It has not reported to the House. It is mandated by the Standing Order. He cannot hear its report. He has to vote on this budget. An imaginative guy could stand up on a question of privilege. Then it would be an interesting debate.
Mr. Williams: I'm not sure the Speaker would grant privilege, but certainly a point of order.
The Chair: It might be worth pointing out what the Standing Order says: ``Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported''. So what we do is take out ``or shall be deemed to have reported''.
Mr. Pagtakhan: To make it such that at the end of the day the Standing Order, in essence, will say ``shall report'' by this date.
The Chair: That's right.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin.
Mr. Laurin: If we use your wording, I think we change the meaning completely. Previously, the idea was to require that standing committees table a report, but you have just suggested that we should say that committees shall be deemed to have reported on May 31. If they don't table a report, they don't table a report. Is the objective to require them to report or not?
[English]
The Chair: I'm not changing it, because I'm just reading the Standing Order. It does say ``Each...committee...shall report''. Then it says ``or shall be deemed to have reported''. So we take out ``or shall be deemed to have reported''. Okay? Then we've done what we want to do. We'll take up the rest of it, and we'll supplement our discussion in the report.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: What are we going to do with the proposed reading we have here?
The Chair: We will eliminate these two paragraphs, but we will mention in the report that we discussed other options. We will report that we discussed the issue, but we will not make any recommendation.
Mr. Laurin: All right.
[English]
The Chair: For everybody's information, we're going to go until noon. We'll break right at noon and come back on Thursday morning.
Again, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d), under number 4, are just comments on the opportunities that are there and are encouraging members of Parliament to make better use of them. So they're not recommendations as such.
Mr. O'Neal: If I may interject, Madam Chair, committee members may wish to take a closer look at this when it's provided to them in the form of text so that they can read through this. Essentially there are no recommendations here. They're just suggestions.
Mr. Pagtakhan: There's one point I'd like to make. Perhaps a recommendation may be forthcoming, and that is that the chair of the committee shall be mandated to call to the attention of the membership these opportunities. How many of us know the opportunities exist? We keep changing people after every election. But if in fact in our guidelines or rules one of the leadership functions of the chair of the committee is to inform everyone of these, the clerk of the committee could advise the committee chair that they have an obligation to advise of these, at the first meeting or whenever, so that at least there is an awareness and no excuse. Is that okay?
The Chair: It would more naturally fall under paragraph (c), I think, Rey. We have something further also on developing information on the estimates and supply process. That's in 5(c).
Mr. Pagtakhan: It's somewhere there?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Okay. I must have read it before. There's nothing original.
The Chair: But it doesn't refer specifically to the role of committee chairs.
.1145
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, as an alternative, may I suggest that we recommend that the committees be given an awareness of these opportunities in the documents provided to them at the beginning of each new Parliament. This in part would be building on an already existing tradition. I know that the committees branch and the Library of Parliament research branch already provide documentation to committees at the beginning of their work explaining a little about committee history and the roles and responsibilities of committees and their various members. This kind of information could easily be included in that kind of documentation, and maybe the committee would like to recommend that it be so included.
The Chair: As part of the briefing for committees.
Mr. O'Neal: Yes.
The Chair: We'll leave it to you to do some wording on that.
Mr. O'Neal: I can work out some wording.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Madam Chair, it becomes so much a function of the initiative of members to read the briefing books, etc. At the same time, the chair could give a friendly reminder. Some members will say that you don't have to tell them, that they know their obligations, so chairs are sometimes in a quandary as to whether they should remind their members. If there is an obligation on the part of the chair to do that, and the chair has the leadership obligation to do it, the members will then be obliged not to say that the chair is doing this for nothing.
It could be left to the discretion of the chair to do it in 30 minutes, 15 minutes or 10 minutes, and say, you have the briefing book here and I'd just like to call your attention to the following headings. So at least there is a formality. It's not just us getting the books, going to our offices and leaving them there. I had fallen prey to that, although I tried to cram some of my readings. I had fallen into that and I'm sure other colleagues have fallen into that weakness of getting the briefing book and not reading it through.
The Chair: It would be a bit of a departure, I think, to lay out how committee chairs have to deal with their committees.
Mr. Pagtakhan: It would be at the discretion of the chair.
The Chair: Do you have any suggestions, Brian?
Mr. O'Neal: I know there are briefings for committee chairs, especially new chairs, to inform them about the roles, responsibilities and past activities of the committee they're going to be chairing. I'm wondering if there should be an extension of that in the form of a briefing for the committee as a whole. That's a consideration. Rather than placing all of it on the shoulders of the committee chair, who may be new to her or his job, you could get committee staff to do the briefing and explain to the committee the options available to them.
The Chair: As you know, you pay more attention to information if you get it at a time when it's relevant. If you get a briefing as a new member of Parliament, if it's your first day on the committee and you're getting a briefing, you're not going to retain it. The time you really need it is when you sit down with your first estimates.
Let's go on to 5(a), because it may be a little more contentious.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Excuse me. In section 4(e), under the heading "Suggestion", it states that a list of examples is included. Where is that list?
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I should have included the list of examples. If you like, I can read them to you. They're not that lengthy.
The Chair: Do you want to read them now?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: No, that will not be necessary. Could we have a copy of it for the meeting on Thursday?
Mr. O'Neal: I think so. The list has been translated and is available in French.
Mr. Laurin: I would like one please.
The Chair: Fine.
[English]
Mr. Pagtakhan: Madam Chair, by this time should there not have been a best-known method to examine estimates to be used by all committees? You say the committee should consider using other methods. In a sense what we would like here is that there be a guideline already for examining estimates, which ought to be provided to all committees. How they would deviate from that from time to time would be left up to their imagination.
.1150
Mr. O'Neal: If I may, Madam Chair, I think part of that is covered off in the section that follows, which deals with information on the estimates and supply processes, where we're talking about better information, better documentation.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Okay, somewhere later on.
Mr. O'Neal: Yes.
The Chair: Also - it might be worth making reference to it again - we have given the estimates committee we're proposing the mandate to annually review the process and report on it.
As far as enhanced staffing goes, anything that's going to spend more money obviously is going to create discussion.
Mr. Williams: I think, Madam Chair, that suggestion number 5 would certainly be a strong recommendation of mine - that while a committee is examining the estimates, perhaps a senior departmental official could be seconded to the committee to help it through the estimates process, in understanding the information and obtaining additional information from the department, if the committee so required. Rather than setting up a new line of House of Commons staff to support committees, I think the senior departmental officials are the ones who are obviously most familiar with the numbers. Numbers 1 to 4 are appropriate, but number 5 seems to stand out as the one I would give greatest support to.
The Chair: There was one concern that was raised with that - and by the way, that is something that both departments seem to be a bit enthusiastic about and the Library of Parliament staff seem to be quite interested in. I don't want to speak for them, but that's the kind of thing that happens within government all the time - being seconded to different spots so you can learn different aspects. Departmental staff on the rise always spend some time in the minister's office, but virtually never any time with Parliament. We need a chance to indoctrinate them in the value of Parliament.
There was some concern about a conflict - not wanting somebody from the environment department assigned to the environment committee, because their job isn't to promote the interests of their department but to serve the interests of the committee. That's why there is the proviso there that they be assigned to a committee other than the one for their own department.
Rey.
Mr. Pagtakhan: While it will solve the problem, it could create an onus on a person in the sense that he or she would then be passing judgment on the performance of another department: ``Wait for your turn, I will do the same.''
There is a beautiful institution, the Library of Parliament - is there expertise in the departmental staff within the Library of Parliament to deal primarily with estimates, in the context of what they're thinking of today?
Mr. O'Neal: If I may make a comment, Madam Chair, a number of weeks ago I got together with some of my colleagues in a consultation exercise with Treasury Board Secretariat regarding the performance documents that have been produced on a pilot project basis. I must say I was very impressed with the depth of knowledge my colleagues had developed of the individual departments that their committees are responsible for. They seem to know quite a bit; they have a lot of institutional knowledge.
I know a lot of them would welcome an opportunity to go on secondment to the departments that they're responsible for to find out a little bit more about the inner workings of those departments, especially when it concerns the preparation of things such as performance documents or the estimates. I think they could help the departments become more familiar with the concerns and expectations of members of Parliament, because often departments aren't aware of those interests.
.1155
On the other hand, I tend to share some of the chair's reservations about a reverse flow, people from departments coming to work for the committees that are responsible for overseeing them, in part because it might in some respects constitute a conflict of interest. Sometimes during an examination of the estimates, as you are aware, committees will ask departments very tough questions that the departments are not always comfortable with. I think one would want to preserve that ability on the part of committees if possible.
Mr. Pagtakhan: I do not like a person from the same department we are examining; I do not like that to happen. But I do not like it to happen the other way around either, from other departments, because if you do it to my department, tomorrow I shall do it to your department - a kind of a reversed...whatever phrase we can use. I would rather it be from the Library of Parliament, which has been known for its independence. I don't know; I'm just throwing this out for discussion.
An hon. member: There is more objectivity. That's really what you're trying to get at.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Yes, exactly.
The Chair: You wouldn't have departmental staff instead of your independent research staff, but perhaps as a supplement.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Yes, but first let's define which is the desirable approach to take, considering the consensus we have heard, to solve the problem of being from within the same department we are about to examine. We heard the idea of seconding from another department. I also have a concern about that. It may be the lesser of two evils, but if we can solve that other concern as well by building an expertise within the Library of Parliament...unless my concern is of little consequence. Then that's fine.
The Chair: Can I suggest that we break here?
Mr. Pagtakhan: Before we lose this idea -
Mr. Williams: One point I would like to make, Madam Chair - and I may have a different vision from the other members of the committee - is that if we are to have extra staff to help the committee with the estimates process, if that staff is seconded from a department, they would not appear before the committee as a witness. They would merely assist the library staff over a peak period of a high volume of work to answer off-the-record queries by individual members of the committee, to help their understanding of the whole department, to provide in essence private background briefings of the department, and to give the committee members a full understanding so that when they do appear when the committee is meeting, the members of Parliament will be much more effective in their questioning and their understanding of the estimates.
I appreciate your concern about conflict, but if they are in essence off the record, as an assistance to the library staff to provide off-the-record briefings to individual members, I don't see that the conflict is as great as their ability to really educate the members of Parliament in what is going on in the department.
It may require a little more thinking, but that's how I envisage this additional staff. I wouldn't want the library to gear up and hire people. Perhaps the Treasury Board has sufficient staff within it who are individually focused on the departments as they bring the estimates together. Perhaps the Treasury Board could second the staff rather than going to individual departments. But let's explore it further.
The Chair: Yes, let's explore. We don't have to be as careful about this, because we are suggesting that the Board of Internal Economy, in conjunction with the liaison committee, look at these possibilities.
.1200
Mr. Pagtakhan: If we can safeguard, in the proposal, my concern of putting an onus on this resource person - that's my concern - so that we will be able to maximize the objectivity and expertise from that person, I would have no problems, that is, if it can save costs.
The Chair: Can I just deal with some administrative business? Because there was no procedure and House affairs meeting last week, we weren't able to report to the committee and ask for an extension of our deadline. Do you want to suggest when that deadline should be? Do you want to leave it to me and the researcher to work out what's possible and to report to the procedure and House affairs committee on Thursday? Is everybody here available for the Thursday morning meeting? That doesn't necessarily include you, John.
Mr. Williams: Let the record note, Madam Chairman, that the Peace Tower bells are ringing noon for the first time in a long time. It's great.
The Chair: Thank you. I hadn't noticed.
You have a briefing in the PMO until 9:30 a.m.. Let's say we'll start at 9:30 a.m., then. I will try to make sure that our meeting is in 112 North so we can go straight from this into procedure and House affairs, for those of us who are also on that committee.
[Translation]
Thursday and Tuesday of next week as well, if necessary.
Mr. Laurin: Yes, but we had planned to sit here on Thursday.
The Chair: We will try to make this change.
The meeting is adjourned.