[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 18, 1997
.0941 
[English]
The Chair (Ms Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.)): I call to order the meeting of the Sub-Committee on Business of Supply.
As some of you are aware, there are some errors, and I understand they are particularly onerous in the French text. Those are being corrected. A clean copy will be brought to us very shortly.
However, I thought we could go ahead. There are some changes. There are some whole sections that have been repeated inadvertently, and Brian can indicate those to you as we start. We're not spending too much time on those.
Would you please turn to page 34. This is not what the index says, but that will be corrected as well.
Mr. O'Neal.
[Translation]
An hon. Member: What page is it on in French?
The Clerk of the Committee: It's on page 34 in English and page 37 in French.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): What do you want to draw our attention to on page 37?
[English]
Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): Madam Chair, in the English version, under the subtitle that begins with the letter A, it reads ``a single committee to oversee the review and reporting of the estimates''. That should be changed to read simply ``a committee to oversee the estimates''. The rest of the text is basically the same, with a few changes that were requested, as the insert that was provided to subcommittees last week. Again, Mr. Laurin will have to -
Mr. René Laurin: Should it contain the word ``single''?
[Translation]
Mr. O'Neal: Yes, it is a single committee.
[English]
Mr. René Laurin: Should only the word ``single'' appear?
[Translation]
Is the French text all right?
[English]
The Clerk: It shows up in the translation but not in the copy.
Mr. O'Neal: In the English section at the bottom of page 36 there is a paragraph that has been repeated and shouldn't be there. On page 42, just before the section on crown corporations -
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Just a minute, please. Which paragraph is repeated in English? Is it on page 36?
Mr. O'Neal: Yes. It should be deleted because it is a repetition.
Mr. René Laurin: But where is the other paragraph similar to this one?
.0945
[English]
It's not the same.
[Translation]
Mr. O'Neal: It's the same. It has simply been reworded.
[English]
Mr. René Laurin: Is it ``some particularly compelling'' or ``some of the most compelling evidence''?
[Translation]
Mr. O'Neal: That one is all right, but not the other one.
Mr. René Laurin: In French, is it all right?
Mr. O'Neal: Yes. Just before ``Crown corporations'' on page 42 in English,
[English]
on page 42 in English,
[Translation]
we should delete that.
Mr. René Laurin: Delete these two sentences?
Mr. O'Neal: It's an electronic error at the bottom of page 46,
[English]
at the bottom of page 46.
Mr. René Laurin: In French or English?
[Translation]
Mr. O'Neal: In English, pages 47 and 48 should be deleted. That's the old text.
[English]
The Chair: On the bottom of page 46 in English -
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, I unfortunately do not have the time to compare the old and new texts. I mainly focused on the recommendations. So, perhaps we should set aside some time for the final French version.
The Chair: Certainly. So we should probably hold another meeting on Thursday.
Mr. René Laurin: Or if we do not hold a meeting, at least allow me to send you...
The Chairman: All right.
[English]
We're now at the bottom of page 46 in English. Brian.
Mr. O'Neal: Right through until page 48 is old text that crept it's way back in.
The Clerk: On what page in the French?
The Chair: So the last paragraph on 46, all of page 47 and all of page 48 comes out.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Out.
Mr. O'Neal: Yes.
The Chair: It's just old text that shouldn't have been repeated.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: In French, Madam Chair...
[English]
Mr. John Williams: Page 48 is out and page 49 stays.
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: In the French text, Madam Chair, starting on page 122, the list of recommendations is repeated. We go from page 122 to page 125 and, after page 131, we come back to pages 123 and 124 and they are repeated. We should therefore delete these pages and repaginate the others accordingly. I have checked and the text is the same.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, I took a brief look at the French version and the pages that must be deleted in English are not in the French. So it is all right. All the errors will be corrected before the final version.
.0950
The Chair: Yes, and the repeated recommendations as well?
Mr. O'Neal: Yes.
[English]
The Chair: Okay. Can you direct us to our recommendations, and maybe we can start there with respect to the estimates committee.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, the recommendations with respect to the estimates committee are found in the English version, beginning at page 115. There I point out that the first recommendation unfortunately does not appear in its entirety. It should read:
- That the Standing Orders be amended to create a Standing Committee on the Estimates, with a
mandate to monitor and review the supply and estimates process and the work of the standing
committees on the estimates referred to them.
Mr. O'Neal: And the French version is all right.
Mr. René Laurin: For the French version, what I have does not correspond to what I heard read by the interpreter.
The Clerk: In my opinion, it is all right.
Mr. René Laurin: Are you talking about the first recommendation?
The Clerk: Yes. That's the way it is in the French text, but it isn't that way in English. There is an error in the English text only.
Mr. René Laurin: So it is the English text that has to be corrected.
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. René Laurin: All right.
[English]
Mr. John Williams: Could I have that repeated, Madam Chair? What page are we reading from?
The Clerk: Page 115.
Mr. John Williams: Page 115.
Mr. O'Neal: Yes, and unfortunately, Madam Chair, when this was transcribed the first part of the recommendation wasn't included.
If people look at the English version on page 38, you'll see the entire recommendation. It reads:
- That the Standing Orders be amended to create a Standing Committee on
- - and the rest of the recommendation in the list is correct -
- the Estimates, with a mandate to monitor and review the supply and estimates process and the
work of the standing committees on the estimates referred to them.
The Chair: Would it be satisfactory if we said ``to review matters related to the supply and estimates process''?
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, the way the recommendations are structured, they begin with a very broad description and then they become more detailed and precise as you go down the list.
Rather than having one recommendation that would list all of the mandate of the committee, this begins with a general description of its mandate, and then as you read down the list of recommendations, you'll see that it becomes more detailed and spells out exactly what the estimates committee would be expected to do.
The Chair: It might be helpful for us to go through all of the recommendations to see collectively how they hang together.
Mr. John Williams: On page 115.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, there's the first recommendation, which discusses the broad mandate of the committee.
The second recommendation calls for there to be a requirement that it report annually. This doesn't preclude the possibility of reporting at other moments, but that it would be specifically empowered to report to the House on the estimates and supply process on an annual basis.
The third recommendation -
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, I don't know whether it is helpful to review each of the proposals.
.0955
In any case, I have looked at them. The way they are presented is fine with us. I would only have certain things to recommend be added or amended. I wonder whether it would not be helpful for us to consider these points directly, unless my colleagues have seen anything that should be changed in the paragraphs proposed to us. This would perhaps enable us to go more quickly than to review each and every recommendation, if everyone is in agreement.
[English]
The Chair: I'm sorry. My mind was wandering. Would you mind repeating that?
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Personally, I read the recommendations when I received the document. They seemed to me to correspond to the work we have done. I would be prepared to adopt these recommendations immediately after making two or three changes.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Instead of reviewing them one by one, we could immediately go to the changes we want to make and my colleagues could do the same thing if that is what they want to do.
[English]
The Chair: All right.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: That would give us more time to devote to the changes we want to make.
The Chair: All right.
[English]
So in the context of all the recommendations, John, do you feel there needs to be a change to that first one to broaden it somewhat?
Mr. John Williams: If that is the fundamental recommendation, Madam Chair, that from there on everything becomes more and more definitive, I think it should be broader in its definition in the fundamental recommendation.
The Chair: How would you like to do that?
Mr. John Williams: A review of the supply and estimates process and other -
The Chair: Related matters?
Mr. John Williams: - areas, other matters relating to government expenditures... I want to broaden the definition because we've talked about -
The Chair: Brian is suggesting that we should...on matters related to proposed government expenditure. But even that doesn't capture -
Mr. John Williams: Tax expenditures.
The Chair: Exactly, and the idea of how money is raised, which is the other side of the equation -
Mr. John Williams: Yes.
The Chair: - and what money is raised or not raised. That's some of my concern, that the way you've put it, it could stray into the business of the finance committee unless it's specifically related to the supply and estimates process.
Mr. John Williams: Yes. Well, then, review the supply and estimates process, including... Then why don't we just say ``program expenditures, including program expenditures, tax expenditures, crown corporations...''
The Chair: Then we're getting back into that list -
Mr. John Williams: Yes, I know.
The Chair: - and it could be even worse in terms of limiting.
Mr. John Williams: Yes, I know.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, if I may, there is a recommendation later on in the list that talks about the proposed estimates committee working jointly with the finance committee and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to review some of the larger issues, for example, revenue generation. So that's handled there.
Again, I think if Mr. Williams looks at the recommendations that follow, they are a bit more specific in terms of program expenditures and some of the more detailed issues that the estimates committee can deal with. These are things that will have to be reflected, I would think, in the Standing Orders as they're redrafted to reflect this.
The Chair: I understand your concern. I wonder if you'd be satisfied, John, with saying ``and related matters'', which makes it fairly broad -
Mr. John Williams: Yes, I can go along with that.
The Chair: - and then go on to define what some of those related matters might be.
Would that be acceptable to you, René?
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, recommendation 3 seems to me to include whatMr. Williams mentioned, at least in the French text.
.1000
[English]
The Chair: Yes, there it starts laying out specifics. In the first one we're giving guidance on a change to the Standing Orders, and I think it would be important that the Standing Orders reflect that it could also review matters related to the supply and estimates process. You're right, it could be interpreted as only supply and estimates, not the plans documents, not the performance documents, not all of those other things.
Mr. John Williams: Such as statutory expenditures.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. John Williams: We don't want the Standing Order to be too narrowly defined, or we'll find that the committee is shut out of what we intended to look at.
The Chair: Yes. We'll all have to watch that as well when the specific Standing Order is drafted. If that's accepted, it really doesn't change the intent of the recommendation.
Mr. John Williams: As you point out, we'll see how they draft the Standing Order based on our recommendation.
Moving on to number two, Madam Chair, I'd like to delete the last few words, ``on an annual basis'' or change them to ``at least on an annual basis''. Again, I don't want it to be too definitive. I'm thinking here of supplementary estimates and so on. There may be other opportunities and times when it may want to report. I don't want it to be definitive as if there would be only one report, in order to allow the opportunity to report more often.
The Chair: Is that all right, ``at least on an basis''?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: At least one report.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any problems on number three?
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, with respect to recommendation 1, if we compare it with the title of the French paragraph on page 37, we see a difference as a result of the amendment proposed a moment ago. On page 37, the title of the paragraph reads: ``Un comité chargé de superviser le budget des dépenses'', whereas the recommendation mentions a ``comité chargé de surveiller et d'étudier''. This isn't consistent because the word ``superviser'' is stronger than the words ``surveiller et étudier'' contained in the recommendation. For it to be consistent, the title should perhaps read ``un comité chargé de surveiller et d'étudier le budget des dépenses'' in accordance with the terms contained in the recommendation.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: If the subcommittee wishes, I'm sure we could change the title of that subsection to reflect the wording that's included in the recommendation. So in English maybe we should say, ``A Committee to Monitor and Review the Estimates and Supply Process''.
Mr. John Williams: I apologize; could you tell me where this is coming in?
Mr. O'Neal: The problem, Madam Chair, is that the title of the subsection doesn't reflect the wording that's included in the recommendation.
The Chair: That occurs in both English and French.
Mr. O'Neal: Yes. What I've suggested that we do is change the wording of the section title to reflect the wording that's contained in the recommendation.
The Chair: Are there any problems with recommendations three or four?
Mr. John Williams: The only problem with three, Madam Chair, and I don't know how to resolve it, is that it's fine when there's agreement, support and cooperation between this new estimates committee and the standing committee. I don't know what to do if there isn't agreement, support and cooperation between the two committees.
.1005
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, this recommendation has been drafted to address the concerns of some subcommittee members that the estimates committee would act unilaterally.
It has also been drafted to reflect concerns expressed by some witnesses that the estimates committee wouldn't possess the kind of expertise or knowledge that would be required in order to examine the estimates of a given department. Therefore, the assumption here is that if they're going to do this, they will need to work together with the appropriate standing committees rather than just doing these things on their own.
Mr. John Williams: Okay.
The Chair: Are there any problems with number four or five?
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, if I might explain, five has been redrafted a little. Before, it said that the standing committees should report any concerns they have to the estimates committee. I'm told that according to Beauchesne's one committee cannot report to another, so the only way to do this is to have the standing committees report to the House and have their reports permanently referred to the estimates committee.
The Chair: Are we all right with that one? What about six?
Mr. John Williams: I'm not exactly sure what is meant where you state ``and the adequacy of the means by which they receive appropriation from Parliament''. I'm not sure what that statement means. Are you talking about lack of money or too much money or are you looking at some other support?
Mr. O'Neal: Again, Madam Chair, if I may, I understand that the concern there was that in some cases the crown corporations' requests for appropriations that appear in part III of the estimates aren't adequate or don't reflect the full range of information that committee members ought to have when they're examining this issue. There are various concerns of that nature, not just in terms of the way they report to that House, but also in terms of whether the way their estimates are currently structured is appropriate and adequate.
Again, this is an issue that would be studied further if this recommendation were adopted. The subcommittee, at least in its earlier discussions, hadn't reached any conclusion on this particular issue.
The Chair: Do you want to suggest a change in wording, John?
Mr. John Williams: No. If it's primarily to ensure that Parliament has sufficient information at hand in order for it to debate appropriations to crown corporations, that's fine.
The Chair: Numbers seven and eight.
Mr. John Williams: Under seven, I think when we talk about the collective role...mandated expenditures and expenditure regimes of the crown corporations...I mentioned earlier that a crown corporation is normally a business entity with a public policy attached to it.
Sometimes the efficiency of the organization can be difficult to measure because it's intertwined with public policy, which may, for example, require the institution or the organization to run at a loss. Therefore, it doesn't have the bottom line discipline that applies to private sector. And being able to analyse a crown corporation from the point of view of ensuring that its efficiency in running the business is equal to that of the private sector...is that opportunity of examination built into this proposal?
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, if my opinion is being asked on this -
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. O'Neal: - then I think it is. It seems to me that this is a fairly broad range of issues and aspects that the estimates committee could look into.
.1010
I would also have to point out that in terms of past performance there is an annual report on the past performance of crown corporations that is tabled in the House by the president of the Treasury Board Secretariat. That report is automatically referred to the public accounts committee.
The other thing I would add is that the division within the Treasury Board Secretariat that's responsible for the preparation of this report is now beginning consultations with various interested people to see how this annual report on past performance can be improved. So that retrospective or past performance aspect of the work of crown corporations is already available for examination.
Mr. John Williams: I just want to be able to hold the management of a crown corporation accountable to the same standards as the private sector outside of the area of public policy that it's required to implement. The report that was tabled by the president of the Treasury Board Secretariat, I recall, does not give sufficient information. I would think that an estimates committee such as this may periodically want to require an in-depth examination of a crown corporation to ensure that it is fulfilling its public policy mandate, which may be a part of the standing committee, and to examine the efficiency of the organization.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, I'm not disagreeing with Mr. Williams, but I wanted to point out that the first recommendation discusses the periodic review of the mechanisms used by crown corporations to report to Parliament, and I think within that description a study of the kindMr. Williams is talking about could be undertaken.
Mr. John Williams: That's my point. Does this allow that type of review?
Mr. O'Neal: It ought to. But again, it will be up to the estimates committee, should it ever see the light of day, to decide how they will interpret this mandate.
Mr. John Williams: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, the same recommendation concerns an ``examen périodique du rôle, du mandat, des dépenses et des régimes de dépenses de l'ensemble des sociétés d'État''. I think it would be better to write ``de chacune ou de l'ensemble des sociétés d'État''. In other words, that could mean that the committee would have the mandate to review the corporations as a whole, but that we could not conduct a more thorough review of one Crown corporation in particular.
We could indicate here that the mandate permits us to review all or each, or conversely each or all of the Crown corporations within the structure of government.
[English]
The Chair: On a cautionary note, I think one of the reasons there's a collective role here is your concerns about this committee not taking over the role of the standing committees, which already have that mandate. Are they all assigned to a committee or other yet?
Mr. O'Neal: As far as I know, yes, if they're receiving appropriations from Parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Since we say that this would be done with the agreement and cooperation of the standing committees, there is no risk of duplication. What I don't want is for the committee to be authorized only to take an overview of all the corporations but be unable to touch any one in particular.
In other words, that would mean that the committee could discuss the operating process of all the Crown corporations, but that, if it wanted to review Canada Post Corporation, for example, in a more specific way, it could not do so because it would be told that it could not focus on a review of any one corporation in particular, that it must limit itself to matters concerning the image of all Crown corporations.
It seems to me that what we wanted was for the committee to be able to have a right to review all the votes of each of the Crown corporations.
[English]
The Chair: What change were you suggesting, then?
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: I would simply suggest that we add to the third line: ``un examen périodique du rôle, du mandat, des dépenses et des régimes de dépenses de chacune ou de l'ensemble des sociétés d'État''.
.1015
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
Are there any problems with that, Rey, John?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Giving co-equal authority to this new committee to examine crown corporations but with it not premised on the agreement of a standing committee that already exists, there is the potential for conflict.
The Chair: It is premised. It says ``with the agreement, cooperation and participation of the appropriate standing committee''.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: So all of those ancillary functions have always been premised on that. Then it is okay.
The Chair: So in English it would be ``the collective'' - or what?
Mr. O'Neal: As I read it, it would say ``and expenditure regimes of each one'' - and I can rework this a little bit - ``of each crown corporation'' or ``all crown corporations''.
The Chair: So we'll take out ``collective role, mandate...of Crown corporations or of an individual crown corporation''...or ``crown corporations collectively or individually'', something like that.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: John raised the issue of what if there is no agreement. Do we trust that agreement would have been obtained or is it a case that you give notice and if no agreement or action is forthcoming, it is deemed given? We have to find a mechanism for that in order for it to be effective. John raised a very good question. For a variety of reasons you may not receive a reply to a request to undertake such a study. The question is, how long should you keep waiting for this reply? Should there be a deadline beyond which it is deemed a given? For those types of things we have to find a mechanism at this point.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, I believe recommendation 7 is clear. It has already been the subject of many discussions. It states, ``that the proposed Estimates Committee be authorized with the agreement of the standing committees''. So we have to have the agreement. If we do not get agreement, we should not assume after a certain length of time that we can proceed anyway. That has been the subject of our entire discussion. We said that this had to be done once agreement was reached. If there is no agreement, I conclude that the committee would not be able to do the work. Agreement is necessary.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: As long as it's clear that is our intention here.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Yes, yes, that's the way it is.
[English]
The Chair: John.
Mr. John Williams: I think we have to recognize that we're dealing with parliamentary committees rather than management committees, and sometimes these things can resolve themselves over a little bit of time.
The only apprehension I would have in anticipation of this committee being created is that if it was rebuked consistently by the standing committees, we may find that it is neutered in many ways in its capacity to really get itself involved. So how this committee gets itself off the ground could very well determine how effective or ineffective it will be in the future. But we can't decide that here.
The Chair: All we can do is give it a mandate. I would think that the first thing a committee would want to do is to ask the other committees for issues they feel they're not able to give adequate attention to that deserve some additional attention. That would be a smart thing to do.
We're now on number eight, its relationship with finance and public accounts.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, before moving on to recommendation 8, I would like us to add a recommendation that should be inserted somewhere between recommendations 1 and 7, or immediately after number 7.
The Chair: All right.
Mr. René Laurin: This is a subject that has already been raised by a few of the witnesses we have heard.
.1020
Given the nature of this committee, it seems to me that we should have a recommendation stating that the Estimates Committee should be chaired by a member of the opposition as is the case of the Public Accounts Committee.
Some witnesses mentioned that the nature of this committee's work required it to be chaired by a member of the opposition. I would like us to add this recommendation.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, if I may, I think at one point the subcommittee had a discussion of this particular issue. It wasn't resolved; it appeared there was no agreement. However, I was thinking about this issue this morning, and it seems to me that in the section of the report that talks about a number of the concerns and reservations that subcommittee members have about the creation of an estimates committee, this may be something that you might want to signal as an area of concern so that when the estimates committee, if it's established, is reviewed within two years, this would be an issue that would be looked at again.
It was my impression, reading through the transcripts and being at the meeting, that there wasn't agreement on this particular issue. That's why I think perhaps my advice to you would be that it be an issue that would be returned to and examined again at some point.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: As far as I can remember, Madam Chair, you did not mention that there was a difference of opinion on the question. If I correctly remember the discussions that were held in committee, we discussed the matter and we ultimately forgot to decide it. I don't think we voted or that we disagreed. I don't think so, unless I am mistaken. I believe Mr. Pagtakhan or Mr. Williams will remember.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: I had reservations about doing that, because we already have the public accounts committee where the chair is from the opposition. Of course, that is the retroactive look at expenditures, and there is a new committee for the proactive look at expenditures.
Since the initial origin of those expenditure proposals are with the government, I thought for a friendly start of this new committee - and I will agree with the researcher - do it as chaired by the member on the government side, and using John's argument, see at the end of the time whether in fact it has worked that way or not.
With a lot of general and specific mandates we are giving to the new committee, and knowing human nature, and with it being a parliamentary committee, my sense is that we reserve the chair for the government side. We may have the useful position of vice-chair from the opposition, as you saw before.
That's my view on that matter.
The Chair: John.
Mr. John Williams: I would like to support Mr. Laurin in the fact that as I see the role of this committee, it should have the chair from the opposition. These are the estimates placed before Parliament by the government, seeking Parliament's approval on the business of supply.
In order to demonstrate the lack of collusion - that's not what I'm trying to say - or to demonstrate the separation between government and Parliament, I think for the chairman to come from the opposition would send a clear signal that Parliament is separate from government in the same way that we have the chairman of the public accounts committee from the opposition to recognize that Parliament is separate and independent of government when it comes to money matters.
In many ways it is only a perception because, as we know, the government dominates every committee, and no one is proposing that not be the case here. Where the chairman is from the opposition, the Standing Orders require that the two vice-chairmen be from the government side. Again, no one is proposing any changes here.
.1025
But from a perception point of view, if the chairman was to be from the opposition, I think it would show that the government is clearly recognizing that Parliament's role is separate from the government's, and that there's no collusion between the two. I feel it would go a long way towards improving the demonstrated independence of the committee.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Chair, if we were to adopt all those arguments, those arguments equally should be applicable to all committees of the House. There would then be no more arguments for having a chair of a committee of the House belonging to the government side.
Mr. John Williams: We have argued that on many occasions, Madam Chair.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: It's precisely the point that in this document, remember, the estimates committee, I hope, is not the one that will initiate. It is not to take initiatives on expenditure in a real sense. That has to emanate from the government. While the committee is to hold the government to accountability, it is accountability on the process. But the initiative should reside inherently with the government. I think there were five or six functions there when it was being discussed. Otherwise, to me, it would just be a duplication of the public accounts committee in a real sense, only one is at the beginning and one is at the end.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Laurin.
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, it seems to me we should draw a very powerful parallel between the role of the Public Accounts Committee and the role we want to assign this committee.
Contrary to what Mr. Pagtakhan says, this committee will have to take initiatives since it must be assumed that the government members sitting on this committee will agree with the budget policy presented by the government.
One of the most important provisions is the one authorizing the committees to suggest budget changes, reductions or transfers to a maximum of 5 percent of one item or another. I believe that, in normal circumstances, these initiatives, since that is what they are, should more frequently come from the opposition than the government because it is normal to assume government members will agree with their government's budget policy.
As is the case with the Public Accounts Committee, we have a monitoring role after the fact and it is not illogical to provide for a committee whose members will be able to react before things are done. That is a monitoring role. We have just said it: ``monitor and review the votes''. Ultimately, we are going to address the same question Madam Chair.
The Estimates Committee could act before those votes are passed, and also afterwards through the Public Accounts Committee. Since we thought it was desirable for the Public Accounts Committee to be chaired by an opposition member, using the same logic and arguments, I believe we should provide for this committee to be chaired by the opposition subject to review. I would reverse the roles since we are saying that we will have to review the role assigned to this committee in two, three or five years. If necessary, we'll see at that time if it is desirable for the committee to be chaired by a government member rather than an opposition member. In any case, Madam Chair, we know that the government side will be represented by a majority even in that committee. So there is no risk, but we will be sending a clear message to Parliament saying: this committee is more of a committee of Parliament than a committee of the government.
.1030
[English]
The Chair: Let me just put forward the other side of the argument. It's your job as opposition to oppose our estimates. I've never, ever seen an opposition party vote for the budget or for supply.
Mr. John Williams: Have faith. Maybe it will happen one day.
The Chair: In fact, I would think that it would put an opposition chair in a bit of a position of conflict and would immediately create an antagonistic relationship between the committee and the government. Your job is to say, no, the government is wrong on how it wants to spend your money and collect it.
The other thing I see is that every committee studies the estimates, but not well, and I think we've all agreed on that. But every other committee would then still have prime responsibility for studying the departmental estimates, and every other committee would be chaired by a member of the government.
The way Brian has handled this is to not make a recommendation with respect to the chairmanship, but to reflect in the text of the report the discussion that we have had. Because we don't have a consensus here, we're not making a recommendation either way. This is something that I would think would be thrashed out again at the time an amendment to the Standing Order comes forward. We're obviously not in a position to make a recommendation that we all agree on, so all we can do in our report is indicate that it was a subject of discussion but there was no consensus on it, and give some of the considerations in that discussion.
Over the long run, this is a committee that is going to help Parliament as a whole - both government and opposition members - to have more influence on future budget expenditures, as well as more influence on the current year's proposed expenditures.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: I thank you with providing me with the last argument, Madam Chair. One of this committee's main objectives is precisely to grant members more powers in the process of reviewing and approving votes. If we can give them more importance, we must give them more powers. We have considered enabling them to amend certain budget items by a maximum of 5 percent.
I would like to remind you that you said it had to be assumed that the opposition would, as usual, be opposed, whereas I presumed that the government party would be in favour.
Consequently, if we give the chair of this committee to a member representing the government side, that chairman will also be in conflict of interest. How can we hope to change things when we know that the government party will certainly agree on the logic of the budget that is introduced? How could these people suggest amendments to the budget? So you have to consider that amendments can only come from opposition members most of the time.
The committee chair must generally be a neutral person, as can be seen in the Public Accounts Committee. Consequently, if, on this committee, we have a neutral chair belonging to the opposition and a majority of members belonging to the government party, I don't see what danger there can be. If the chair of this committee is given to an opposition member, this would be a sign that we want to give the members' new role in reviewing votes very great credibility.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Chair, page 4 of the document says:
- Parliamentary oversight of Government expenditure does not mean that Parliament should be
the principal architect of expenditure policies; that role properly belongs to Government.
- So here is a function -
.1035
Mr. John Williams: Parliament's role is to critique the expenditures, Madam Chair, and to approve the requests by government. The report, of course, says they are not the architect of the expenditures. Certainly their role is to examine and to approve the expenditures requested by government, the supply requested by government, if they see it as desirable. And I thoughtMr. Laurin's arguments were very strong. I don't want...
I'll let you finish your statement, Dr. Pagtakhan. My apologies for interjecting.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: No problem.
Imagine a committee proposing estimates. If we believe the government remains or ought to be the principle architect, at least chair is a role that properly belongs to government. Even by symbolism, if we use that argument, the chair of that committee ought to come from the government side because it is about the estimates.
What we are recommending here is a step forward, whereby we're now allowing the ability of the opposition and the government members on that committee to look at the possibility of reallocation. We're taking a step forward in terms of allowing that reallocation mechanism, and that step is already yielding instead of just accepting or rejecting all or none, as was the case before. I think that tool should continue to remain inherently the purview of the government side, however.
Let's face it; if the reallocation is only about 5%, it is still 5% of 100. So the majority would still have the government as the principle architect. On that basis alone, I would say it ought to be properly chaired by the government member, and then let the opposition influence it, give advice, criticize it, scrutinize it, and go for publicity - the five functions that the opposition ought to perform at all times.
So if I may use the argument of the chair, I really think that if you propose something now and it is chaired by the opposition, and if you say two years down the road that the public accounts committee will now review this, the weakness that will be shown two years later will be the consequence of the chair from the opposition not being able to influence the committee. To maintain the balance, we should proceed, and then indeed allow the two-year review to say, no, this has not worked because in committees of the government, the chair did not take the appropriate initiative or leadership role.
Mr. John Williams: Madam Chair, I recognize the divergence of opinion. However, even though the arguments of both sides may be presented in the text, if the chair of the committee is a government member, that will in essence be carved in stone. When we do the review in two years, or whenever it's done, I'm quite sure it will just remain that way.
I understand that we want to have a unanimous report. Otherwise, we're going to have difficulty in getting it through the procedure and House affairs committee. I would therefore like to see if there is consensus for the text to indicate that there is divergence of opinion. There are valid arguments on both sides, and since there is to be a review, perhaps the initial chair could go to the opposition when the Standing Orders are drafted - at least until after the review - and we can then find out if it is acceptable. Without making a recommendation, we can leave it in the text, and then we can debate it one day when the Standing Orders have come down.
The Chair: I think that's probably the best we can do right now. Frankly, I'd be a little more optimistic. The public accounts committee didn't use to have an opposition chair either, and that was changed by the government of the day.
Mr. John Williams: But if we leave it in the text, suggesting that there are arguments on both sides, I'd give serious consideration to the chairmanship coming from the opposition - and no recommendation either way.
.1040
The Chair: Well, I think a balanced presentation of both points of view, without indicating a preference one way or another, is the best we can do, John.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, I would just like to add one point to Mr. Pagtakhan's argument.
Once again, the role of this committee is a role of monitoring before things are put in place. If the chair is a government member, what will happen? In fact, it's as though the government were monitoring itself since it would take someone from the government to verify whether it is doing good work in determining votes. That person would serve only to justify it. There is certainly no chance that the chair would criticize one of the government's actions in the performance of his or her duties.
If I want adequate monitoring, I don't call on someone who is in conflict of interest. If, for example, I contracted with an architect to build my house, I would not ask someone from his own firm to assure me that things are being well done. If I want verification, monitoring, I am going to turn to another firm that can tell me whether the instructions I gave the architect have been properly performed.
That is why I find it is important that someone from the opposition be made responsible for directing this committee's work because this is the chair's main role when the government sends us a budget and asks us to study it and monitor the process. I therefore ask you to tell me who better than an opposition member can do this work adequately. I believe it is important that it not be a government member because, if that is the case, the committee's work will always go in the direction desired by the government. I don't think members would feel they were doing valuable work if that work were considered a camouflage operation.
It would then be a repetition of what goes on in the House of Commons. I do not believe we want to enhance members role in this way. All our discussions have focussed on ways to give members a more important role, and I am convinced that the only way to do so is for this committee to be chaired by an opposition member.
[English]
The Chair: Rey.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: As a short argument to that - I don't like to belabour the point - when I say that it be chaired on the government side, it is as a consequence of experience. I've sat on committee as a member, on certain committees as a vice-chair, and on certain committees as a chair, and my approach has been as a member of Parliament.
Of course, from time to time the opposition will see the government's side as in collusion, but it ought to be in the quotation marks of old times, because I really trust and believe in the independence of the member of Parliament.
If I may interject at this point - not to go at the Reform Party - but one time I did a review of the first 30 bills passed in Parliament. How many times did the members of the Reform Party say that on the advice of the constituents they would vote according to their conscience? Well, they voted the same way 97% of the time. Now, if 99% of the time the government members voted the same way, is there a significant difference between the two?
I think the real rationale for voting the same way is that you happen to believe in the same philosophy. It's not because one is dictated by the government, or the leader of the opposition if you belong to the opposition.
But where I see the merit of having it reserved continuously for the members of the government side is that there will be a cordial, friendly, cooperative environment because the chair is only to moderate the proceedings of the committee. When he or she sees the beauty of the argument of the opposition, I think he or she will be more persuasive to the government to say the opposition is really making a very good point. At that time, he or she could then even ventilate the idea to the majority on the government side, and then hopefully there will be a change, even in the initial proposal by the government.
Has it happened? Yes. When I chaired the committee on human rights and the status of persons with disabilities, in the many changes we introduced there - and Madam Chair was on that committee on several occasions - the opposition was surprised that we were giving the arguments initially that the opposition then would pick up as a point to pursue.
.1045
So I think we should continue to trust in the independence of the members of Parliament. It will provide a better, cordial, friendly relationship when it is chaired...rather than the government assuming, ``Well, it is proposed by this estimates committee, chaired by the opposition; they're up to something''.
I would rather achieve that reallocation of 5% when the committee so recommends it and the chair is in concurrence, coming from the government side. I assure you, knowing human nature, it will be far more persuasive.
The Chair: Let me make one final point and then suggest that we dispose of this, because I don't think we're going to agree on it.
One other thing that I feel has to change - and we've referred to it in our report - is the relationship between the government bureaucracy and committees in regard to the bureaucrats having a much more supportive and cooperative role with committees. It varies widely. Some departments are extremely good in being forthcoming with information to committees and others are extremely bad.
My personal view is that this relationship is more likely to improve with this committee if it's not chaired by an opposition member where the assumption will be an opposition to whatever it is the bureaucracy is proposing.
The bottom line here is that I don't think we're going to agree on it. I'm probably less adamantly opposed to the idea of an opposition member chairing it than you are adamantly in favour of it. Therefore, I am agreeable to making no recommendation about the chair and allowing that to be thrashed out more thoroughly when the Standing Order is actually developed.
Heaven knows, the government may in fact prefer to have an opposition member chairing this committee as a bit of a buffer, as protection for them to ignore it a little bit more.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: In what manner do they need to be persuaded? I do not know -
The Chair: We're not going to come up with a recommendation that we agree on. The best we can do is express the two points of view as clearly as we can.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chairman, if committee members want to look at page 51 in English text,
[Translation]
and on page 53 of the French version.
[English]
there is a discussion of making an assessment of the proposed committee's mandate and performance, and there I've tried to set forth a number of the concerns that have been expressed by committee members regarding this new committee.
If I may, after the second paragraph, I will insert a new paragraph to summarize the discussion that you've had this morning, pointing out both sides and indicating that there was no firm consensus.
At Mr. Williams's suggestion - I think this is important and I need to get your direction on this - I will also include a sentence saying that some serious consideration be given to naming a member of the opposition as chair of this committee until such time as a review of the committee's mandate takes place.
This would not be a recommendation, but the government, on reading the report and on taking steps to set up this committee, might then decide it would be a good idea to name a member of the opposition to chair the committee at that time, at least on an interim basis until a review has been completed. Or they could decide not to.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: No. I think we should put it in a very balanced way. I'm assuming that the chair is with me on this point. In other words, we should say that at the time of the review, this issue should be revisited. That really makes it very balanced.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, it certainly could be worded that way instead.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: In other words, it is an almost equally divided subcommittee. That's my suggestion.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Since there will clearly will be no consensus, could we indicate in the report that opinion is equally divided over the question whether an opposition member should chair this committee?
[English]
The Chair: I have no problem with that.
.1050
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: If the committee wishes to make a recommendation, it is free to do so, but we will at least have mentioned that opinion is equally divided among the members.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: I agree with that because 50-50, as I was saying, should be revisited. That's fair enough. It's a very good point.
The Chair: Okay. Back to our recommendations, then.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: When I say equally, I am considering the chair as neutral.
[English]
The Chair: It just means we haven't done a very good job here of having the whole weight of the government majority on the committee here at all times.
Okay, relationship of the finance committee and public accounts.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Excuse me, Madam Chair, but I would like to say something on the same subject.
I was wondering whether it would be a good idea to indicate in our recommendations to the government that this committee should have a limited number of members. That was also mentioned. This work is very broad in scope and if we want the committee's work to be effective, I believe the committee should not consist of 20 members.
I would propose that the committee have at most some 10 members. I believe we could inform the government that we wish to have a smaller committee of approximately 10 members only.
The Chair: Yes.
[English]
Mr. John Williams: I hope the committee will be of similar size to the standing committees, Madam Chair. I'm not sure we would want to make us a very small committee.
At times there may be a situation where we want to have one or two subcommittees look at individual issues, rather than the full committee look at an issue. But I certainly wouldn't want it to grow up to the 60 members that it had back in the 1950s. Let's just leave it as a standing committee on the assumption that it will be similar to other standing committees.
We've made the recommendation that there be minimal turnover in the committee, but we wouldn't want to deny it the aspect of splitting into one, two or three subcommittees to examine individual issues.
The Chair: I could see, particularly in its first few years, that a lot of subcommittees would be necessary. Part of our thinking, too, was to expand the expertise among members of Parliament on the estimates process. By restricting it too much you would forego that objective.
If it were to decide to undertake a special study, for instance, on crown corporations or on tax expenditures, you would want a subcommittee that was prepared to work for a substantial period of time and you'd want a reasonable pool of people to draw on for that subcommittee, without taking away from the work of the overall committee.
I don't have a sense that it should be tighter and smaller than other committees, or bigger. As John has said, about the same as other committees of the House.
Mr. John Williams: I would just leave it to the common sense of the government and the people who are drafting it to assume that they will just continue on a committee of similar size. Do Standing Orders dictate this? Don't they say about 20 for a normal committee? Do the Standing Orders make any reference to the size of individual committees?
The Clerk: I'd have to look. I don't think so.
The Chair: I don't think so.
Mr. John Williams: I thought there was something, because they vary in size. Some are 14 and some are around 20.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. John Williams: But I'm not sure I'd want to endorse a recommendation as to a specific size for this committee.
The Chair: In a particular parliament it may depend on the people you have available who have some skills and some background to bring to this committee, too. In a certain parliament you may have a smaller number of people who have any interest in this, or anything to contribute to it. In another parliament you might have a slightly larger number.
.1055
I think if we don't say anything about the size, the assumption is it would be within the range of what standing committees are now.
The Clerk: Madam Chair, the Standing Orders do specify a number for committees. However, I do remember in the last 15 years that the Standing Order has been changed, virtually from government to government.
The Chair: Are you satisfied to leave that, René? Assume that it will be the same as other committees.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: That was a suggestion, but if there is no consensus, Madam Chair, I am prepared to forget what I said.
[English]
The Chair: The procedures and house affairs committee is ready to start here in a couple of minutes. We still have a working lunch scheduled up in the parliamentary dining room.
The Clerk: I thought they -
The Chair: Yes, they changed. They weren't supposed to be meeting this morning. They changed that. We thought we had all morning, but we don't. But we still have a working lunch scheduled upstairs in the dining room, if that's agreeable to everybody.
[Translation]
Would it be possible for the Clerk and the research officer to remain available to the chair to ensure proper communication in both languages?
Mr. René Laurin: We should continue our work over lunch hour, Madam Chair.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: I'd like to propose that Mr. Laurin continue to speak in his second language, and I'll continue to speak in my second language.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Chair: It seems clear to me that we're going to need a Thursday meeting to wrap up.
The Clerk: Is it possible to meet tomorrow?
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Not this afternoon?
[English]
The Chair: What about tomorrow afternoon?
The Clerk: Would tomorrow evening work out?
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: No. It will be Thursday.
[English]
The Clerk: How early could you meet on Thursday? House affairs is meeting at 11 a.m.
The Chair: Rey, do you have your meeting at the Prime Minister's office at 9 a.m.?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: At 8:45 a.m. exactly.
The Chair: At 8:45 a.m., and it goes until 9:30 a.m., is that right?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: No. Usually at 9:15 a.m. we're finished.
The Chair: In the interests of completing this, are people willing to meet earlier, at, say, 8 a.m.?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Then I'd have to interrupt.
Mr. John Williams: I can't meet at 8 a.m.
The Chair: You can't, either. Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Madam Chair, I would like to have an idea of what suggestions the others think they will make. I will have only one change to propose at the next meeting. If we had an idea of what the others intended to do, perhaps we could decide on the amount of time we would need, an hour or an hour and a half, at our next meeting to consider the recommendations.
[English]
The Chair: What about this afternoon? Are people free to meet this afternoon?
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: This afternoon suits me just fine.
[English]
The Clerk: I don't think there's a room available, either.
Mr. René Laurin: It's impossible for me.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: I have public accounts this afternoon, at 3:30 p.m. up to 5:30 p.m. At 5:30 p.m., I go to a meeting of my regional caucus.
The Chair: If there isn't a room available, I guess we can't have a meeting anyway.
Mr. John Williams: For clarification, this working lunch is an informal meeting. It's not a formal meeting, is that right?
The Chair: No, it's not a formal meeting. We won't have transcription or translation, so we can resolve some issues among ourselves, but we'd have to confirm it in a subsequent meeting.
The Clerk: Should we try for 9:30 a.m. on Thursday?
The Chair: The only other possibility I can see is if we meet at 9:30 a.m...
What's the procedures and house affairs committee dealing with, do you know?
.1100
Ms Marie Carrière (Procedural Clerk): It's dealing with the main estimates of the Chief Electoral Officer.
Mr. John Williams: That's not today.
The Chair: No. What I am thinking is that if we wanted to complete on Thursday, we each could find a substitute for procedure and House affairs - speaking of taking estimates seriously - and ensure that we would have time to finish.
The Clerk: I will try to find a room.
The Chair: Are you assuming that we could finish in an hour and a half?
Mr. John Williams: First of all, we'll find out perhaps over lunch if we can finish in an hour and half. We're so close and time is so short, but I think if there is real cooperation on everybody's part, we can wrap this up.
The Chair: Good. We'll discuss this further over lunch, then.
The meeting is adjourned.