Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 13, 1997

.0939

[English]

The Chair: I call the meeting to order.

This is a meeting of the subcommittee on supply of the procedure and house affairs committee.

Before we go any further, I'd like to hear briefly from both Mr. Laurin and Dr. Pagtakhan on where their discussion with the clerk ended up on Tuesday. Or was it an interesting discussion with no conclusions?

Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): It was, in two words, lively debate.

.0940

The Chair: Did you come to any conclusions?

Mr. Pagtakhan: No. We did not attempt to.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin (Joliette): You could perhaps get an account of it from the Clerk.

[English]

The Chair: Brian, from your notes, do you want to summarize where you think we're at?

Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): Since the subcommittee has been meeting, since the resumption of Parliament at the beginning of this month, essentially we've been talking about the confidence issue, procedure on the last allotted day, and opportunities to reduce or reallocate funds on the last allotted day.

We haven't reached any conclusions on any of those issues, but if I may suggest something, what I'd like to do is draw up a very short paper of maybe a page or two that summarizes the options presented to the subcommittee by Mr. Marleau during his appearance here. I could provide that summary to you, in both official languages, next week so you could take a look at it and maybe make some decisions on the basis of that.

With regard to the report itself, the committee hasn't really begun any examination of that report and it has not determined how it will proceed. I would just add that the recommendations contained in the report are based on requests and suggestions made by the subcommittee in December. I also would ask that I be given an opportunity to suggest some changes to some of the recommendations based on Mr. Marleau's testimony.

If I may make a further suggestion, since Mr. Williams isn't here today, you may want to look at the first sections of the report, which I suggest are non-controversial; they have to do with background and history. You also may want to look at the section that deals with the creation of an estimates committee, about which I think there was a fair amount of consensus during our last meetings.

The Chair: I would like to hear from Mr. Laurin and Dr. Pagtakhan, but my bottom-line comment is that Mr. Marleau reminded us of what has become our main purpose here, and that's to give greater reason to members of Parliament to pay attention to the estimates. It might be helpful to bear that purpose in mind as we go through the rest of the report.

I suggest as an alternative that we start on page 30, with the section that has the recommendations. Once we've agreed on those, we'll be in a better position to see whether the background leading up to page 30 adequately reflects the concerns we address in the recommendations and the background. I would just feel we were making some progress today if we started on page 30 and got through some of the recommendations and the rationale for them.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Does the first recommendation appear on page 37?

The Chair: Hold on a minute. I'm looking at the French version here.

Mr. Laurin: The first recommendation appears on page 37, at the end of paragraph 105.

The Chair: The wording of the recommendations begins on page 32.

Mr. Laurin: Madam Chair, I don't know how you plan to proceed, but do you want us to approve the preamble for each recommendation as well? We could perhaps read each recommendation, and see which of them we already agree on; so the only issues we would consider in-depth would be the ones we do not agree on.

.0945

We could then leave those to another meeting. I suggest we proceed to a complete review of the recommendations already before us, because I hope that you would like us to finish in one day.

So, as you were suggesting at the beginning of the meeting, we could start by looking at the wording of the recommendations, and determining whether there is a consensus. Recommendations on which there is no consensus could be set aside and considered during another meeting. We will have to finish dealing with them at some point.

[English]

The Chair: Does everybody else agree with that? We'll do the recommendations first, focus on those and see if we agree on them.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Is it 105? What number?

The Chair: The first one is 105, yes.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Okay. Following 106, just because there is this reservation on the background, are we satisfied that we have addressed that reservation on the question, Brian?

Mr. O'Neal: Dr. Pagtakhan, I think you will see that the recommendations following that paragraph address that reservation.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Okay, good. Thank you.

Mr. O'Neal: Or they attempt to.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Okay. I agree with that in principle.

The Chair: Can we focus on the recommendations then, make sure we're satisfied with the wording, and then deal with the text?

The first one is on page 34 in the English, page 37 in the French. It's section 105, on the establishment of a standing committee. Is there any disagreement with that? Agreed? Fine.

Ellen is suggesting that if what we're trying to do is increase interest, we could give this particular committee a permanent mandate to televise. That would indicate the importance we attach to it and the importance we attach to public exposure of the estimates.

One of the things that's been central here is that members of Parliament don't spend a lot of time on the estimates because they don't get a lot of public attention, so this might be an interesting additional recommendation. Does anybody disagree with it?

Mr. Pagtakhan: No.

The Chair: Good; the Savage recommendation.

Can we go to the second one, section 108 on page 35 in English,

[Translation]

on page 38 of the French version?

Mr. Laurin: Madam Chair, could our researcher or yourself give us some idea of how this process of coordination with the other standing committees involved could be implemented in practice? The recommendation reads:

[English]

Mr. O'Neal: The concern was that the individual standing committees that have an intimate knowledge of the departments they are to scrutinize on a daily basis should retain their principal responsibilities for reviewing the estimates. So they would continue to do that work.

.0950

Secondly, there was a concern that the estimates committee being proposed should have the ability to examine estimates of several departments at once.

Thirdly, there was a concern that the estimates committee should become a repository of information and knowledge about the estimates process and about estimates that in effect cut across government departments, because often more than one department is involved in delivering a program or a service.

The notion that the estimates committee that's being created be authorized to coordinate the study of the estimates would in effect allow that committee to advise several standing committees that there's an area of common concern they could all be looking at. But at the same time, I think we wanted to shy away from the notion that the estimates committee should tell the standing committees how they should do their business.

This is why we've spoken of coordination. It's described as a support role or a helpful role, but no more than that. The subcommittee may feel that the term ``coordination'' is too strong and this should simply be removed.

The Chair: The other thing it was intended to do is address something Bill Graham in particular brought to our attention. Foreign Affairs, for instance, may have programs that overlap with programs in two other departments, or ten perhaps. The estimates committee could coordinate with members of the foreign affairs committee and with members of the agriculture committee, for instance, which is also doing a lot of international work, to see how the spending in Foreign Affairs meshes with the spending in Agriculture abroad.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: I am trying to see how this coordination process would be implemented in practice and how it would be perceived by committees. In my view, this approach gives other committees the impression that, from now on, there will be some sort of a standing "super committee" that will oversee the others to ensure consistency among recommendations made by the various committees.

Take the Standing Committee on Finance, for example - it considers itself the most important committee of the House. I don't know how they would take to the notion that their recommendations would be overseen by another standing committee, that would ask them to reconcile some of their recommendations with perhaps contradictory recommendations made by another committee.

Obviously, if we adopt a standing order, everyone will have to comply with it. There is no problem there. But I'm trying to see how things will work out in practice. That's my approach. All recommendations by various committees of the House would all be submitted to this standing committee, which would ensure that they were consistent with each other. Is that right?

[English]

Mr. O'Neal: First of all, I don't think the intention is to create a committee that would be somehow superior to or more important than the others.

Secondly, the recommendation stresses that when the estimates committee conducts its own reviews of certain estimates, it must do so with the support and cooperation of the appropriate standing committees. I would assume that under those circumstances, were they not to receive the endorsement of the appropriate standing committees involved, they wouldn't be able to proceed with a review. So they would have to do this in conjunction with the existing standing committees that have the primary responsibility for those reviews of the estimates.

.0955

The Chair: It might be worth adding in the text, though - and maybe it's already there; it's been a couple of weeks since I read it - that one of the roles of this committee would be to provide support to other standing committees. Not putting it in the recommendation but putting it in the text might make it clearer that the prime responsibility remains with the standing committees and that this committee is more concerned with the estimates process, with issues that might cut across several departments and with problem estimates.

For instance, if the sustainable development committee said it didn't want to do its estimates this year but would rather have the estimates committee look at them or coordinate a review of the estimates with the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is responsible for Parks Canada, the estimates committee could help facilitate that.

Further on, I'm going to suggest that we put a little more emphasis on the need for extra resources for the standing committees - and I think some of that is in there - and for this committee as well. In fact, this committee might be helpful to the standing committees in providing them with the expertise on estimates that the standing committees wouldn't normally have.

But I think it's very clear that if Charles Caccia said ``Keep your hands off my estimates'', the estimates committee would back off.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: I am trying to see how we could avoid duplication among other standing committees, and exactly what role we want for the new standing committee. If the Standing Committee on Finance is considering a certain issue, and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is also considering the same issue, what would our role be then? Would we allocate the work or determine each committee's mandate, or would we examine the recommendations made by both committees to ensure their consistency.

We could run into problems here. Two committees could end up studying the same issue; or our recommendations could contradict recommendations made by a standing committee. The whole process seems a little vague to me, and that's why I'd like to see how it would work out in practice. It seems to me that we know what we want, but we don't quite know how to go about achieving it. There's a risk here that we could end up with exactly the opposite of what we're trying to achieve. We may want more consistency, but if two committees end up treading on each other's territory, someone somewhere is going to lose out.

The Chair: The next recommendation gives more detail on the committee's exact role. Perhaps the wording should specify that this committee's mandate is not the same as that of other committees. Its role is different.

[English]

Mr. O'Neal: If I may, Madam Chair, paragraph 115 says: ``The complexity of the functions performed by these committees'' - and here we're talking about the finance committee and the public accounts committee in particular - it

That the Estimates Committee co-ordinate with all standing committees engaged in financial review including the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and, that, from time to time, and when appropriate, it work jointly with either or both of these committees to examine such broad issues as government-wide expenditure and revenue generation.

.1000

In other words, the recommendations are structured in such a way as to ensure, or to attempt to ensure, that no one steps on anyone's toes, that

[Translation]

no one threads on anyone else's territory.

[English]

The points Mr. Laurin raised are very important ones. You don't want to generate a conflict between committees. Normally standing committees are pretty jealous of their area of responsibility. The emphasis has been shifted here to working with and coordinating with other committees rather than doing their work for them, or, should there be some apparent discrepancy between the recommendations made by one committee and the recommendations made by another, that it not be the role of the estimates committee to try to reconcile those differences.

The Chair: We have to pull them together. For instance, one committee could recommend reallocating funds from a program - let's take foreign affairs as an example, because Bill Graham raised this issue with us - that might affect a program in another department that the standing committee feels is extremely important and should continue. You would have two recommendations in conflict here. I can see the estimates committee playing a role in bringing in the chairs of the two committees to see if they could resolve this conflict, but not overruling one committee or the other.

If we're not unhappy with the idea, maybe we could agree with this now, go on to the next one in section 113, and look at a little more detailed definition of the responsibilities of this committee. When we come back to the text, if we feel it needs to be emphasized or clarified a little more that this is not to do the same work as the standing committee, perhaps we could use the text to make that point. Would that work?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I'm not going to be rigid. I'm not going to say that just because we've agreed to it generally we can't come back and look at it again.

Mr. Pagtakhan: There is no doubt that there will be continuing areas of overlap. It would be utopian to think that any other standing committee today would be replaced. So that will continue.

To address the concern you've raised, which I agree with, it is good to coordinate and it is good to seek cooperation, but cooperation is in the eyes of the beholder: we are doing an alternative study, so you do not have to do this study, and that's the end of it. Right?

In this document, in the subsequent recommendation to where you are now, Madam Chair, Brian has identified areas that the current system is deficient in looking into. He indicated here, for example, the definition of the finance committee in terms of the financial and economic policies of the government versus public accounts...which is a retrospective review of the expenditures that have already occurred.

Brian made the observation that the estimates committee could look into the prospective review of the expenditure in one instance. Immediately that raises a question. I thought the finance committee also looked into the prospective review of the proposed expenditures, because they have estimates. I'd like clarification on that.

Mr. O'Neal: As I understand it, Madam Chair, the role of the finance committee is to look at very broad areas of fiscal policy, not necessarily to look at expenditure on a department-by-department level into the future. As I said here, the finance committee has to study and report on broad economic and financial policies and legislation.

Mr. Pagtakhan: You made the distinction very clearly. I read it here somewhere.

If it is true, then there is indeed a role for a proactive review of the expenditures. The proactive review will only look at finance, public accounts, and now the proposed estimates committee. The proactive review of the expenditures is inherently done by the specific standing committees. Is that correct? Okay. To that extent, a new estimates committee may really only look at the process that we all agreed on.

.1005

From our point of view - meaning that of the members of the committee, or the view presented in the report - I think we can observe that the process was not sufficient in the minds of the estimates committee. In that regard, rightly or wrongly, the estimates committee is passing judgment, almost like an oversight. But if the standing rules so prescribe, then that is the will of Parliament. After all, the estimates committee will report back to the House. So I see no problem.

It is the will of the House to make that overseer function of the estimates committee look only into the process that sees it call a number of witnesses; that sees it cut witnesses after two witnesses have been invited, or things like that; that sees it travel. How come this committee only did videoconferencing, did not interview a lawyer, or things like that? It could comment on that, and that is right. I think there is a need for an oversight. Even in police departments, you have this so-called civilian commission, this oversight.

You identified another area: where there is a major program undertaken by several departments but it is still one major program, like the youth employment strategy, for example. It was not clear to me before that some departments are as active as other departments. You have international trade, you have heritage, you have justice, you have industry. Really, we should look into this process. That could be a proper forum for the estimates committee. Why would it look only at employment strategy expenditures? Now, fortunately, the Department of Human Resources Development is able to produce this report that deals with total expenditures on this.

I see that there is a process, but what I think we may agree upon is identification, to the extent possible, of those activities you have outlined here very well, Brian. We should be able to say that this is the focus of the estimates committee. Where a major program encompasses many departments, the particular expenditures of the program properly have to be referred to the estimates committee.

When it is a tradition that it is focused on any given standing committee, so it must continue, and the role of the estimates committee must only be a process review. We now have to specify the various functions and what they will look into so that this is done - and that includes the two major committees, accounts and finance, from which we have a recent example. The question of the trust fund was reviewed by finance and reviewed by public accounts. The public accounts committee decided that it would adopt the report of the finance committee. It was the wisdom of the accounts committee to do so...if it has the strength. That will continue to happen.

There is a lot in this report, but because of the question raised by him, I would like it to focus on that in order to avoid this very broad and potential source of conflict over turf and jurisdiction. I think we should be more specific. If we undertake a process review and coordinate with you on this committee, if we undertake a primary role of reviewing the estimates like any other committee because of the circumstances, what it hopes to do would at least be clear to me. So could you sort of rearrange that?

The Chair: Rey, if I may, this is a report. The government will have to respond to it. That's unlikely to happen before the next election, so if all three of us are back here, we'll have to make sure it somehow gets tabled again in order that they do have to respond to it. Then comes the point, I think, of giving it that level of specificity in the Standing Orders and so on rather than here.

.1010

Mr. Pagtakhan: Yes. In fact, it may be a potential response of the government. Who knows?

I sense that you would like at least to complete this, agree in principle, and do away with this report so we can feel a sense of accomplishment. I agree with that, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Brian has heard the discussion and can maybe clarify some of the things in the text that have been raised. I've made a few notes as well.

Mr. O'Neal: I'd like to make two points.

Some of the issues that have been raised by Mr. Laurin and Dr. Pagtakhan are covered in the text of the report. But I will review the transcript of this meeting and look at the text, and in areas where it could be emphasized or strengthened, I will do that.

Also, it's true that in effect what you're doing here is charting new territory. At this stage it's difficult to imagine the kinds of difficulties that such a committee may encounter. What you might like to do is include a recommendation at the end of this section that suggests that the activities and functioning of the particular committee be reviewed at a certain point. After it's been in operation for a year or two, everybody could just stop and ask how well the process is working. Are there ways in which it could be improved or strengthened? Is it worth continuing?

The Chair: Just don't ask me to do that review.

Mr. O'Neal: No, no.

Again, this could be phrased as a very general recommendation, without any specifics about who should conduct the review or whatever. I don't know; perhaps you'd want to think about that.

The Chair: It's probably a good suggestion. I would say, though, that one thing that's been difficult is to get committees to take a long-term view of their role in this process or other processes, i.e., to at least consider that they have not between now and Christmas but between now and the next election to plan their work on that basis.

If we were going to put in a recommendation like that, I would say it should be reviewed at the beginning of a new parliament. They should have one parliament in which to function to see how it works, so a maximum of four years, say.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: The more I think about this, the more problems I see with implementation. Let me come back to the recommendation at the end of paragraph 105, which is to create a standing committee with the mandate to receive the Estimates. Right now, the Standing Committee on Finance has that mandate. When the Estimates are tabled next week, there will not be many departments unaffected by this. The Estimates will be considered by the Standing Committee on Finance. It is the Finance Committee members who will examine them.

Let's say we create the new committee. What do we do then? Do we tell the Standing Committee on Finance that it no longer has a mandate to examine the Estimates? Do we tell them that mandate has been given to the standing committee created to receive the Estimates? I don't think that's what we're trying to do. We're not to abolish one committee just to recreate it in another form and with a different name. In practice, what difference will there be between the Standing Committee on Finance and the standing committee with a mandate to receive the estimates of all government departments? The Standing Committee on Finance already examines the estimates of all government departments.

[English]

Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, I think I understand the point Mr. Laurin is raising. I would note, however, that there's a fundamental difference between the budget as presented by the Minister of Finance and then submitted to the finance committee for study, and the estimates themselves.

The estimates just cover the upcoming fiscal year, whereas the budget is much more forward-looking in that it discusses fiscal policy for the next two or three years, I think. It also includes things such as ways and means motions, and it discusses taxation policy, etc. I believe that is the document submitted to the finance committee for review and study. The estimates, on the other hand - and here we're talking about the part IIs and in particular the part IIIs - are automatically referred to the standing committees.

.1015

This recommendation doesn't call for the budget to be submitted to the estimates committee, but the part IIIs that currently go to the appropriate standing committees would also be submitted to the estimates committee. That's all.

The Chair: I don't know what the finance committee normally does with the budget. I tend to know better what it does pre-budget in terms of its new consultations. But as our researcher said earlier, its role is an overview of the fiscal policy, the economic policy, and the general pattern.

The Clerk of the Committee: Don't they do a lot of legislation?

The Chair: They do legislation as well, taxation legislation and so on, but they don't get into the expenditures of a particular department.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: You are quite right, Madam Chair. But let's take an example: the Auditor General's Report, examined by the Public Accounts Committee. tee. Quite often, an issue raised by the Public Accounts Committee is subsequently examined by the Standing Committee on Finance. The Public Accounts Committee started studying the tax evasion and family trust problem, but in the end the question was entrusted to the Standing Committee on Finance which dealt with it. We could have heard the Minister of Revenue involved, since we were dealing with tax policies. But we observed that the Department of Revenue no longer had the initiative; the Department of Finance had assumed responsibility for dealing with the issue.

Finance affects everything. Money is what fuels warfare. Finance means spending and revenue. And dealing with spending and revenue means dealing with major philosophical orientations? Since the Standing Committee on Finance is already dealing with all these issues, what other role could the new committee possibly play? We are trying to arouse members' interest in the estimates, but the real work is getting done at the Standing Committee on Finance.

It's not that I have any objections to that. I am looking for ways to get people interested in, but I don't think this is the right way to do it. The real action is at the Finance Committee.

The Chair: At a different level, that of specific expenditures...

[English]

I can't foresee how this is going to unravel either. It's like when you give your kid a Christmas present or a new toy. If it's a good toy, you never know how they're going to play with it. They'll find many different ways to play with it. What we're trying to do here is give Parliament a new tool to work with.

Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): Further to that reference, we could have a situation here where you give the child the new present or toy and they play with the box the toy came in.

The Chair: We may have, and that's why the suggestion that there be a review at the end of the first parliament of whether this has been a good move is a very good one.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Towards the end of the sections, there is a section on an alternative approach, in other words not creating the committee itself.

When Mr. Laurin was speaking, I asked myself how many functions have been conceived for this committee. If you look at it, we have about six that Brian has identified. One is to receive the estimates; what you do with that is not defined. The second is to coordinate the study of the estimates themselves. Three is a regular review of the estimates process. Four is to examine such broad issues as government-wide expenditure and revenue generation. Five is government-wide expenditures affecting more than one department or agency. And six is a review of the collective role of crown corporations.

.1020

Having said those six functions, Brian then rightly observed that the committee on government operations is already involved with two big crown corporations: Canada Post and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In fact, that section on page 44 is where he indicated an alternative to an estimates committee. So in a sense Mr. Laurin is right: there will always be an overlap here.

Out of those six functions, Brian, to not be overly ambitious and to avoid duplication as much as possible and yet ensure a focused approach on a given specific activity you would like to examine - take crown corporations as an example - one possible approach would be to remove this from the government operations committee once and for all and have all government crown corporations examined by this estimates committee. You could call it by another name, such as the committee on crown corporations. Then it is very focused.

Perhaps that alone will be the major function of this estimates committee, because a review of process is not being done by any committee. It may just be one function it can retain if you proceed with this estimates committee.

Out of the six, which of them, if not all, can we do with the least overlap so we can focus over the next two or three years? It will be a lot of work already for that particular committee.

Process I agree with, because it is something that's not being done. It's something broad. Then, to make it palatable so it's not about process only - as that can be a source of frustration - it could review the crown corporations, instead of their being put into the government operations committee, which will make it very difficult because it will be increasing something they cannot do.

That's one consideration we may entertain. That's just a thought.

The Chair: That's comparable to some notes I made to myself. Rather than the alternative Brian has suggested here of the estimates committee becoming a subcommittee of something else, it would be better if our suggested alternative were that the estimates committee assume the responsibilities of the government operations committee.

I don't know everything the government ops committee has been involved with. I do know, however, that they have been involved with a number of things that touch very directly on the estimates process. One of the things they have been trying to complete is a study on contracting in the federal government. That's something that cuts across departments and affects every department, but no committee on its own can look at it only for its department. That would be a legitimate function of the estimates committee.

It could assume responsibility for crown corporations, which are now assigned to government ops because they don't fit neatly with any other department. That's why government ops has them. But again, I wouldn't want to take away from the heritage committee the responsibility for dealing with the CBC, for instance, because it's too tightly tied to the other issues they have to deal with.

Mr. Pagtakhan: One difficulty is that we have started with the premise that we will have an estimates committee, which by definition does a study of the estimates of respective departments. At this point we may conceive first of the things that are not being done adequately by the current system and then create a committee to do those very things and name the committee appropriately for the activities it will do.

When we use the words ``estimates committee'', as you were saying, it could be a misnomer, because a standing committee is an estimates committee for that particular department, where a department relates to that committee. In a sense it becomes immediately a misnomer. But if it is an estimates committee on process, then it's very clear.

The Chair: It's more than just process.

.1025

Mr. Pagtakhan: Exactly. It's more than process, and it is more than government operations, perhaps. That is why, if we can identify the areas of the examination of the estimates and process, and the reporting and review of that, which are not now adequately performed by any other committee, then we can put that with some of the big issues of the other committees to avoid overlap. We can say that we will create for these a committee relating to the estimates to oversee that, but that wouldn't be the name, to avoid misunderstanding. It could be a committee on crown corporations, but it's more than that because you want the process.

Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, may I respond to a couple of things that have been said. First of all, with respect to the responsibilities or areas of concern for the proposed estimates committee, the recommendations speak of authorizing the committee. Therefore, at the end of the day it will be up to the committee to choose which areas it will work on.

Secondly, it seems to me that the responsibilities we are suggesting for the estimates committee relate to three things: first of all, process, as Dr. Pagtakhan has mentioned; second, looking at broad areas of government expenditure that go across departments, so that you assume that one standing committee by itself isn't capable of looking at the full range of expenditures involved in a single program; and third, to serve as a support mechanism or a coordination or helping mechanism for the rest of the standing committees as they conduct their reviews of the estimates.

The other thing is what the chair said about the crown corporations. Here we essentially follow the same kind of philosophy, the philosophy being that it's better for standing committees with an intimate knowledge of the departments, a day-to-day knowledge of the departments whose estimates they review, to keep on reviewing those estimates.

The government operations committee isn't the only committee that looks at crown corporations. As the chair has mentioned, the heritage committee looks at such crown corporations as the CBC.

I know that a couple of witnesses suggested there be a single committee to review crown corporations, but I'm not so sure it is a good idea. Instead, what's suggested here is that the proposed estimates committee have a role in looking at the processes surrounding the review of the estimates of crown corporations.

Finally, as far as the government operations committee is concerned, there had been some discussion at our last meeting in December. There was some feeling that it might not be a good idea to create a new standing committee to review the estimates, that perhaps this would be too costly an exercise. Or perhaps, because of some of the reservations expressed by Mr. Laurin, people would see this as some kind of supercommittee that would be interfering in the day-to-day work of standing committees. The feeling was that maybe a better thing was to give the work to an existing standing committee so this wouldn't seem such an intrusion.

When I was drafting that into the report, I was concerned that the subcommittee might be taking a whole bunch of new responsibilities and dumping them in the lap of an existing committee that wouldn't be able to cope with them. This is why I included mention of the committee's ability to create a subcommittee to do some of these things.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Along that line, the process of examination of the estimates in a sense is a procedural activity, and therefore may properly belong to procedure and House affairs. A permanent committee of that committee may be one approach insofar as process is concerned. It goes back with its mother committee, but there's a permanent committee on whatever. That's one approach.

.1030

Let us assume for a moment that a subcommittee is the approach. How do we fit into that subcommittee a defined function in terms of a review of interdepartmental estimates, those that are not...a broad interdepartmental study? Can it fit that as well?

The Chair: Can I intervene for a second, Rey? Let me get give you some perspective on this.

You said that we started with the idea that we should have an estimates committee. No, we didn't. We came to that after hearing a lot of witnesses.

What we've been trying to do throughout is to give some importance to the whole estimates process, to get a real parliamentary focus on that, get more expertise and resources in the hands of parliamentarians and have one committee in particular that becomes the expert committee on the estimates process. They are to look at specific issues that the standing committees cannot deal with and to provide support and perhaps allocate resources to the standing committees to help them in their work with the estimates.

If in fact we suggest that this become a subcommittee of another committee, then we are taking away what I think we've been trying to build as we've worked through our witnesses and through the development of this draft report - the idea that it is the core, central function of Parliament to allocate money to the government, and that Parliament has to take much more seriously its role of doing that job on behalf of the people of Canada. We're there to tell the government how much money it can raise and how it can spend it. It's that simple. You'd never know it by 90% of the work that goes on around here.

That would be my concern about making it a subcommittee.

Mr. Pagtakhan: A strong argument, yes.

The Chair: My own perspective on the government operations committee is that it has had a hard time finding a focus for its activities. It isn't related to any particular department and it isn't related to any particular policy, unlike the human rights committee - which you were chairing, Rey - which covers all departments but has a specific focus.

In fact, the review of contracting should come out of a review of the estimates that says, hey, overall throughout government what we're spending on contracting has gone from $3 billion to $5 billion to $10 billion. What's going on here? It should come out of the estimates. In fact it did, from some of us who were concerned about that.

We're spending $3 billion a year on information technology. Are we getting our money's worth? That's a question that would result from the estimates committee saying this is what we're spending on information technology across government, looking at those cross-government issues that no single standing committee will look at otherwise.

That's my concern about trying to set up a subcommittee. Yes, you could have a subcommittee on procedure that looked at process. You could have another one here that looked at the financial implications of the estimates process. You could have a subcommittee of finance. You could have another subcommittee of probably two or three other committees, but then we'd be defeating our purpose.

Mr. Pagtakhan: I am persuaded by your argument, Madam Chair. What you're saying is that process is only one, and maybe not the only one, for this kind of new committee. If we are agreed on that, then definitely a subcommittee will not serve the purpose. I agree with you. If process is not the only activity of this new committee, then it cannot be a subcommittee.

The Chair: In fact it was an add-on, because we only came to process because this subcommittee kept getting dumped with process questions. There are mega-issues coming up. What's our vote going to be? Are we going to go to accrual accounting? Right now no committee will look at those issues on behalf of Parliament.

Mr. Pagtakhan: That's why I'll come back to my earlier intervention. This kind of discussion is qualified because you've done all the groundwork here. We're just trying to put it together.

So I will come back and say, okay, what are the activities we would like this imaginary committee - let's set aside the name - to do that are not now being done by any other department, or if done, done in a very inefficient fashion, not fully resourceful, etc.?

.1035

When the chair says the committee could examine, in the process of its activity, the resources available and say that the committee is not receiving too many resources to be able to do properly its job of examining the estimates on the environment, for example, this can be a very powerful, friendly committee to tell this to the House. I see that as a positive step.

From my observations when I sat briefly on the liaison committee.... Do you know that committee? Several committee chairs sit on it, including the opposition, because the public accounts committee chair is there. You know how you get fully all of your resources, and it appears that the committees on finance and on public accounts, say, will have an automatic billing for higher resources where the committee of agriculture is crying...and it depends on how? Well, this committee could look into that and say, yes, this is a good study to undertake.

Instead of a committee of all committee chairs, in a sense that may be disbanded; this is the type of estimates committee. I can see that activity. I'd like that activity to be incorporated into this potential new committee, but then I would like to know more of the six activities you mentioned.

For example, let's examine the crown corporations. Do you think it is a legitimate activity to be pursued by a new committee?

The Chair: Let me tell you how Brian has resolved that in the text. We had a lot of discussion about whether all the estimates should be put in the hands of a separate committee. We decided that no, they have to stay in the hands of the standing committees primarily, and the CBC should be reviewed by the heritage committee, the CRTC by industry committee and so on. But the issues relating to the financial management of crown corporations, the reporting of crown corporations to Parliament, and so on are legitimate subject matter for an estimates committee.

In other words, it wouldn't look at how CBC spends its money, but it would look at crown corporations. Is there adequate parliamentary oversight? Is there adequate reporting to Parliament? Are there adequate controls within crown corporations generally? Does the crown corporations legislation provide the kind of fiscal framework Parliament wants to see in place for crown corporations as an entity?

Mr. Pagtakhan: To pursue that question, take the CBC. Are the questions you raised not pursued, or adequately pursued, by the Standing Committee on Industry?

The Chair: No. Heritage would look at the CBC crown corporation, and other committees would have different crown corporations, but nobody is responsible for looking at our crown corporations overall. Do they have the right fiscal management framework in legislation, for example?

Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, to support what you've just said, what the recommendation on crown corporations really talks about is not the micro-level examination of the role or activities of a given crown corporation, but broader issues at higher levels than we're talking about here - reviews of the collective role, mandate expenditures with collective expenditures, expenditure regimes of crown corporations within the structure of the Canadian federal government.

As I understand it, there currently is no single committee that would do that. We have individual committees looking at the individual crown corporations, but not crown corporations as a whole. This recommendation is in response to some concerns brought up by witnesses that no one is currently doing this.

The recommendation speaks of cooperation with the appropriate standing committees. The estimates committee would have to do this, but not on its own.

Mr. Pagtakhan: As soon as we respond to Mr. Laurin's concern of avoiding duplication.... In other words, if the heritage committee has studied the estimates of CBC, we would not do it again on this committee. That is what this is.

Mr. O'Neal: Yes.

.1040

Mr. Pagtakhan: The examining of the process is very beautiful. I was just at the public accounts committee yesterday, and it's a classic example of my concern about the management approach, accountability.

Here is the Treasury Board Secretariat acting within the law and regulations. In my understanding, they give guidelines to the various departments, and the department heads are then responsible for monitoring the performance of each department according to these guidelines developed by the Treasury Board. But the Treasury Board does not hold these various departments accountable.

When I pursued that question - and they were right in their answer - they had not delegated that authority. That is an authority delegated by law, so who is seeing that this management approach is working? The estimates committee could look at that. I can see there's a role to be played. But just avoid what he observed, Mr. Laurin, about duplication.

The Chair: We could monitor it.

Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Madam Chair, we keep discussing this and I'm wondering if we are going forward or backward. To my mind, in preceding discussions we had already established that the root of the problem lies in the members' lack of interest. But that lack of interest is not restricted to examining the Estimates. It applies to all kind of issues - members have the impression that their work in committee does not have any real impact and produces no real change, either in general policy or in budgetary policies.

The Chair: I don't want to come back to that discussion.

Mr. Laurin: We are looking for a way to arouse members' interest. So I'm wondering whether creating yet another committee on which members could again change very little is the right way to go. If we want to give members the opportunity to have a real impact on transferring or changing budgets, where could we do it?

Aren't we turning a blind eye to the problem, and just saying we have done something? Let's take an example. Mr. Pagtakhan is a physician. Let's say he discovers a medium in which a virus colony was developing, and instead of finding a cure, decided to change the medium in which the virus was developing. There would still be no cure, and the virus would still be developing. We are suggesting that a new committee be created. I don't see how that will get us to our goal. I don't think that is the right solution. How would the new committee manage to arouse greater interest among members? How could they be motivated?

The Chair: We will deal with that issue further on in the report, in the light of yesterday's discussions.

Mr. Laurin: And the day before yesterday.

The Chair: That's right. We will probably recommend that committees be empowered to reallocate funds, and that their reports and recommendations plays more significant role in the House of Commons debates.

Mr. Laurin: Well, if we agree on that point, I don't believe that we should create a new committee because all the tasks listed in paragraph 113 are already performed by other committees.

The Chair: I really don't think so.

Mr. Laurin: These tasks include: "regular review of the process surrounding the production and parliamentary review of plans and documents," - that's already done by the Standing Committee on Government Operations; "review of proposed expenditures on a program basis when more than one department or agency is responsible for delivery; review of proposed expenditures in major policy areas" - already done by the Standing Committee on Finance - "such as information technology, that affect all of government", already dealt with by the Standing Committee on Government Operations; "review of all committee reports on departmental plans and performance documents", already dealt with by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts as part of its examination of the Auditor General's Report.

.1045

So which task in this list is not being performed by a committee already? By entrusting these tasks to a new committee we create, all we would be doing is taking work from committees that are already doing it and giving it to another committee. Madam Chair, I don't see any sense in that.

[English]

Mr. O'Neal: Again, the emphasis here is on process. Earlier Mr. Laurin was speaking about whether or not the creation of this committee would help create an atmosphere in which members of Parliament would feel more inclined towards better scrutiny of the estimates. The idea here is to have a committee that looks at the process and makes recommendations for improvement of the process. Also, it should report regularly to the House on the estimates process - not on the content of the estimates, but on the process of examining the estimates.

I'd also point out that further on, paragraph 116 recommends that when standing committees report on the estimates, they should report to the estimates committee any concerns they have regarding areas the estimates committee should devote special attention to. One would assume this would include the process. If committees were experiencing frustrations with the process, they'd report that to the estimates committee. The estimates committee in turn would report to the House, recommending areas for improvement.

If we're looking for ways to further improve the process or to encourage members to become involved in scrutiny of the estimates, I imagine this might help from that perspective.

It's also been suggested that the estimates committee be given a permanent ability to have its proceedings televised, and that in turn would give it a certain profile or power or muscle to bring about changes to the process if the process didn't seem to be working properly.

The Chair: When people are so concerned about expenditures by government, it would be reassuring and of some interest to them to know that a particular committee is there to see how well Parliament is doing its job and to make it possible for Parliament to do its job better. That's really what this is all about.

I'm surprised at how many people watch the broadcasts of Supreme Court trials. My gosh, I'm just amazed. This is tedious argument that goes on for days, and people watch it.

I don't know where to move from here. We spent nearly a year and a half on witnesses and discussions and concluded that these were the recommendations we would make. If we want to start all over from square one, I don't know where that leaves me as chair.

Mr. Pagtakhan: No, Madam Chair, I don't think so. I was not here in the beginning, but I would imagine this is correct.

When we started, some colleagues perceived problems with the whole process, and one of them was lack of interest on the part of MPs. That was the perceived problem before the study was commenced. This problem is the perception on the part of MPs that they have no ability to influence a change in the process of examination of the estimates. In what way? To make it more accountable to the public and to make it more efficient - in other words, to improve the scrutiny process.

So one point is inability to interest. Why would I be interested in going to that committee? It's a waste of my time. That's a legitimate basis for lack of interest. Two, I am not being seen on television. That's also a basis for lack of interest. Three is the inability of MPs to effect a reallocation within a budget: I cannot influence the process. That's another basis for lack of interest. Why would I go there?

.1050

So there are very distinct bases, and maybe there are other bases for lack of interest. If it is not in the document - because it has been a long time since I read this - one section of the report could be about lack of interest. What are the causes of lack of interest?

The Chair: Again, we deal with the business of televising....

Mr. Pagtakhan: Okay, so we had a perceived basis for lack of interest when we started the process.

Following the hearing of witnesses, in addition to sustaining them as true, you have identified other problems we never even knew of, like examination of crown corporations, which are the specific problems now. At the end of the day, we have a perceived process and the identification of problems by witnesses, which now have added to these problems.

Now we have a diagnosis. The question now is what we should prescribe for them. We will come up with a specific prescription, a recommendation of the committee.

That is why I come back to asking what these activities are. It does not mean that when I spoke about process, we had forgotten about reallocation. We will come to that. But just to avoid duplication....

Brian, perhaps part of this is because we have covered so many things, just us a rearrangement of the things that are here.... Am I making my point?

Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, if I may respond to Dr. Pagtakhan, in terms of making a diagnosis of the shortcomings, there is an entire section at the beginning that talks about why changes are needed. Here we talk about previous parliamentary study, comments from witnesses and responses to a questionnaire that was sent out. So there's a discussion of that.

Second, I think it's quite evident that one of the main problems is a lack of incentive for members to give better scrutiny to the estimates. So after we talk about setting up a new structure for looking at the estimates process, we get into a section called ``New Tools''. Under those new tools we talk about the ability, for example, to reallocate funds, which the clerk was speaking about during our last meeting.

There is not only a recognition that some of the structures need to be adjusted, but a recognition that members need to have more authority in order to make some tangible changes to the estimates themselves. Otherwise, as the clerk was mentioning, there's little likelihood that members will return to the table to give the estimates the scrutiny they need.

Mr. Pagtakhan: You are right; it is in the table of contents. So it's only a matter now of synthesizing your draft report and making it along those lines, and say - just to take examples - create an estimates committee, or the alternative proposal, the government operations committee. At the end of the day we'll have to make a resolution.

But how do we go about it? If you ask me, I would not like to put some of those functions that we have conceived into the government operations committee. It would not solve the problem of lack of interest or lack of ability to influence change. So I will drop that. In other words, it was an option that was considered and it was an option that we rejected.

The Chair: However, the only reason it's there, Rey - and you might want to think about it another way - is that we really wanted to focus on the estimates function and the need for a committee that would give it very serious attention and have the resources to do a good job of it.

We were also aware that there might be some reluctance to set up a new committee. That's why we said the option might be to give this responsibility to the government operations committee. I haven't had a detailed look at what the government operations committee has done, but it seems to me from the time I was sitting on it that it's a committee that flounders a lot and isn't quite sure what it's supposed to do.

But we could recommend, for instance, that the responsibilities assigned to government operations be assigned to the new estimates committee. Then such things as a study of contracting, a study of information technology or a study of crown corporations could be given to subcommittees of the estimates committee. As they are going through the estimates they might say, these are areas where we're spending a lot of money; let's find out how well we're spending that money. Then they could set up special studies to do throughout the year based on the estimates.

.1055

Mr. Pagtakhan: To answer one specific question, what would the reallocation be? How can a new committee be more effective in that approach? Or is it an activity to be assigned as an authority for every standing committee?

The Chair: Oh, yes. When we decide our recommendation on that, it would go to all committees, absolutely. This has been my bias from the first: leave as much responsibility as we can with the standing committees.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Are you still convinced that there is a rationale for a new committee to address some of those problems identified as now not being addressed, or not being addressed sufficiently, by the current system?

The Chair: If you look through history, every time changes have been made they've evolved in a certain way. Then they've had to be looked at again in ten or fifteen years as Parliament wants to improve them. That's essentially what we're doing right now. It's not surprising that fifteen years ago changes were made. They have evolved, Parliament has evolved, what parliamentarians expect has evolved, and now we're trying to see it evolve to another stage.

We have to adjourn, so might I suggest -

Mr. Pagtakhan: I have one last point. Another major issue, aside from lack of interest and reallocation, is the confidence motion issue.

The Chair: We'll be dealing with that. It applies to all committees and it applies to Parliament, irrespective of whether the special estimates committee...except then we would have a committee that's looking carefully at the estimates process every year and could keep on top of those issues on a continuing basis.

Mr. Pagtakhan: So that issue would not be...it is something again...a definitive response in light of our analysis?

The Chair: We'll be dealing with that later in the report.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Okay.

The Chair: Might I suggest we try to come back on Tuesday.

Mr. Pagtakhan: Tuesday is budget day.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Tuesday will probably be a very full day for you and also for us. I would rather not meet on Tuesday.

[English]

The Chair: But the lock-up doesn't start until -

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: I will probably be busy with the Budget all morning since I'll be attending an in camera presentation. I'll probably be there until 12 or even 2 o'clock, after which there will be question period, and the Budget speech later in the day.

[English]

The Chair: The only thing I'm concerned about is that this means we won't come back to this report again until after the break, until Thursday.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Why not next Thursday?

The Clerk: Will that be all right?

Mr. Laurin: The Budget will be presented on Tuesday.

The Clerk: We could therefore meet on Thursday.

[English]

The Chair: But Thursday is the tabling of the estimates. Mr. Williams was concerned about whether he could be here for that because he's involved with the estimates.

[Translation]

The Clerk: On Thursday, February 20, we will be examining the Main Estimates.

Mr. Laurin: That will be the first day of debate on the Budget.

[English]

Mr. Pagtakhan: The budget would be on the following day.

The Chair: February 19, with no debate on mercredi.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: I believe that Wednesday and Thursday will be set aside for debate on the Budget.

[English]

Mr. Pagtakhan: Tuesday is just the minister and the opposition before they adjourn until the following day. Wednesday afternoon is the start of the debate.

The Chair: Thursday they are doing the estimates. The estimates are getting tabled now. I think that's usually after Question Period.

Mr. Pagtakhan: But there still can be an extension of debate on the estimates.

The Chair: Yes. I'm just trying to find time for meetings.

Does anybody want to take a whole Monday to just do it and get it done? We could do an evening if you want.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Monday I will be in my riding.

[English]

The Chair: If we have to wait until we come back, it will be March 3. It's the steering committee of the procedure and house affairs committee.

.1100

Mr. Pagtakhan: Oh, the steering committee. Good.

Is Thursday okay with you?

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Yes, Thursday morning.

The Chair: Thursday morning, but not Tuesday.

Mr. Laurin: No, not Tuesday.

[English]

The Chair: Can I ask you all to try to take the time to go through these recommendations? If you have some problems, you can discuss them with me or Brian, but when we meet on Thursday I'd like it if we could try to either amend some of them or adopt them.

Then let's get back to the thorny issues we've been discussing for the last three meetings. I suggest those are the last ones we should resolve, because they are going to be the most difficult ones. I suspect that by the time we've been through the other recommendations, it will be easier to come to some agreement.

I don't think there's any disagreement among us on things such as reallocation and more serious attention in Parliament. It's just how we do it.

Mr. Pagtakhan: It's just a matter of where they fit into the overall report.

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;