[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 11, 1997
.0941 
[English]
The Chair (Ms Marlene Catterrall (Ottawa West, Lib.)): Since we have a quorum, I will call to order this meeting of the Subcommittee on Business of Supply.
Having spent so much time on it last week, I'm going to suggest that we set aside the estimates committee for a bit and work through some other sections of the report. If we start on section 138, committee membership, we will then go into the revised section on the ability to reallocate funds, which Brian has prepared for us. We're ready, hopefully, to put that to bed, and then we'll keep moving through the ability to assess new program proposals, the evaluations and so on. Is that where we deal with statutory spending, plans, documents, reporting deadlines and so on? I want to see if we can clear out some of the bulk.
[Translation]
I suggested that we begin with paragraph 138 and that we set aside the issue of the committee for a few hours. Agreed?
[English]
I'm going to ask Brian to take us through each section as we come to it and then we'll get into any discussion if necessary.
Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): Madam Chairman, paragraphs 138 through to 141 deal with the issue of committee membership. During our meetings we heard from a number of witnesses who felt that it was important that a certain level of expertise be maintained on committees with regards to the study of departmental estimates.
The two recommendations contained in this section essentially ask that a certain level of expertise be maintained on committees and that the practice of substituting members be avoided whenever possible while committees are studying their estimates.
The Chair: Any problem with that?
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): I think that the first of these two recommendations goes without saying. The second one may be somewhat more difficult to achieve. For the party in power, that has some 200 MPs, it's easier to find people who will be there regularly, but for the opposition parties, both the Reform Party and ourselves, it's not realistic to think that we can always have the same person at the committee.
The recommendation says: "That every effort be made..." The intention is there, but I think we'll have to live with the problem, unless we provide continuity through assistants. In that case, we should have a sufficient budget to have a certain number of assistants who would provide continuity at the committee. When a member of Parliament is not there the same assistant could always be present at the committee and ensure continuity from one meeting to another.
.0945
That might be one solution, at least for the opposition parties. Otherwise, I think we'll have to live with that reality.
[English]
The Chair: It's just a reminder to whip the parties to try to bear these things in mind. Switching people around has an effect on how well the committee can work and they should try to avoid it whenever possible, particularly when they're dealing with estimates. It's an advisory more than anything. Yes, it's idealistic and it's not always possible, but is there any problem with having it in the report?
[Translation]
I hope not.
Mr. René Laurin: No.
[English]
The Chair: In the next section, section 142, Nouveaux outils, ``New tools for Parliament'', this is where we get into the ability to reallocate new funds.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chairman, the first couple of paragraphs are really just an introduction to this section. What I've done, beginning at paragraph 146 through to 154, is revised that entire section based on the testimony we've received from the Clerk of the House, on a number of consultations I've had with some experts in parliamentary procedure and on what I've heard from the subcommittee. So committee members may wish to take a look through the first four or five paragraphs, but then starting at paragraph 146...perhaps the clerk could distribute the new revised section that would deal with the ability to reallocate funds.
The Chair: Are there any problems with any of that?
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): We're going on the basis, as we discussed the other day, Madam Chair, of amending the Standing Orders to allow royal recommendations and so on rather than going to one vote per department.
The Chair: I had only one problem with the wording. It's in the last sentence of paragraph 142. I'm not sure our colleagues would like to be reminded that they need to bring new attitudes and approaches to the study of the estimates and bring a better understanding of the rules. It may be true, but I'm not sure we need to say it quite that blatantly.
Mr. John Williams: I agree, Madam Chair.
The Chair: You might either take that out or....
Mr. O'Neal: It could be easily removed from that paragraph, Madam Chairman.
Mr. John Williams: Brian, perhaps you could reflect on the complexity of this situation. That's all.
The Chair: Or, hopefully, with more opportunities to influence expenditures and so on, members of Parliament might bring a different attitude and approach to the estimates.
Mr. John Williams: Or mention the fact that dealing with the estimates is a highly technical proposition and those wishing to avail themselves of all the constitutional and parliamentary rules better do their homework.
Mr. O'Neal: Could I suggest perhaps a gentle way of saying this would be along the lines of, ``along with these new opportunities, members should be able to bring new attitudes''.
Mr. John Williams: Leave out the word ``attitude''. That's important. I don't think we need to comment on attitudes.
The Chair: We'll leave it to Brian to redraft something else.
Mr. John Williams: In a positive vein....
The Chair: We're now dealing with the revised sections dated March 5, 1997. Does everybody have this? Brian has taken the recommendations that we dealt with last week and put some text around them.
.0950
Mr. John Williams: Madam Chair, it seems to me that Brian was mentioning that if the committee tables a report to reduce or to reallocate, it could cause the government to bring in a motion to reinstate.
Is the recognition of the fact that it would cause a motion to reinstate covered off in these recommendations, Brian?
Mr. O'Neal: No, Madam Chairman, that isn't covered off in the recommendations. The operating assumption here is that if the government accepts the proposal to reallocate, then there are at least a couple of measures that it should take as a consequence. That's what these recommendations cover off.
On the other hand, what Mr. Williams has mentioned is important to take into account, that is, that reallocation, perhaps to use a poor metaphor, is a double-edged sword. In other words, reallocation involves a reduction as well as an increase. On this basis, if a government did not accept the committee's proposals, it would be obliged to restore or reinstate those parts of the estimates that had been reduced by the committee in question. This would require the tabling of a motion to that effect.
So my point was that if the government rejects a proposal, then the House will know about it, because the House will be asked to restore the reductions.
Mr. John Williams: On point 9 in our recommendations when we're -
The Chair: Has everybody had a chance to read through this before we start discussing the specific sections? It might be easier if we went through them one by one, John, so everybody has a chance to skim through it.
Mr. John Williams: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: The March 5 report?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. René Laurin: No, we haven't read it; we just received it.
The Chairman: Perhaps we could take five minutes so that everyone can read it.
[English]
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Does a department's estimate have only one vote or a series of votes in light of these proposed changes?
The Chair: Rey, can we just hold off until everybody has read right through it?
.0954
.0957
The Chair: René.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: The new wording is perfectly suitable to me, Madam Chair. I think that it's a good reflection of the discussions that we've had on this subject.
[English]
The Chair: Any problems?
I have one issue I want to raise with the committee. I think we should have a close look at paragraph 5. Generally, I think what we had in mind is that within a departmental estimate, committees can make changes. I think we'd even agreed to amend the wording to say ``within the estimates referred to them'' rather than ``5 percent'' of those estimates.
The discussion Brian has here indicates that where a committee receives estimates from several bodies, in fact it could make reallocations among those estimates. I'm not sure that was our intention.
Mr. John Williams: No, that wouldn't be our intention at this point in time, Madam Chair. Let's proceed cautiously. We wouldn't want to have one committee being confined to estimates of one department and another committee having several departments and then thinking they can shuffle money from one to the other. We are talking about a review in a couple of years. I think that would be the time to address that particular issue.
The Chair: I don't see any particular value in departments coming to see this process as a time when they have to go before committee to fight between the departments over who gets what. So we'll make some slight changes to that and bring it back to you. It'll be clear that it's within estimates.
Mr. O'Neal: To expedite things a little bit perhaps I could suggest a change to the wording now, because it all relates to the recommendation itself.
The last line says, ``up to a maximum of 5 percent'' within the estimates of each department referred to them.
The Chair: But it may not only be departments; it may be crown corporations.
Mr. O'Neal: I can check into that. I could say, ``each department or agency'', or ``entity''.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. O'Neal: I will change the wording in paragraph 5 to reflect that.
.1000
The Chair: Could we also change it to a positive thing, instead of having a double negative there? It's important to point out that standing committees would have the opportunity to propose allocations only to estimates that are referred to them. Okay?
Mr. O'Neal: Okay.
The Chair: Is paragraph 7 fine with everybody?
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: First, I would like to speak about paragraph 4, but particularly the third line where it says, ``could provide the incentive required''. This is only one of the incentives we're discussing with respect to allocation; is that right? So just modify it to ``could provide the additional incentive''.
The Chair: An additional incentive: yes, okay, fine.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: This is very minor.
The Chair: Great. Paragraph 7? Paragraph 8?
I'll now proceed until I hear somebody say, no, halt. Paragraph 9?
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: This is to note that these things should be modified appropriately?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay? Is the intention or the recommendation that once a reallocation has been deemed by the committee, that reallocation can be more defined by the government? Is it yes or no? Should it follow none, or what? What is the intention? Say we reallocate, let's say, 5% or 4.9%.
The Chair: That would be 2% or 1%.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay, so what happens then? Is it all or none? What is the game plan?
The Chair: I guess the government can always revise its own estimates, however it darn well pleases, for agreement of Parliament.
Mr. John Williams: Absolutely. I would think that if the government were not to adopt the report of a standing committee as it were tabled, it would have to bring in a royal recommendation to support the part it accepted, and table a report under paragraph 9 on why it didn't accept the entire amount.
So you allow for the opportunity for them to vary the recommendation of a standing committee. So I would certainly not see it as an all-or-nothing scenario.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Could we then put it in our report at least? If such a statement is in the report, then it is very clear that the committee is coming forward with a very realistic proposal.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Just that this is our intention.
Mr. John Williams: I have no problem with Brian putting something in the report to indicate our position that it's not all or nothing, that variances would be perfectly acceptable.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I just want to come back to those who say, oh, that's too much. Yet you reduce 1% of the ``too much,'' and it's already okay. So, yes, let it be that way.
The Chair: Okay, I think that could be done quite easily in paragraph 9. The last sentence of that paragraph says:
- Furthermore, when a Government refuses a committee's proposed reallocation
The Chair: Or wishes to vary its recommendation.
Therefore the recommendation could say that when a government rejects or varies committee proposals, funds be reallocated if they table the reasons.
Mr. John Williams: Yes.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes.
A voice: Corrects or modifies?
The Chair: Or modifies, yes.
Now, I wanted to ask -
Mr. John Williams: I think ``variance'' is actually the appropriate word there, Brian.
The Chair: I wanted to raise another question about the 48 hours. I think we're all agreed that we want to give Parliament the opportunity to deal with the government's reasons in debate, in an opposition day if necessary.
It's possible that the last allotted supply day would be before the May 31 deadline for committees to report, or it could be the day after the committees report.
Mr. John Williams: Only if the government designated it thus, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. John Williams: Therefore, the government would have to be cognizant of this.
The Chair: Therefore, I'm wondering if we need to tie this also to some recommendations that the last allotted supply day be within a week of the...in a supply period or something like that. We might have a committee tabling a report on Friday. The last allotted day is Wednesday, or the last allotted day is Monday, which makes it impossible to provide for that.
.1005
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chairman, perhaps I may suggest an alternative. At one time it was suggested that if a committee wished to propose reallocations that it should report back to the House two weeks before the end of May.
If you were to retain that idea, then perhaps what you could do in this recommendation is say that the government table the reasons for its refusal no later than May 31.
The Chair: John.
Mr. John Williams: No, that would not work, Madam Chair. If the standing committee is doing its job of reviewing the estimates in detail and during the last two weeks, at which time it intends to table its report, it finds that it wishes to make an amendment, it can't turn the clock back and then say, we should cut it off on May 15.
Therefore, I think that the recommendation as it's currently stated is reasonably okay, provided those who are drafting the amendments to the Standing Orders will recognize this potential conflict.
You did raise one point, Madam Chair, which is the 48 hours, and I think we're actually talking about two business days. We wouldn't want the government to table a response late on Friday and the last supply day be Monday, which means it is impossible to debate it.
The Chair: That's normally when there are those kinds of time specifications in the Standing Orders. It's assumed to be two parliamentary sitting days.
It might be a good red flag, though, for the government to point out that in order for this to work, in designating allotted days the government would have to be conscious of the fact that an allotted day would have to fall close to the final day in the supply period...not put it in as a specific recommendation. I'm thinking in fact they would be forced to do this, just by this requirement.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: [Inaudible]
[English]
The Chair: I think so.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Therefore, we write in "two sessional days before the last allotted day".
The Chair: Yes, but that's for the details of the amendments, because it is agreed that we will have two sessional days in Parliament.
[English]
Number 10. Number 11. Number 12.
Mr. John Williams: Under the recommendation in number 12, Madam Chair, I'm concerned about the provisional basis. I would suggest that after the word ``reallocations'' we delete the words ``be implemented on a provisional basis'' so that the changes are subject to review but the changes are not provisional.
The Chair: You had a comment on why you had worded it that way, Brian.
Mr. O'Neal: I worded it that way for one principal reason. There are going to be a number of people who find that a proposal of this nature is perhaps radical and they may be uncomfortable with it. So it was my feeling that in order to enhance the chances that this series of recommendations are adopted, you indicate that they be provisional in nature, which should provide some comfort all around.
I also would point out that traditionally this has been a way of introducing fairly major changes to the Standing Orders. It was done with the changes that flowed from the McGrath committee report, and I point out that those changes eventually became permanent.
.1010
The second thing - and this probably wouldn't provide much comfort to people who don't like recommendations of these types - is that once a change of this nature is introduced into the Standing Order, even on a provisional basis, it's very difficult to go back, especially if Parliament lives with this and finds it likes it.
So I think you shouldn't be too worried that this will just lapse after two supply periods. I have a feeling that if it works well, it will become permanent, with some possible modifications.
The Chair: Monsieur Laurin.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, in my opinion, these five recommendations are the most important in the entire report that we're preparing to table. If none of these five recommendations was implemented by the government, our work will have been largely wasted. We must therefore ensure that these five measures have as good a chance as possible of being accepted.
That's why I believe that we should leave the term "on a provisional basis" simply to avoid that too many colleagues get scared off and reject the recommendation. It may be a measure to provide flexibility, a sort of introduction. It's a way of proceeding in small steps. We make a step like this one and if the trial succeeds, it will be easier, as you and Mr. O'Neal have mentioned, to make this measure a permanent one. I think it would be more prudent to leave that term in there.
[English]
The Chair: If we went back to the discussions of the McGrath committee I suspect we'd find they had exactly the same discussion we're having.
Dr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: There is some merit in looking at this more carefully. If we say those changes are on a provisional basis, then it could be construed, depending on who is interpreting it, as automatically lapsed until you have done the next step, reviewing the changes. So that's one way of looking at it.
If we would like to have it there, and then permanent unless changed, then I will agree with John that it could be subject to two interpretations. We have to be clear in our intent. Do we intend it to lapse automatically while the review is ongoing? We have to answer the question.
The Chair: I wanted to ask Brian about that.
Technically, what does it mean when you make it provisional? How was it done previously?
Mr. O'Neal: I would have to check into that, but I suspect what this means is that it's definitely going to be in place for two supply periods, and at that point there will be a review.
The Chair: But it doesn't automatically lapse?
Mr. O'Neal: I could check that. I think its lapsing is in a sense implied in the suggestion that this is provisional. It means temporary.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Can you imagine the process lapsing when we have not had a judgment to make the determinational review that it is good or bad? In fact, then, the two can be contradictory. The essence of a review is to find out whether it has really worked or not. Therefore, no prejudgment that it should lapse automatically should be there.
Now, I suppose our intent is to let it continue until such time that the review indicates that they have to be modified or changed or completely deleted. That is my sense, to generally agree with that.
Pursuing that, it says, ``to propose reallocations be implemented'' - a very definitive instruction - ``...and be subject to review''. To me, this becomes slightly weaker. If our intention is for review, I would say straight out, ``be implemented and be reviewed on the expiry of''. In other words, it is no longer a permissive but a requirement.
The Chair: I don't think any of us disagree that this is a good recommendation. We'd like to see it become a permanent part of how Parliament deals with the estimates. We're talking straight strategy here, the possibility of having this actually accepted. It's that simple.
.1015
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The last point, then, is that -
The Chair: It worked for the McGrath committee.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: - it is one thing to review some day, but have we done the job for the committee of the future reviewing this? Will it have complied with the law or the Standing Order in the review?
In other words, you review it all and we have complied with the essence of the thing. The results may not be tabled. I remember one discussion of such a thing in one committee. We would like to be more definitive about the review taking place, and that the review must produce a report.
In other words, should it be a case of a committee saying, after sitting for one or thirty or one hundred days, that they have reviewed the Standing Orders and find it useful, period - one statement? Would that be a sufficient result?
I'm asking the question.
Mr. John Williams: I think as you point out, Madam Chair, the intent is, (a), that there will be a review, and (b), we want the powers that be who are going to be putting this report into place to buy into our recommendation.
If we have had a provisional basis in the past, through the McGrath committee, then I'm not terribly opposed to it being included in this report. I don't think as a recommendation we want it to get too hung up on the legal technicalities to ensure we've covered off all the angles.
We're stating our fairly clear intent that, (a), this is what we want to do, and (b), we recognize that we haven't been able to fully see what ramifications this has, and therefore let's review it after two years. That committee would be a committee of the House. Therefore, who are we to tell it how long, or in what depth, it wants to study the issue, or what recommendations it would have to make any more so than we would accept direction by a previous committee to tell us what to do?
So let the committee do its job two years from now and make its review and report.
The Chair: Might I suggest something we might want to consider here, that these changes be implemented on a provisional basis for one Parliament but be subject to review at the end of two supply periods? In other words, make it clear that we think a full Parliament needs to have this tool but that Parliament itself should begin assessing how effective it has been once it's been through two supply periods. At that point in time, after two years, Parliament may decide to make this permanent.
Mr. John Williams: I think you're building in a conflict here, Madam Chair, of a review after two supply periods. We have absolutely no idea how long the next Parliament will last.
The Chair: Six months.
Mr. John Williams: If it were to last a long period of time and we found our recommendations weren't really too palatable, then you'd be stuck with them until the end of the Parliament. So I would rather not get into an ambiguity there.
The Chair: Okay. Monsieur Laurin.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, there's another aspect that seems to me quite imprecise. If we want to force a review at the end of two supply periods, we have to reword the text. The way it's written here, it says it's simply a trial and that everything will have to be reviewed after two supply periods. If there is no review after two supply periods, what will happen then? It could happen that the government will decide to let this go without comment. There's a two-year trial basis, and then it's all over and done with. It should be reviewed, but it isn't. What would happen after the trial period? Are we to assume that everything stops there or that the measures are maintained?
.1020
Perhaps we should say that the standing committees are authorized to propose reallocations of funds and that this measure is being adopted on a provisional basis until the review of the procedure is done with a view to recommending its maintenance or abolition. If there is no review, the trial continues. If we want to change anything, there must be a review to recommend the maintenance or abolition of the procedure. I would simply say that this is on a provisional basis and that the trial will continue until there is a review of the issue to determine whether the procedure is maintained or abolished.
[English]
The Chair: That's what we want to achieve, to put this in place in the Standing Orders, to put it subject to review but make sure it continues until a review recommends otherwise. Then probably the simplest thing is to take out ``on a provisional basis''.
Mr. John Williams: Just delete these words, Madam Chair, and remember that our report contains only recommendations. This is not implementation. The procedure and House affairs committee will be adopting actual Standing Orders and a full report at some later date.
So this is our recommendation, not the actual implementation.
The Chair: Yes. It still has to go through the full committee, through Parliament.
Mr. John Williams: Let's just delete the reference to provincial basis and carry on.
The Chair: Is everybody agreed?
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: We have to be sure we are very clear in our intent.
The Chair: Having got your way, now you want to change your mind again?
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No. Is our intent to make it forever until changed by a subsequent committee?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: That's versus it very clearly being a trial period. The two are completely different, as I said earlier. In a sense, are we making now a pilot project, almost like a clinical trial of a treatment approach to something, and which ends until the results of the review in case damage may continue?
The second alternative is that it is a change-in-treatment approach, but notwithstanding the potential results, whatever the results of the evaluation of the treatment approach, maybe let it continue.
So we are really confronted with two fundamental issues here. One, do we want to have really a trial period, or two, in our wisdom today, will we go ahead and say, do it; we will evaluate it just in case it is not good?
What is our wish? I am persuaded one way or the other.
The Chair: Look, my view is that let's have a little bit of trust in the next Parliament to decide whether or not it's meeting their needs. I think what we've done is to change the burden of proof, which now is on those who want to demonstrate in a review it isn't working and isn't helpful to Parliament. Otherwise, it continues.
Monsieur Laurin.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, from a psychological standpoint, it's important to maintain the words "on a provisional basis" to allay many fears. It is important that we say that this is on a trial basis. It's something like a provisional tax. When the government imposes a provisional tax, it does happen that 40 years later, the tax is still there and is still provisional.
That's why I'm saying that there should be a trial and this trial should last until there is a review to decide whether we abolish or maintain the procedure. If it works, it is not reviewed and it continues to apply. Since we'll say it's on a trial basis, it won't scare anyone off. Everyone will know that when it's no longer suitable, it will be reviewed and we will justify its abolition or maintenance.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
Are we agreed, then, that we take out ``on a provisional basis'' but keep in the provision that it be subject to review?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
.1025
[Translation]
Are we finished? No?
Mr. René Laurin: We're not taking out "on a provisional basis", Madam Chair. That's the whole basis of our argument. If we want our recommendations to have as good a chance as possible of being adopted, the wording mustn't scare people off. To avoid that fear, it would be best to leave in "on a provisional basis". But perhaps I misunderstood the argument.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: If I may, Madam Chair, I'll explain the changes I thought I could make to the text.
First of all, the last-to-final sentence in paragraph 12 would read:
- It would be wise, therefore, to review the proposed changes to the Standing Orders when it can
be determined whether they should be maintained, modified or eliminated....
- You've asked me to take out the words ``be implemented on a provisional basis''. In a sense,
that's implied by what is said at the end of paragraph 12, but if you want, we can take out the
words ``provisional basis'' and replace them with what Mr. Laurin is suggesting, ``on a trial
basis''.
The Chair: My concern is that if you do it on a provisional basis, presumably they lapse at the end of two supply periods whether the review has or has not been completed. After the time we've spent on this, the onus should be on anyone who thinks this isn't a good idea to reverse it rather than it automatically lapsing, which means somebody then has to fight to have it stay in there.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Our difficulty is that we have not quite crystallized our definitive position on this point in terms of sentiment. If we believe this is really the way to go, based on all the evidence of witnesses we have heard, then we make the determination that there should be changes to the reallocation period.
When we suggest that it be reviewed, it could be on the basis of two things. One, we are not really certain that this will work. In a sense, we have that inherent hesitancy. Alternatively, it is really a challenge to continuing quality assurance. That's quite positive.
So we can either separate the two, have the changes and then a provisional review is only to ensure quality assurance of that.
I am reminded of some advice I got from a professor. He gave us this example. He said, ``This hole in your heart is nothing. Don't be worried about it. It's a congenital heart defect. I will see you in six months.''
Who are you kidding? This is nothing to worry about? You will see me in six months?
If you really mean there is nothing to worry about, my professor said, tell them this: ``Nothing to worry about'' - the child was about five or six years old - ``I'll see her when she gets married.'' In other words, that confidence is there.
As it is written here, we have not defined that level of confidence at this point. That's why we're having this discussion.
So are we certain that this is the route to continue on, and that the review be only a quality assurance? I would go for that approach, that it be a definitive recommendation of a need for reallocation provisions, and then for greater quality assurance, it be reviewed. In other words, it is ongoing until changed by the results of the review. That is my approach.
.1030
The Chair: I think we're at risk here of debating how many angels are on the head of a pin.
Mr. John Williams: I think that's the point we're getting to, Madam Chair. Why don't we leave it with Brian and move on. Time is of the essence.
The Chair: Brian needs a decision from us, though.
Mr. John Williams: Let's put our fears and concerns in the preamble of paragraph 12, that we recognize that these are significant changes that may be required to be modified at a later period, and therefore let us review it after two years. I have a little problem with provisional changes, because this is not a test. It's not worth taking a little department way off somewhere and using it as a test case.
We are changing our methodology. We're asking Parliament to evolve. We're saying that perhaps after two years it would be appropriate to review how the evolution is working. We have no problem with a committee of the next Parliament, with all its sovereign powers, making its own recommendations. That's their prerogative.
So let's move forward.
The Chair: When the procedure and House affairs committee deals with the amendments they can choose to do it that way if they want, but I think we should be demonstrating some confidence in our own recommendations.
John.
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North, Lib.): If we leave in ``on a provisional basis'', provisional would mean that after the expiry of two supply periods it would automatically revert to its previous status. So what are we going to review, the previous status or the changes we made?
The Chair: You have to keep them there so you can review them, is that what you're saying? It makes sense.
Mr. John Loney: Yes, as long as we leave in provisional basis.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, if you take out ``on a provisional basis'', that will allow the procedure to remain in place, and at the same time, a review will be conducted. Those conducting the review will, I imagine, submit a series of recommended changes if they felt changes were necessary or if they felt things were working fine. They would say so, and the procedure would still remain in place.
Mr. John Loney: Exactly. On a provisional basis it would automatically revert to what it was prior to the two supply periods.
The Chair: René, what were your concerns, though, in the text?
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: I'm prepared to wait for the final text that Mr. O'Neal will present to us. The important thing is to have a text that will not mean that at the end of the two supply periods, we don't know if this is maintained or extended.
Personally, this doesn't bother me. I simply thought it would be strategically best to leave in the words "on a trial basis" or "provisional". If we remove the word "provisional" and we say instead that there will be a review after two supply periods, that's equivalent to using "on a provisional basis" or "trial basis". We won't argue about the wording. Let's wait and see the final text, and if the formulation we prefer is in the text, well then, we'll all agree. Otherwise, we will be drafting the text in your place and we will probably discuss this for another half hour.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: If I may, Madam Chair, that would take you up to paragraph 155, which talks about the ability of committees to consider departmental plans and performance reports separately. As committee members know, this is already occurring on a trial basis. There are no recommendations in this section. It describes the status quo and indicates that the subcommittee feels that standing committees ought to make good use of this opportunity.
Mr. John Williams: I'm not suggesting a recommendation, but I think it might be helpful if in the text, Brian, you were to include the point that we would hope the format of presentation of the estimates and the performance reports would be as similar as possible to provide proper continuity of analysis. I'm not asking for a recommendation. Just include it in the text.
.1035
I'm a little concerned, Madam Chair, that the two can diverge over a period of years. The ability to examine the past performance in light of where the department is going through its estimates may be a little cloudy, so I would hope that they maintain continuity of presentation.
The Chair: Okay, are there any problems with paragraphs 155, 156, 157, 158, or 159? Mr. O'Neal.
Mr. O'Neal: Yes, Madam Chairman, what the section on the ability to consider alternative directions essentially does is ask that, when they are presenting their plans that look three years into the future, departments and agencies make standing committees aware of the challenges that they anticipate, that they see coming up on the horizon; and that the departments and agencies seek the advice of the committees on how best to address those challenges.
So, if you look forward to the recommendations that come at paragraphs 165 and 166, the first one says:
- That when they present their annual plans documents, departments and agencies inform
committees of alternative directions, including forecasts of the challenges that departments and
agencies expect to confront in the future, beyond the upcoming fiscal year for consideration.
- That committees be encouraged to put forward alternative future directions for consideration,
both during meetings with departmental officials and in their reports and departmental plans.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In reading paragraph 158, there was something there that caught my attention. It says the standing committees should review this pile of performance reports and report them back to the House. Has that happened? Has any committee read them, and never mind reported them? How do we know, and what do we intend to do about that idea and sentiment?
Mr. John Williams: I'm sorry, but could Dr. Pagtakhan repeat his question?
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In the middle of paragraph 158, it states:
- The President of the Treasury Board tabled pilot Performance Reports for sixteen departments
and agencies in the House of Commons on 31 October 1996. Standing committees should
review these reports carefully and report them back to the House.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, I believe I wrote this paragraph prior to or just following October 31, 1996. My inquiries since then have suggested to me that a response by standing committees is not what many people would have liked. I know the Auditor General intends to include in his April 1997 report a chapter on the departmental plans and performance process, and he will undoubtedly have something to say about how standing committees have used these reports.
The point of this paragraph is just to urge standing committees to use the reports. In a sense, I think you have to be a bit flexible or generous in your approach on this issue simply because this is the first year of a trial project. Many standing committees may not have yet realized the usefulness of these documents; they need to have some opportunity to gain further experience with them.
.1040
I think a series of changes to the documents have also been proposed in order to make them more useful for standing committees, and I have a feeling that's coming out of Mr. Duhamel's parliamentary working group. It's therefore my belief that you should perhaps leave some time for the documents to become improved. After that, you will probably see more use of those documents by standing committees.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: On that point, since you have preliminary inside information - and if this committee was to take any little bit of humble credit - we should let the statement stand while making one small recommendation: the report will be brought forward to the mother committee before we hear and see this April 1997, potentially eight-year report. We do not know for sure; this is sort of going on your intuition, Brian. If your intuition was to in fact be realized, at least this subcommittee would have then hit on one thing. So let us make a little recommendation to that effect, because it has nothing to do with changing Standing Orders.
The Chair: I think this paragraph does perhaps need to be modified to reflect that, six months later, these pilot reports or performance reports may be expanded to all departments, and that we feel this is an important new tool for parliamentarians and for the committees.
When we as a subcommittee reviewed this proposal for the pilot project, we had some comments at that time about evaluation. That evaluation has been done now, but we don't have time to review it. Hopefully there will be an estimates committee - or maybe we can call it a committee on the estimates process - that will review it. Right now, Duhamel has an informal parliamentary working group that is supposedly doing that. Unlike a normal committee, though, it's not operating openly and it's not hearing from other members of Parliament, so I have some concern about that.
But I think we need to highlight these reports as important new tools by which Parliament can assess and link with the estimates in terms of how well departments have used the resources provided to them to achieve the objectives that they said they were going to achieve. It's that simple. If you know they haven't been accomplishing what they said they would, then you have a powerful tool when you go at the estimates next year. And that tool would also be there when, in the fall, you want to say to the finance committee and to the Minister of Finance, ``As you're developing your new budget, we think you should be really looking at this department. We were asked for this amount of money, but the department hasn't achieved what we were told it was going to achieve. We therefore think it doesn't need this much money.''
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin.
Mr. René Laurin: I would like to ask Mr. O'Neal what happens when a report is tabled before the House of Commons. There have been 16. What happens once these reports are tabled and the House does not refer them to a committee? No one's interested in them. If that's the case, perhaps we should provide for or ask the House to direct any report it receives to a committee so that it can be looked at. But I'm missing some information on the procedure that is normally followed.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chairman, in response to Monsieur Laurin's question, these documents are considered to be an integral part of the estimates documents. They are therefore automatically referred to the appropriate standing committees. Each and every one of the standing committees with a responsibility for a department that produced a pilot performance document, received that pilot performance document. I also understand that, subsequent to that, there have been some consultations with the committee chairs and committee research staff in order to see how well those documents fit the needs of the individual committees.
The Chair: Mr. Williams.
Mr. John Williams: In regard to this paragraph, while it refers to these pilot documents, I think we have to remember that this whole new approach to being aware of the fiscal realities of the government is an evolutionary process. As parliamentarians become aware of the information that is available to them in a format that is consistent and that allows them to understand what is going on within a department, we will see these estimates and performance documents used more and more by parliamentarians over the next few years. I never envisaged that as soon as the first one was tabled, everybody would be waiting with bated breath to analyse it and use it.
.1045
Let's give the process time to work. Once these performance documents contain two or three years' worth of history and are tabled in the same format as the estimates, and when the estimates look forward two and three years, I think parliamentarians are going to be able to talk knowledgeably, and they will ask serious questions of departmental officials. Then, and only then, will these performance documents and estimates really start to accomplish what they should have been doing for all these years.
The Chair: Let me make a suggestion that can perhaps give a little more context to this. If we move forward to paragraphs 185, 186, 187 and 188, what we have are a number of recommendations that make it clear that these plans documents, and how committees deal with them, are an important tool for committees.
First of all, we are suggesting that when it is holding pre-budget consultations, the finance committee should pay particular attention to the standing committee reports on departmental plans; that it should invite as its first witnesses the chairs of standing committees that have reported on the plans; that when he tables his budget, the Minister of Finance should include a response to standing committee reports on departmental plans; and that departments should have to refer to previous committee reports on plans and performance in order to make sure that they are continually addressing the concerns of their committees.
Brian, I'm wondering if there might be some reordering in order to bring our discussion about the plans documents closer to those recommendations.
Mr. John Williams: Madam Chair, I think the point has to be taken that it's an evolutionary process. It will take time for parliamentarians to realize that they have new tools at their disposal, and it will take time for them to start working with and using those tools effectively.
The Chair: Anyway, can we agree to update section 158 somewhat, recognizing that we have already had the first referral plans documents and committees, and simply emphasizing this as an important tool?
Mr. O'Neal: I could certainly do that.
With respect to what you said about the subsequent comments on plans and performance documents, starting at paragraph 184, perhaps what we could do is include a sentence or two in this section, saying that we have some proposals further on in the report that should make the examination of departmental plans documents more attractive for committees. It's a higher-profile response.
The Chair: Yes, by ensuring that it's integrated into the pre-budget process and that the government is required to respond to those reports. Would it be something like that?
Mr. O'Neal: Yes.
Also, I could use some direction from the subcommittee, Madam Chair, because I wasn't sure whether or not you would like to have a recommendation at the end of paragraph 158. Right now, the last couple of sentences in paragraph 158 encourage standing committees to make use of these documents. I didn't know if you wanted to make that a little bit more formal by including a recommendation at the end of that paragraph to the effect - and I've just drafted something quickly here - that standing committees use departmental plans and performance reports in conjunction with their study of the estimates. It would basically just repeat what you've already said here, but would put it in the form of a recommendation.
.1050
The Chair: Do we want to make a recommendation?
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes. I think we should. In fact, it would be like advice for members during the orientation period at the beginning of Parliament. Somehow the whips of the various parties should advise their caucuses that they must use this kind of document to be effective and meaningful on committees. It would be along the lines of a friendly recommendation.
The Chair: Is there any disagreement with that?
You know what happens when these reports come out. The recommendations get attention, not the text.
I wonder if it's worth having a recommendation like this: that in the interests of these documents remaining current and relevant to the subcommittees after the committees' review of the estimates, a standing committee of the House be charged with - I'm writing on the fly, which I don't do very well - regularly reviewing these documents and their usefulness to Parliament.
If in fact we ultimately decide that there should be an estimates committee...obviously it would be the role of the estimates committee, but if people are agreeable I think we should ensure that there is some committee of Parliament that has the responsibility to keep on top of this stuff. I give great credit to Ron Duhamel and what he's done with an informal working group, but I'm not sure that's the best way to serve the interests of Parliament.
Mr. John Williams: Who do we delegate or suggest that -
The Chair: Are you still part of that working group, John?
Mr. John Williams: That working group has pretty well finished its job. I haven't been a part of it per se, but I have been kept informed and I've had input into how it's been proceeding.
I think the procedure and House affairs committee is where the responsibility lies for ensuring that information to Parliament is current and appropriate and so on. I don't think we want to spend too much time on this issue, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Is there any disagreement that there should be a regular parliamentary review by a standing committee of the quality and usefulness of those documents?
Mr. John Williams: I have no problem with that. If we don't go to an estimates committee, the procedure and House affairs committee would have to strike a subcommittee periodically to get the job done.
The Chair: Okay. I think we have finished with paragraphs 162, 163 and 164. As Brian said, paragraph 165 is the next one with a recommendation.
Mr. John Williams: I'm not disagreeing with what's in paragraphs 165 and 166, but it's Parliament role to approve. It's not Parliament's role to do the government's job for it and decide where the government actually wants to go.
The Chair: But to advise -
Mr. John Williams: Again, I really don't want to get into semantics and splitting hairs, but when a department or the government asks a committee for approval to go down a certain road, it should certainly be able to say it has examined all the options, which are A, B, C and D, and the preferred option is A.
Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, Madam Chair, but it's not the parliamentary committee's role to decide between A, B, C and D, and tell the government which one to go to. It's a bit of a nuance and rather than open up a debate, I'm prepared to leave the recommendations as they are and just put that proviso on the record.
Mr. O'Neal: If it helps, Madam Chair, I had some discussions with people at Treasury Board Secretariat who are working on the project for improved reporting to Parliament. They said one of the goals of these plans documents is to get input from parliamentary committees.
.1055
Once they've had that input they're of course not obliged to follow the instructions or opinions that have been presented to them, but the idea, I suppose, is that elected office holders have a role to play in helping inform the policy-making process. You're being asked to pull up your sleeves and help out a little bit.
Mr. John Williams: Yes.
Mr. O'Neal: That's all. This should just help you do a better job of that.
Mr. John Williams: As I said, a nuance recommendation is fine.
The Chair: Okay. That's agreed. Let's go.
Paragraphs 167 and 168 have no recommendations. Paragraph 169 does, about the evaluation frameworks for all new programs.
I'm sorry. Paragraph 170 has the recommendation:
- That the evaluation frameworks for all new programs be provided to standing committees,
either in the Part III's of the Estimates, or in the information supplied when legislation initiating
new programs is being reviewed.
Mr. John Williams: I think what we're talking about here, Madam Chair, is what is commonly referred to as program evaluation. I would like to see program evaluation become a cyclical evaluation of each statutory program and -
The Chair: We have that further on.
Mr. John Williams: Is that coming up later on?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. John Williams: Okay. I'll just leave it as it is and we'll cover it later on.
The Chair: Is there any problem with that recommendation in 170?
Brian, paragraph 171.
Mr. O'Neal: I'm sorry, Madam Chairman, but I just want to point out that these recommendations have been amended in line with some of the concerns expressed by the subcommittee prior to Christmas.
The Chair: It reads: ``as well as reports and evaluations that have been completed''. In other words, this is to ensure that Parliament is kept informed of evaluations, not that it receives an estimate saying so much is being spent on such a program and everything is going wonderfully when Parliament doesn't know about the evaluation that has identified a million problems with the program.
Mr. John Williams: I'm looking further ahead in the report and I'm concerned about the lack of an in-depth review of the statutory programs by people who are qualified to perform such a review. I want to see stronger language saying that this new discipline is evolving called program evaluation, that we will use that and develop it as a discipline, and that all statutory programs become subject to a formal evaluation on a cyclical basis.
The Chair: Paragraph 171 is simply about making sure that Parliament is kept aware of evaluations and that evaluations are included in the performance documents, including both the process and the results of evaluation.
Could we maybe agree with that and then move on to deal with your concerns and other recommendations, John?
Are there any disagreements with that?
Mr. John Williams: Okay.
The Chair: Monsieur Laurin.
Mr. René Laurin: Je suis d'accord sur cela.
The Chair: Okay. Paragraph 175 is the next one that has a recommendation.
Mr. John Williams: This, I think, was the one I'm concerned about, Madam Chair. Rather than saying that the standing committees ``be given explicit authority to review'', I think the recommendation has to be turned around the opposite way, in that a program review should be tabled with the standing committee. A program review is a fairly complex analysis of a statutory program and that program evaluation covers a period of time.
.1100
The way I look at this recommendation is that a standing committee could do a superficial review, but no one would ever get to the meat and potatoes of a program to analyse it from the four fundamental criteria I've always talked about. First, what is the public policy a statutory program is trying to achieve? Second, how well is the statutory program achieving its public policy mandate? Third, is it doing it efficiently? Fourth, can it achieve the same results in a better way?
I would like to see some recognition of this evolving discipline of program evaluation being used to its fullest extent and I would like the wording to be included either in this particular recommendation or in another one.
The Chair: I've only one comment on what you've said, John. As much as you and I might want to see Parliament doing this regularly, I don't think we can dictate to the standing committees what they must do. All we can do is give them the power to carry out their responsibilities, and that it be done is the suggestion to make.
Mr. John Williams: This is my whole point, Madam Chair. I wouldn't want to tell the standing committees what they want to do. This is more a recommendation to government to say that they should be delivering this to the standing committees on some programs - and they may only be evaluated once every ten years - and to start pushing government to have these in-depth analyses of statutory programs tabled with the standing committees in order for them to decide where the public policy should be going.
The Chair: Dr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Are you focusing only on statutory programs?
Mr. John Williams: Primarily, yes.
The Chair: Not necessarily.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay. Statutory or non-statutory programs, the first question would be where we see the Auditor General's office in this regard. The office does an excellent review of every task on a cyclical basis, perhaps by a random sample. In other words, John's remark that it be done by a competent body is very critical.
At present, the Auditor General's office is the most competent body in terms of a very thorough, knowledgeable review of any given program of government and, in fact, the office does relate it to policy. So that's taking place.
Then there is the parliamentary committee, the committee on public accounts that in fact looks at the Auditor General's report. So that's now happening too.
What else, then, do we envision doing to supplement these? I just want it to be clear.
Mr. John Williams: Madam Chair, each department now has its own internal auditors and it also has its internal program reviewers. Internal auditing, as we know, is a discipline that's been around for a very long time, but this concept of a program review of a statutory program is relatively new and is developing.
I didn't see it as a role of the Auditor General's office to perform program reviews. That's not necessarily the role of the Auditor General. He is more into value-for-money auditing and so on.
I laid out four criteria. First, what is the public policy mandate? That is not the role of the Auditor General. How effectively is the statutory program meeting that public policy? It can be done internally. The fourth criteria is how efficiently it is being done. Again, that can be done internally. Is there a better way? Again, that's not the role of the Auditor General.
But I did perceive this concept: where we have large statutory programs spending huge amounts of money, the evaluation being done by the internal auditors could be audited by the Auditor General to give credence to the report, so that when the report is tabled in front of Parliament, we have a certification by the Auditor General that it is a quality evaluation.
.1105
The Auditor General is someone who is separate and apart and can choose at his own discretion what areas of government he wishes to examine. I wouldn't want the Auditor General to become an integral part of government again. That's why we have these internal program evaluators. Let them do their jobs and be critiqued by the Auditor General if he so desires.
The Chair: Nor do I want to infringe on the mandate of the public accounts committee, John, and it seems to me that the public accounts committee - I don't know where they're at now - was taking on this whole issue of program evaluation. Perhaps that's where it more properly belongs.
Mr. John Williams: I appreciate that, Madam Chair. It can very well belong there, but I see no reason why we can't give it a helping hand here.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: That's why I was asking the question. The public accounts committee does exactly what we are doing now. In fact, I asked the question precisely to avoid that duplication of committees. I can see asking a department to table a report to the committee. I think that is very critical as a first step. Whether the committee makes use of that report tabled for them and indirectly for the House...we would not like to dictate that to the committee, but there is at least that one committee of the House - public accounts - whose main duty is precisely to look at the evaluation of those reports.
The Chair: Nor do I think we want to give the committees the power to direct the departments. I don't think we can do that.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, it's nothing to do with that. Again, it's a tool to meaningfully study the estimates, as long as we do not lose sight of that focus.
Mr. John Williams: Program evaluation is an evaluation of what has happened within a particular program over a number of years, for ten years, let's say. What has happened in the past is rightfully the subject of the public accounts committee.
When we have this program evaluation tabled in the House of Commons and referred to a standing committee, it's the best basis available for any committee to table a report in the House of Commons as to where it thinks public policy should be going in that particular area. That, therefore, is the proactive, forward-looking role and is the basis for the committee to table that - and that rightfully belongs in the appropriate standing committee - and if there has been serious mismanagement of the program over the years, it becomes obvious through the program evaluation. That would perhaps be the role of the public accounts committee, which always takes this rearguard, retrospective examination.
So program evaluation is twofold, but it can serve as a very useful tool in determining where public policy wishes to go in that particular area. And I want to enhance its, role Madam Chair.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, could I offer just a few clarifications?
First of all, I think subcommittee members might want to look at paragraph 175. This recommendation opens up the possibility for standing committees to conduct reviews of programs into the future, and not just on plans, but on programs. As this paragraph reads towards the end:
- In a series of recommendations that appear below, we will call on government to open up
statutory expenditure programs for thorough and regular review: amendments to the Standing
Orders should be made in order to facilitate this review. We believe, therefore, that
opportunities for the long-term examination of existing programs and program spending need
to be made more explicit.
.1110
Mr. John Williams: My remarks on this are premature, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
On section 175, there is no problem with that recommendation as it stands, in the context of others to come.
Our next recommendation is not until section 185. Are there any comments on subsection (f), reporting deadlines for departmental plans and documents? We don't have a recommendation there, do we, Brian?
Mr. O'Neal: No. There are no recommendations here. It's just a discussion of what the committee looked at, what was said by witnesses. There's basically a decision here not to alter the reporting deadlines for plans, documents, or reporting deadlines for the main estimates.
However, there is one concern I ought to signal to the subcommittee, and maybe you will want to put something in your report about this. You had some concerns that departmental reports on performance were being tabled a little too late to be of any use. They are tabled on October 31. When you first looked at the whole issue of the pilot documents on performance you indicated you thought maybe they ought to be tabled earlier in the fall.
I would just flag that for your attention now. I don't know if you want to ask that they be tabled say at the beginning of October or September 31. You may wish to do that. On the other hand, I think I need also to signal to you that Treasury Board Secretariat seems to be concerned that it might be asking departments to get their reports on performance out earlier than is easily possible.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Does the performance cover a period of time?
Mr. O'Neal: The performance reports cover until the end of the last fiscal year. If you get a performance report from a department on October 31, 1996, the performance it will be talking about is the department's performance to March 31, 1995.
The Chair: It's the evaluation of the previous fiscal year.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: March 31, 1995; that's the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. O'Neal: The end of the previous fiscal year.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In a sense from the end of the fiscal year 1995 to March 1996 is one year, right?
Mr. O'Neal: One fiscal year.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Then you have another six or seven months there, after, or one and a half years, as it now stands.
Mr. O'Neal: As it now stands. As it now stands, departmental reports on performance would normally be included in their part IIIs of the estimates, which means you would be getting them in March 1997 instead of, under this proposal, October 1996. So what they are doing is shifting the date for reporting on performance ahead -
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: By six months or so.
Mr. O'Neal: - yes - and they are taking that information and removing it from the part IIIs of the estimates and presenting it as a separate document, where it will have a higher profile and attract greater attention.
I return to my original point. Back when the subcommittee first reviewed this proposal you endorsed it, but you said you had some problems with the tabling date that was being proposed, the end of October. You said if a committee is going to get reports on performance it should be getting them a little sooner than that, because what you want to do is to report back to the House and then have your comments and recommendations taken into consideration as the estimates for the coming fiscal year are being finalized and as the budget is being finalized.
.1115
So that's what I'm pointing out to you here. You may wish to put in a recommendation that asks that performance reports be tabled a month sooner, for example, to give standing committees more of an opportunity to review them.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The question, then, Madam Chair, is what is the realistic expectation? How soon can whoever is doing the performance report report? Should a one-year project be allowed the leisure of one and a half years?
The Chair: On performance, the fiscal year ended March 31, 1996, and that's for the 1995-96 year. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that it be reported by October 1. I don't think that's unreasonable at all. That's - April, May, June, July, August, September - six months. It sounds reasonable to me.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It will be a big job, because now it's one and a half years. Six months?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Six months is just about the correct balance.
The Chair: In other words, right now we're close to March 31, 1997. If departments are keeping on top of their performance throughout the year, which is what they should be doing, to say, okay, the year comes to an end in two weeks, we want you to report by October 1 this fall on that year, I don't think is unreasonable at all.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: No, I agree with you.
The Chair: My preference in fact would be to see in here a recommendation based on this, that the reporting deadline for the plans and documents remain the same, so the Treasury Board understands Parliament has to have those documents when they are relevant to the estimates. The fact that they are not now proposing to change it doesn't mean they won't next month.
I think it needs to be a very clear recommendation that ties it into the estimates process, that the timing is the tabling of those documents. The same with the performance documents. We should go back to the review we did of the new pilot project and say we think they need to be tabled for the committees' use by October 1. Otherwise the committees won't have those to provide advice on the next estimates, the next budget.
Does anybody have a problem with that?
You can do that, Brian?
Mr. O'Neal: Done.
The Chair: Done.
Reporting deadlines for the main estimates. I think all we said there was that we didn't think we should change it. We reconfirm that in our discussion on reallocation. However, on section 185 we come to some of the recommendations to give more incentives to parliamentarians to deal with the plans and performance documents.
Brian, do you want to take us through these?
Mr. O'Neal: This section of the report discusses, in general, giving better incentives to standing committees to encourage them to look into the plans and performance documents and actually to use this information in conjunction with their study of the estimates. So there are a number of recommendations that have to do with the response that committee reports on plans and on performance would attract.
The first recommendation is at paragraph 185. This essentially indicates that if the Standing Committee on Finance decides to hold a pre-budget consultation it takes into account the reports of standing committees on departmental plans as part of this process.
.1120
Then you have a further recommendation, at paragraph 186, which says if the finance committee is going to do this it gives some priority to inviting the chairs of those standing committees that have actually reported on plans, and I should point out the chair of the new standing committee on the estimates, although it hasn't been determined whether or not there will be such a committee, to appear before the finance committee to discuss their reports; and subsequent to that, that the Minister of Finance include a response to standing committee reports on departmental plans in the supporting documents that accompany the budget.
The intent of these recommendations is to provide an incentive or reward, in a sense, to committees that have actually done some work in this area. They know if these recommendations are adopted their reports, their recommendations, and their comments will in effect not fall on deaf ears; some profile will be given to their work and their recommendations and there will be some formal response to what they are suggesting. The thought here again is that this will provide some reward or incentive for those who actually embark on this kind of work.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rey Pagtakhan): Is there any discussion?
Mr. John Williams: I think that's quite well presented there, Mr. Chairman. We can move on.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rey Pagtakhan): Now we go to paragraph 187, Brian.
Mr. O'Neal: Actually, that covers all of the recommendations up to paragraph 188, which I didn't mention. I'll just read it for you:
- That as part of their plans and performance documents, departments and agencies regularly
include a reference to previous committee reports on past plans and performance, or to any
committee report to Parliament, with specific attention devoted to steps taken in response to the
views of Members of Parliament as expressed in standing committees.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rey Pagtakhan): Paragraph 189 onwards...190.
Mr. O'Neal: Mr. Chairman, the paragraphs beginning at 190 and the recommendations that follow speak of giving the actual study of the estimates a higher profile. Again, the first recommendation is basically a suggestion that when committees review their estimates they try to do so in a meeting room that has television facilities.
Again, the intent of this series of recommendations is to try to widen the audience out there by getting an appreciation of the work standing committees do on the estimates. The idea here is to get a higher profile for this work and also to provide Canadian taxpayers with a better idea of exactly what their members of Parliament are doing in scrutinizing the expenditures government proposes to make out of tax and other revenues.
The Chair: So 192 is all right? 193?
Brian and I have discussed the recommendation in 196. Brian, do you want to report the results of that conversation?
.1125
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, I've been thinking about this recommendation. This is a requirement to report on the estimates. The basis for the thinking here is that the Standing Orders deem that if a standing committee has not reported on its estimates by May 31, they will be considered to have been reported anyway. This is, in effect, a disincentive for standing committees to do the work on the estimates. This is perhaps something that ought to be modified.
So the subcommittee had decided that a recommendation be made that would strike out the requirement that would result in a committee's reporting, whether it actually reported or not.
So I'll just read this, as follows:
- That Standing Order 81(4) be amended by striking out the words ``or shall be deemed to have
reported''.
It means that in some respects a standing committee might be able to hold the process hostage if it wished. It also might lead to some very serious complications were there to be a minority government in office.
So I think subcommittee members ought to seriously reconsider this particular recommendation, with a view to either replacing it or just simply eliminating it.
The Chair: A serious problem as well is that if the estimates are not reported back and are not deemed to be reported back, then they are not before the House at all, so procedurally we have a real conundrum here.
Monsieur Laurin and then Mr. Williams.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: There are two things, Madam Chair. First of all, I think we skipped recommendation 194.
[English]
The Chair: Back to 194?
Mr. René Laurin: Yes.
[Translation]
I was wondering why it was there. It seems to me that's done right now. When committees sit, they invite witnesses. Why did we make this recommendation?
[English]
The Chair: My recollection is that we wanted to encourage the standing committees to invite the views of the public and particularly well-informed groups on the plans, the documents and then on future directions. It's another way of strengthening their ability to recommend for future estimates.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: It seems to me that on committees where I sat, we called on a great number of expert witnesses and interest groups. I thought this was already done, and that's why I wondered whether it was appropriate to include it here. It doesn't add anything and makes the report longer. It seems to me that this practice already exists, but I don't want to debate that.
I would also have a question about recommendation 195.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, in response to Monsieur Laurin, he is quite correct that the standing committees already enjoy this ability. This recommendation really just asks them to make use of it more widely.
If I can use an example from my own experience, I also work for the public accounts committee. Every year the public accounts committee makes a point of examining the estimates of the Auditor General's office. However, the Auditor General and his staff are the only people who appear as witnesses to discuss those estimates.
.1130
At the same time, there are a number of people, particularly in the academic community, who are highly critical of the office and some of its activities. None of those people have ever been invited to appear as witnesses before the public accounts committee when it studies the estimates of the Auditor General. Perhaps they should be. Perhaps this also relates to other committees - perhaps not the ones that Monsieur Laurin has sat on - that have not made full use of this particular ability.
That's all this recommendation does. It just says there's a power that exists and you ought to consider using it, in part to help the Canadian public to become more aware of the estimates process and how important it is. That's why it's there.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: So perhaps we should draft it so that committees invite more groups or invoke their powers to force people to appear more often.
[English]
The Chair: Because they do tend not to do it on estimates. We don't have performance reports in here, but that's also something where I think well-informed organizations would have a lot to contribute.
I think we should put the performance reports in there as well, Brian.
I think maybe part of the reason it's not there is that performance reports weren't part of the scene when we started this report. So it's a slight modification.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: With regard to recommendation 196, if we're trying to give a member additional incentive, I don't think this will achieve that objective. The recommendation as it is drafted imposes an additional obligation rather than providing additional motivation.
It's not because people will be forced to table a report that they will be any more inclined to do so. If they are forced to do it and they don't feel like doing it, we run the risk of having a less serious report, that does not contain an in-depth examination and that is tabled without any substance whatsoever simply to fulfill an obligation.
Once again, if we're looking to motivate people, I don't think this is the way to go about it. For that matter, I would prefer that we leave paragraph 81(4) as is.
[English]
The Chair: I would strongly recommend that we take this out because it gives us a real problem if the committee does not report. As Brian said in the discussion, there is no way of coercing them to report. I would just perhaps have a discussion here of the fact that we considered various ways and decided not to pursue them.
John.
Mr. John Williams: I agree that we wouldn't want to amend 81(4) as proposed. I suggest that we consider a carrot rather than a stick and I see this as a stick.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. John Williams: Why don't we consider a recommendation that the Standing Order be amended in this way: that after the estimates are tabled in the House they automatically show up on the agenda of the standing committees? And let them deal with them as they so desire and dispose of them off the agenda as they see fit. So they will have to be dealt with in some way, shape or form -
The Chair: How do they say they're not going to deal with them?
Mr. John Williams: They may say, ``We're not going to deal with them, let's move accordingly.'' Or they may say they want want to call in governmental witnesses. It's now part of their agenda and they have to dispose of that item on the agenda, leaving 81(4) here: if they don't report they will be deemed to have reported.
The Chair: Procedurally, can you dictate to any committee what can go on its agenda?
The Clerk of the Committee: You can't dictate.
The Chair: There are certain things that committees are required to do -
The Clerk: Mandated to do -
The Chair: - like adopt a motion for quorum.
What are all those other routine things that get done when a committee is established?
The Clerk: Working lunches. It's all housework.
The Chair: Yes.
I'm not sure you can do that.
.1135
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The estimates, Madam Chair, are deemed referred to the respective standing committees automatically, so automatically they are placed on the agenda, by definition.
The Chair: Not necessarily; only if the steering committee of that committee decides to put them on there, usually.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: So it's one step short.
The Chair: The fundamental principle is that the committees are masters of their own fate. I'm not sure you can interfere with that.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Madam Chair, for another reason I would rather this were not be amended. We are making, we felt, sweeping, radical changes, to the point where we already want to be careful in our wording of the recommendation. If they were so, and then we get involved with the effect of those radical changes, this is a relatively minor change, but it could compound the evaluation that the positive thing happened not because of anything radical we did but because of the minor thing. In terms of research design, we would have liked to change too many variables, particularly when we feel for a variety of reasons...and the reason I proposed it is that it's relatively minor. Let it be the carrot to continue. In other words, we would evaluate the carrot, not the stick.
Mr. John Williams: Madam Chair, I think there have been numerous situations...and I'm thinking how most often when bills have passed second reading in the House they are automatically referred to a committee for further consideration. The House does designate a certain committee as being the committee to deal with certain issues of the House. Therefore I'm not sure we are encroaching on their right to be the masters of their own house by saying ``this will be on your agenda'' and leaving it up to the committee to dispose of that agenda item as it sees fit.
The Chair: What are the views of the subcommittee on this? Rey?
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The reason I do not like that is that to me it's a relatively minor change, but it is a change nevertheless. When you evaluate the impact of the provision on reallocation, which I would like to see, has it really created the change as an incentive? If we make many changes in our so-called provisional prior period, then we will not know the effect or effects of any of these many recommendations. That's why I'm not too keen on changing that, even to a minor degree. But if you would like to proceed -
The Chair: I'm not sure it's worth a long discussion. It's a token kind of thing.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: We agree.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chairman, if the subcommittee members wish, what I could do is remove that recommendation but include some of the things from our discussion in the report. It will touch on some of the issues you have brought up and some of the options you have thought of. So they will be mentioned in the report, but there will be a clear statement to the effect that you are not recommending any of these things at this time.
The Chair: Okay; and what I would also suggest, in line with our earlier discussion about let's not bash parliamentarians and their committees too much, is we might take out some of the negative wording about committees not taking their responsibilities seriously and that sort of thing.
Mr. O'Neal: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: I don't think it's appropriate to draft a paragraph to say what we are not doing. If we don't keep the recommendation, we simply don't mention it. Otherwise, we will be drafting paragraphs about everything we've discussed, even though we've decided not to recommend something. I don't think that's useful. I understand Mr. O'Neal's intention, which is to do justice to members of the committee who discuss something, but I don't think this is very useful.
[English]
The Chair: I'm inclined to agree with that, if nobody else has any objections - that 195, 196, 197, 198, without a recommendation, don't really add anything to the report and we could just take them out. Then we're focusing on the new tools and the new incentives. Any problems with that? Okay, gone.
Now, Brian, do you want to run down the next few sections?
Mr. O'Neal: The next few sections, Madam Chair, don't contain any recommendations, just a suggestion about the kinds of approaches committees may want to consider when they are studying the estimates.
.1140
Perhaps the first section is a bit repetitive. It indicates they should make use of the opportunities they are presented with by the availability of plans and performance documents. That's followed by a suggestion that they link policy to expenditure. Of course that builds on some of the comments that are made earlier about committees being the right place to study the estimates because they have knowledge of the policy area that is the responsibility of the departments they oversee.
That's followed by a section about knowing and applying the rules. Some witnesses indicated to the subcommittee that if a set of rules were in place and they were mastered or applied properly, that in itself might lead to an improvement of the supply process. That's just a suggestion: that they learn the rules.
This is followed by a section that points out that as things now stand, members of committees can issue minority reports on the estimates. This is an avenue that ought to be considered by those who are not in agreement with the majority on a committee about some aspect of the estimates.
There's a section that discusses the kinds of approaches that have been adopted or used by other committees when they are studying the estimates. Some of these approaches were mentioned in the subcommittee meeting with committee chairs.
The final set of paragraphs has to do with seeing the estimates as the end of the process rather than the beginning.
As I said, these are just general comments and suggestions. There's nothing here in the way of recommendations.
The Chair: Dr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Actually, on page 66, paragraphs 205 to 208, linking policy to expenditures, are beautiful observations and likely ought to be the basis for one or two major recommendations. In this instance these observations challenge the committee members themselves, that when they indicate a proposal it should be done with great care and prudence and rationale. It may mean lengthier work, it may mean summoning people with expertise on cost analysis, but so be it. In opposition we propose many recommendations and nobody has really given even an inkling of what it would cost the government, all of us. I think linking policy to expenditure is a real challenge to the committee membership themselves and will make for an exciting performance on the part of the committee members.
In other words, I would like home care to be available for every single community. Fine. What would the cost of that be? Let us move to home care management instead of institutional management. Oh, have you looked at the volume of patients who would be seen?
We are not giving that cost analysis. If this is done on the part of the committee, then the committee members would be keener and more knowledgeable about examining the government submissions. It's a two-way street.
So I would suggest we merge and create one major recommendation out of these observations.
The Chair: Are you suggesting at the end of 207, for example, there be a recommendation that committees include in policy reports to Parliament an estimate of the cost of implementing their recommendations?
.1145
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Along that line, yes.
The Chair: Haven't we also asked that departments, in their estimates, respond to recommendations made by committees throughout the year in their policy reports? And haven't we said that it's much more likely to be taken seriously if committees have in fact taken the trouble?
I like that, because at estimates time it also lets a committee say, ``Hey, we looked at the cost of implementing this new policy direction when we did our report, we found that it could be done for so much, and we think it's far more important - talking about reallocation - that you begin this process of implementing that recommendation with x amount of money. That is far more important than continuing something else that you've been doing for fifty years.''
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In fact, Madam Chair, along those lines, this exercise is very critical. The process of reallocation must be pursued with meaning. As you said, it disciplines you to think critically of efficiency and reality and all those things.
The Chair: And again, you can't coerce the committees to do a quality job on this. They will do a superficial job if they want to. I think if they're serious about the policy recommendations they'll try to demonstrate that it's practical to do this.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It happened in Alberta during this election when the government of the day had a cost analysis of the proposals of the opposition. In retrospect, the party in opposition at that time perhaps could have had someone - those finance officials - say, okay, these are potential options; give me the cost-benefit analysis.
That is the beauty I see in this.
The Chair: Does anybody disagree with Dr. Pagtakhan? Should we in fact pull a recommendation out of that for committees?
Mr. John Williams: I'm not overly enthusiastic about it, but I'm not going to stand in its way, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: In my opinion, those are valid considerations, but I wonder what we're hoping these committees achieve. Do committees have the power to do those things? How can a committee have the means to do a financial assessment of the cost of a recommendation or a resolution? That's the role of departments, of the government which has the necessary resources to do this. When a committee makes a recommendation, I don't think that in the current context it has the power to hire people to conduct a study of the costs that would be generated by its own recommendation.
[English]
The Chair: We do have a recommendation further on in the report about the need for committees to have access to improved resources if they're going to do their job well.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: I don't think that's what this is aimed at. It's aimed at examining documents or testimony by experts that appear before us, to look at them in greater depth and to put them in layman's terms for the needs of members who sit on the committee. I don't think that the experts that we recommend would allow us to do prospecting and examine recommendations that we might want to apply in the future. If that's the case, it's completely different. I don't think that committees currently have a mandate to do that type of thing or the financial resources to do so.
[English]
The Chair: Can I try to pull a couple of things together?
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: I'm not even sure that's desirable, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Let me try to pull a couple of things together, because I kind of like Rey's suggestion that this be a recommendation. I think we would then have to point out the need for committees to have access to resources to allow them to do this. Most committees developing a policy report work with and rely somewhat on advice from the departments that they're involved with and could use those departmental resources to provide them with the costs of implementing the kinds of things that they are recommending...except if the departments don't like it.
Brian.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, for the committee's information - I don't know how helpful this will be - in the United States Congress there is a requirement that committees have to include a section in their reports that discusses the costs involved for the policies they're proposing. In order to do that, they have help from something that's called the Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office prepares a section that's inserted into each report in order to provide a balanced, non-partisan assessment of what the costs are going to be. However, I'd suggest that's a very expensive, very labour-intensive service.
.1150
When I was drafting this section of the report for you, I tried to take into consideration some of the challenges that committees will be faced with if they're going to be asked to do this. That's why I left it at the level of a suggestion, rather than elevating it to that of a recommendation.
I do think the chair is quite correct. If you're going to recommend that committees do this, you're also going to have to recommend that they get the kinds of expert advice and support that they're going to need. And as the chair has said, I'd caution you that if the committees are going to rely on departments to provide them with this kind of assistance and if, for whatever reason, departments determine that they doesn't like the policy proposals that committees are coming forward with, the departments are going to ensure the committees get advice that will discourage them from going in that direction.
The Chair: Dr. Pagtakhan has made the suggestion that this be turned into a recommendation. Is there agreement on that?
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Having said that, as I was reflecting on the intervention, the first application of this recommendation would be on this committee for the purpose of performing a cost analysis on our proposals themselves.
The Chair: No, because our recommendations haven't been accepted yet.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay, the mother committee, then.
The Chair: That's true, and we do address the cost of establishing an estimates committee, for instance, if we do in fact recommend one.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: In his earlier intervention, Mr. Laurin alluded to the matter of getting extra resources and extra staff.
The Chair: Okay, so do we want to leave it as it is, or do we try to make it into a recommendation? What is the consensus here?
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'm open.
Mr. John Williams: Let's leave it as it is.
The Chair: Leave it as it is. Okay, thank you.
Let's move over to minority reports. I'm sure the opposition parties have no problem with that. Either the government or my colleagues might ask me why I'm encouraging them, but -
Mr. John Williams: That's democracy, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, what's the rule regarding minority reports? Do we get help to draft those reports or does the dissenting MP have to look after the drafting of his own dissenting or minority report?
[English]
The Chair: I think your research bureau is supposed to provide you with that help. That's why you have that big budget.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: More is the reason not to make a recommendation regarding the previous paragraphs. Evaluating the expenditures for the policies proposed could only apply to the examination of policies proposed by the government.
I don't think I would be given a budget to examine the financial implications of a policy suggesting that I might make or that Mr. Williams might make to this committee or any other. We would simply reject the principle of the policy and we would not have to spend any resources on it since the government has a majority and opposition policies would never be examined. Therefore, I have noted the fact that there is a desire for more frequent minority reports, but that would be at the opposition's expense, unfortunately.
[English]
The Chair: Or legal counsel, the Library of Parliament and those sorts of things, which are available to all of us.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Madam Chair, it has been my observation that while the members of the opposition parties do see the development of and debate on the emerging majority report if it is not going to be unanimous, a majority of the committee never sees the minority report before it is tabled in the House. I'm asking if that is a practice that we should continue.
.1155
Mr. John Williams: I don't think this committee should be investigating the philosophy regarding minority reports, Madam Chair. I'd rather that we confine ourselves to the estimates process and just carry on.
The Chair: You suggest we take this -
Mr. John Williams: This is fine without worrying about recommendations and getting into the whole philosophy of who can table minority reports and on what basis.
The Chair: Okay.
You've been in this position, Rey. Usually you're doing your minority report after the committee has concluded its consideration, and you're doing it at the last moment to get it done before the tabling of the report.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I know.
The Chair: We're suggesting greater use of minority reports. We don't want to consider putting restrictions on how they can be dealt with.
Can we move to the next section where we have a recommendation in paragraph 222?
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, this whole section, section V, has to do with improved support for committees and members.
The first subsection has to do with enhanced staffing resources for committees. My suggestion here is that you put this aside for the moment and that when you return to your discussion on the estimates committee, if you determine that an estimates committee is what you'd like to recommend, you instead include a section that talks about providing the estimates committee with a small dedicated staff of professionals to assist it in its work.
In effect, that would mean taking out the whole section on enhanced staffing, paragraphs 221 through to 223, and the sections after that.
However, let me point out that if you decide to eliminate the possibility of having an estimates committee, this series of suggestions and recommendations might stay in place.
The Chair: Let me just suggest that rather than take it out at the moment we just stand these two sections and come back to them after we've dealt with the issue of the committee.
It is now 11:55 a.m. Do you want to break fairly soon? I know all of us have things to do in preparation for Question Period. I was going to suggest that we break now and come back at 3:30 p.m. to Room 209 in the West Block. We should be able to get through the rest of this report.
There was one problem. We expect a vote perhaps this afternoon sometime -
Mr. John Williams: At about 3:30 or 3:45 p.m.
The Chair: - and possibly a vote at 5:30 p.m. If there's going to be a vote around 3:30 p.m. we might as well get the vote out of the way and then convene for the meeting rather than go over there for ten or fifteen minutes and have to rush back.
The committee will start right after the vote. Then we'll return to the House at 5:30 p.m. My sense is that we can get through most of the rest of the report except the estimates committee proposal. We'll come back to that when we've cleared out some of the rest of the underbrush.
I want to ask about coming back after the 5:30 p.m. vote.
Rey, you're not available this evening. Do you trust the rest of us to pursue it in your absence?
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Most definitely.
The Chair: I think we would all like to feel that we've done something. I've just been talking to the clerk about the tremendous dedication and time that all of you have put in on something that isn't getting you any public profile at all. And it probably isn't even getting you any additional respect from your colleagues in Parliament. I think we're going to have our final meeting to wrap up this report in the parliamentary restaurant at a working lunch.
.1200
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Before I forget, we discussed reallocation being the major change that we envision emerging from the subcommittee. If that is so, is there any way to indicate it in the final report, either upfront as a recommendation or by actually numbering the priorities of the many recommendations? The mother committee, when looking at this, might say, ``You have twenty recommendations. We'll give you nineteen, except the recommendation of reallocation.'' Let us somehow prioritize exactly the recommendations.
The Chair: My sense, frankly, is that it's not going to be a bartering system. The procedure and House affairs committee likes to operate on consensus and that's the way we have been doing this report.
It does deal with the business of Parliament and I hope, as we come through this, that my two opposition colleagues are dealing within their own parties so that basically we can have it go through the committee and be sent to Parliament. If we can do it by consent, we can do concurrence in the report in Parliament.
I'm certainly doing that with our House leadership. I'm keeping them informed of where we're going and how we're progressing with this so that there won't be any major roadblocks to actually getting it to Parliament in very short order.
The procedure and House affairs committee could, then, if it chose to, direct the clerk to prepare the amendments to the Standing Orders. I think that's when we might get into some arguments about which we want to adopt.
My sense, though, is that the committee itself will, by and large, forward the report as we have written it, if we all do our homework.
I think we should plan for a meeting on Thursday. Is the procedure and House affairs commmittee meeting that day?
The Clerk: Probably, if they didn't meet today.
Mr. John Williams: I'm not here for the rest of the week.
The Chair: Okay.
The Clerk: Should we have our final working lunch on Tuesday of next week?
Mr. John Williams: I'll be here next week.
The Chair: Can we plan on having our final working lunch next Tuesday, hopefully, to complete this report?
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: A luncheon?
The Chairman: A luncheon.
Mr. René Laurin: Oh, really?
[English]
The Chair: How do you say ``reward'' in French? I've lost my French here this morning....
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: That will be for you, Madam Chair, because with my diet, I'd be surprised if I could benefit from... But in any event, I'm prepared to work during lunch time.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. John Williams: Will you be our host, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Yes, I shall.
We will meet this evening, then, in the absence of Dr. Pagtakhan. We will try to get a replacement for him. If we run into any nubby problems, we can try to sort them out.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: It's until 7:30 p.m.?
The Chair: Yes.
[English]
If there is a vote, we'll meet immediately afterwards. If not, we'll continue through dinner, with sandwiches and so on, and we'll plan a meeting for next Tuesday morning, just in case. I'd rather have it planned and then cancelled rather than not have it scheduled.
There will be no meeting on Thursday. I think we can all use a bit of a break and I'm sure Brian can use the time to finalize.
Thank you very much, all of you.