OGGO Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, June 11, 2002
| Á | 1105 |
 |
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
Mr. Mahoney |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Alcock |
|
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Lebel |
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
The Chair |
|
An hon. member |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Andy Scott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
Ms. Frulla |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rex Barnes |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Á | 1110 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
Mr. Perron |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
|
| Á | 1115 |
| Á | 1120 |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Bennett |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1125 |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1130 |
|
Mr. Andy Scott |
|
Mr. Jack Stillborn (Committee Researcher) |
|
An hon. member |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Roy Cullen |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Á | 1135 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Shepherd |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Steve Mahoney |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1140 |
|
Ms. Frulla |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1145 |
|
Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Andy Scott |
|
The Chair |
|
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
| Á | 1150 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Alex Shepherd |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Alex Shepherd |
| Á | 1155 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Perron |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
|
|
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, June 11, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Á 
(1105)
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum.
Our first order of business is the election of the chair.
Mr. Mahoney.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I'd like to nominate Mr. Alcock to be the chair.
The Clerk: It is moved by Mr. Mahoney and seconded by Mr. Lebel that Mr. Alcock be elected as chair.
(Motion agreed to)
The Clerk: I would invite Mr. Alcock to take the chair.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Will I have to declare my campaign donations now?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: We have two more to do, beginning with nominations for the vice-chair from the government side.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): I nominate Tony Valeri.
The Chair: Are there any other nominations? No?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: May I have nominations for the second vice-chair?
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): I put forward Mr. Forseth.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'll second that, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Lebel nominates Mr. Forseth, from the Alliance, and the nomination is seconded by Mr. Mahoney.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: We have a few normal routine motions, which I will move through as expeditiously as I can. The first deals with the Library of Parliament research officers. It's moved by Mr. Scott that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: On the hearing of evidence and publication of same when a quorum is not present, it's moved that the chair be authorized to hold meetings and receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition.
An hon. member: Three?
The Clerk: Three is the usual number, but it's not a problem if members want five.
The Chair: You've heard the clerk indicate that three is the usual number. And remember, this is just for times when we're hearing evidence from witnesses who have come in from out of town and we don't necessarily want to send them away.
Mr. Lebel.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I so move.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lebel.
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC): Are we going with five or three?
The Chair: Three and one.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: The next one is allocation of time for questioning.
If I may, I have some submissions on process in the committee that I wanted to talk about at the business meeting. If everybody is happy, I'd like to just table that one for now.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Next, it's moved by Mr. Perron that a notice of 48 hours, submitted to the clerk of the committee, be required before any substantive motion may be presented to the committee. That's without unanimous consent, of course.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: It's moved by Mr. Cullen that witness expenses be as established by the Board of Internal Economy and that, if requested, reasonable travelling, accommodation, and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses who are invited to appear before the committee, up to a maximum of two representatives for any organization.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: On Order in Council appointments, it is moved by Madam Bennett that, pursuant to Standing Order 111(4), whenever an Order in Council for appointment or a certificate of nomination for appointment is referred to the committee, the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of the resumé of each appointee.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: On distribution of papers, it is moved by Mr. Barnes that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents received from the public only when they have been translated into both official languages.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: The next one is on working lunches.
I'm on a diet. Aren't you Andy?
Mr. Andy Scott: Yes, of course.
The Chair: We don't need this one do we?
It is moved by Mr. Valeri that the committee authorize the chair, from time to time, as the need arises, to take, in conjunction with the clerk of the committee, the appropriate measures to provide lunches for the committee and its subcommittees for working purposes, and that the cost of these lunches be charged to the budget of the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: We're all invited. That's not too bad.
Ms. Liza Frulla (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Lib.): Maybe we should put in the word “healthy”.
The Chair: Yes, we have a subamendment here, eh?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: We could have a meeting tonight, Mr. Chairman. It calls for lobster.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: That's right, yes.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: From New Brunswick.
The Chair: We'll get Mr. Scott to arrange that dinner. Or Mr. Barnes. I suspect he could find a lobster or two.
Mr. Rex Barnes: Oh, yes.
The Chair: Anyway, it's moved by Mr. Szabo that one transcript of all in camera meetings be produced and kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation.
An hon. member: Agreed.
The Chair: On the appointment of a Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure... sorry, Mr. Lebel. Go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: It is moved that a transcript of all in camera meetings be produced. Do you mean to say that committee members who have attended an in camera meeting are not entitled to receive a copy of the transcript?
Á (1110)
[English]
The Chair: These are just for in camera minutes, just for the minutes of private meetings. The practice in committee has been to keep minutes of those, but to keep them under the care of the clerk. All other minutes would be available to all members, unless the committee wishes to change that rule.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if we attend a committee meeting, even if it's a reduced committee, we are entitled to get a record of what has been said. We took part in the discussions. I think those who took part in the discussions must have a copy of the record of what has been said in committee.
[English]
The Chair: I'm at your disposal. It's not something I feel strongly about one way or the other.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I would amend the motion to say that a copy of the transcript must be circulated to the members who participated in the discussions during any in camera meeting.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Lebel, the clerk has suggested that we will do that, only in this way: on request. The clerk will maintain the copy. If any member of the committee wishes, he will send them a copy.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Perfect.
The Chair: The only purpose of having any control on it is simply that the purpose of an in camera meeting is to allow people to discuss a little more freely and perhaps with less forethought.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Honesty is always presumed, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: This motion would now read, “That one transcript of all in camera meetings would be produced and kept in the committee clerk's office for distribution at the discretion of the clerk.”
Does that work okay, Mr. Lebel?
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: No, on demand from the committee members.
[English]
The Chair: So it would be distribution upon request by members.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: By the members.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Upon request by the members present at the meeting.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: That's it.
[English]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: They have to be present at the meeting. If I'm not at the meeting, I'm not involved in getting those copies.
The Chair: So it's at the request of members who are present at the meeting.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Upon the request of the people attending the committee.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)
The Chair: The final one is the appointment of a Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. It's moved by Mr. Shepherd that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the chair, the government vice-chair, the parliamentary secretary, two Liberal members, one Canadian Alliance member, one Bloc member, one New Democratic Party member, and one Progressive Conservative member.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: That disposes of the routine motions, except for the one on the allocation of time and questioning, which we will come to at another meeting.
Mr. Szabo was... [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...with major time constraints.
I wanted to raise a couple of things. Realistically, if the House sits next week, I will attempt to have one business meeting next week. If the House does not sit next week, this will be the only time the committee meets, and probably the only time the committee meets, period. In the fall, we will have to have this meeting again, because we will have to reform the committee. The reason we wanted to proceed with forming the committee was that, because it's now formalized, we have a clerk and we have a researcher.
Jack Stillborn is from the Library of Parliament. He will be our major researcher on this committee, but he also has a team of researchers who are prepared to work on various aspects of this because of the complexity of the mandate that we have.
Just very briefly, I want to talk about a couple of things. Some of you have been participating in the discussions that have gone on as we have tried to create this committee. One of the things we're going to have to decide on as committee members is whether we want to continue to function in the traditional ways in which committees have functioned around here, or whether we want to try to break some new ground in some areas.
The genesis of this committee came from two pieces of work that were going on in the House. One was a group of us trying to understand the impact of information and communication tools—the new technologies—on the management of large organizations. The other was the work done by Marlene Catterall and John Williams on looking at these processes for accountability and trying to understand the processes around how government functions. Those two things have been put together in a committee with a rather unusual mandate.
Our committee has all of the normal authorities of any committee relative to the departments that we deal with. We deal with all of the central agencies—PCO, PMO, Public Works and Government Services, Treasury Board—all but two of the parliamentary officers, the Public Service Commission, the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, and the Ethics Counsellor in regard to his responsibilities under the Lobbyists Registration Act. We'll find out today whether we will get the Ethics Counsellor and his report to the House. That remains to be determined, but I think there's a strong reason for us to argue that this should be the case.
We then have a whole bunch of work, as defined in the Catterall–Williams report, on areas that have not been given scrutiny, like crown corporations. Certain crowns have specific referrals to certain committees, but a lot of them don't.
We deal with statutory expenditures, tax expenditures, and the private foundations that the Auditor General was concerned about. We also have an overall responsibility not just for exercising our responsibilities as a committee within the estimates process, but also for looking at the estimates process itself and at ways in which it can be improved, in which government accountability can be improved, and all that. That in itself is an enormous amount of work.
Over and above that, though, we have a rather unique mandate. We have an ongoing mandate in the use of information and communications technologies by government. By definition, that mandate cuts across government horizontally. This was also an issue that we talked about in terms of information and communications technologies, but the Catterall–Williams report talked about how nobody had an across-government view because government was organized in departments. We therefore have two mandates in our statement of mandate.
Most committees don't have written statements of mandate, but we have quite an extensive one. I encourage you to have a look at it. We have the right to look at any issue that we choose, across all departments, as opposed to just looking within the department that we're in. That's a specific right around information and communications technologies, but we also have it on any issue. The committee can make a decision such that if we want to look at—I'll pick something—granting, we can look at it from the perspective of all departments and make recommendations on it.
Á (1115)
To back that up, we also have an unusual authority in that all committees have the right to amend estimates votes that are before them. I don't think anyone has done it recently, but committees do have the right to reduce. You can't increase expenditures and you can't transfer expenditures, but you can reduce the expenditures available to the department or end them. That would be a little drastic, but you certainly could.
In its mandate, this committee has the right to amend a vote that is before another committee. That's something we're going to have to walk through, and we're going to have to sort out how this happens. This is with respect...let me just read it to you. This is an important one because it is an unusual one.
I've already had calls from the British House of Commons. The British are quite interested in this because all governments are struggling with the issue of how these modernization efforts tend to force you to look horizontally across government while none of the informational structures in government are designed to work that way.
In the mandate section of the motion that was passed in the House, it says: “with regard to items under consideration as a result of Standing Orders”--the ones that give us this ability to look horizontally--“in coordination with any affected standing committee and in conformity with Standing Order 79,”--which just says you can't increase--“the committee shall be empowered to amend votes that have been referred to other standing committees”.
That gives us a little more direct authority than perhaps committees have had in the past.
When we first got going down this road—and Mr. Lebel and others will know we started working on this last fall—our intention was to try to focus everybody on a study of the impact of information and communications technologies on government. It's not for us to become experts in the technologies, but to become knowledgeable about the policy issues and the opportunities that get raised in doing that. We want to lay that down as background so that when we start this work, people will have a better understanding of how to move with this. In that regard—I don't know, but perhaps the clerk can tell me this—I have explored three possibilities.
First, the Canadian Centre for Management Development, which does a lot of training—I think a number of you have been to events there—has offered to work with the committee. They're not asking for money for this. They'll put staff and energy into it in order to work with us on researching some of these change practices and to help us with our agenda-setting, because there is a great deal of interest as committees are going down this road. I would want to get a sense from you as to whether or not you would be willing to have them work along with us.
I've had conversations with people from other places. The information committee from the House of Lords in the U.K. is interested. They haven't gone as far as we've gone, but they're trying to sort out these issues. It has been suggested that we might want to bring the two committees together. Either they'd come over here or we'd go over there, and we'd then have a joint meeting.
Mr. Lebel.
Á (1120)
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Chairman, as I recall, you chaired a subcommittee of the Transport and Government Operations Committee. That subcommittee was specifically studying what you're talking about, namely new technologies and government management. That's it, really. If I'm not mistaken, that subcommittee is now obsolete. Its operations are integrated into ours.
[English]
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Lebel, that's exactly right. If you recall, we formed that subcommittee just before Christmas. It was after Christmas that we had a change of House leaders. The new House leader approached me and asked me if we could expand the mandate of that to include some of the parliamentary reform issues. Again, though, these technologies are not the issue. The issue is the changes that they enable. The motion that Mr. Williams put forward in the House then passed, and that led to the ultimate shape of this committee.
Our problem is that our mandate is too big. We have far too many more things listed under our capabilities than I think we can responsibly do in any way that's going to have an impact on government. We are going to need to spend some time thinking through what our targets are, and we'll have to try to be a little more strategic in how we approach some of these things. When you get into your areas of interest, Mr. Lebel, Rex, and others, I'll be very interested in the things you'd like to look at.
It struck me that in this pre-work, we might want to spend the first week or two just getting up to speed on what some of the capabilities are. A Queen's University group has offered to facilitate a meeting with the British House. If we were to go over to the U.K., we might be able to do both the British House and the French Parliament, in order to get a look at them. The OECD has also done an awful lot of work on this, and they'd love to have us.
Finally, a group at Harvard University has been studying this for some fourteen years. They would be quite willing to put on a two-day workshop for us just to get people up to the level of a fundamental understanding.
Even though we won't be doing them until the fall, I'm raising these now because the lead time on planning these things is fairly long. I just wanted to get a sense of whether or not you're interested in them. If you are, then I would get to work with the clerk to detail things, and even though we won't be meeting, I'll circulate stuff to you so that you know what some of the possibilities are. When we come back in, we won't then be forced to sit for a month as we figure out what's going on. We can get moving as quickly as we possibly can.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...view to that, the Hansard Society produced a booklet last June on the scrutiny role of Parliament. It's called The Challenge for Parliament: Making Government Accountable. Maybe it could be circulated to the committee.
The Chair: Absolutely. We should get that, and we should translate it as well.
Are there any comments on that? Do I have your concurrence to explore a relationship with CCMD and to explore those two opportunities?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: I will work with the clerk on those. If we are here next week, I will call a brief meeting of this committee early in the week to finalize them. If not, we will have a wonderful summer and start all of this in the fall.
Mr. Lebel.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: There is one point we haven't discussed yet: it's the allocation of time for questioning. Are we going to discuss it this morning? It's routine motion number III. You've skipped it.
[English]
The Chair: That's correct, yes.
In order that we have guidance for witnesses in our early operations, perhaps we should pass this motion, because it's the standard practice. The only thing I wanted to stress is that we have two kinds of mandates. One mandate is a learning and developing mandate, and the other is the more traditional estimates process with departments. As much as possible, it will be interesting to see if we can break out of the mould of a traditional committee and look at new ways of educating ourselves. That's the area in which CCMD is very interested.
Any rule that we pass can be modified by consent as we go down the road, but there may be some interest in changing how we deal with questions.
Á (1125)
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Chairman, could you explain us in practical terms the contents of motion number III? If I understand it correctly, you won't have any trouble with me, but I would like to have an explanation on the questioning process.
[English]
The Chair: This is the standard motion. It is not one that has been created for this particular committee. The standard motion is that witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statement, that ten minutes be allocated for the first question and answer of each party during the questioning of witnesses, and that five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner thereafter, at the discretion of the chair.
In other words, the witnesses give their ten-minute opening statements, there's a round of ten minutes each, and if there's any time left over, it goes back and forth in five-minute rounds. The time is allocated for each party, so a party can apparently break up its ten minutes into more than one question.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Fine. If that's the way it is, it's perfect. I'm ready to vote.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to clarify in my own mind the work plan or the game plan from here on in, this is a big mandate. It's huge. It seems to me that the committee, as you have pointed out, is going to have to set some priorities and some kind of game plan moving forward. Is the CCMD going to brainstorm with us and help us to focus on which areas to target, or are we going to be working on some ideas over the summer? When we come back in the fall, what are we going to be doing?
The Chair: Despite the fact that we only have this very short period of time, I wanted to have this meeting now because Jack is empowered to work on this and we're empowered to sit down with Jocelyne Bourgon at the CCMD and actually start to put some formal ideas on paper.
CCMD is interested in exploring new ways for parliamentarians to educate themselves and get ahead of the public agenda, as opposed to constantly following it up. To that end, the centre will put staff resources in two areas. One area is helping us with our agenda-setting around the new learning, and the other involves putting researchers in to watch the process and document it for sharing with other parliaments around the world.
With the resources that he has, Jack will also help us. He's working on a background document now to try to organize this very big mandate into two or three streams of activity. Exactly how those streams end up will really depend on the committee once we've pulled it all together, but we have a unique set of responsibilities in the estimates that could take up 100% of the time of the committee. We have some really interesting horizontal accountability measures that would be wonderful to explore because they're new areas and they change the view of government, but just working out how we do that is going to be complex. We also have this whole area of new learning around information and communications technologies.
For all of these things, we want to set up...Roy and Tony, given your experience on the finance committee, it's the regular repetition of that cycle that makes it powerful, because you get more and more expertise as you go through that. Part of it is therefore setting up those systematic ways of dealing with this.
I am quite willing to be quite aggressive on the estimates with this, because I think accountability needs to reframe itself as parliamentarians, in the best sense of the word, hold departments to account for their activities, as opposed to having us just playing out question period in this room.
Mr. Roy Cullen: For us just to get our heads around the sorts of horizontal issues that we want to look at and what crown corporations or foundations we want to look at, it seems to me that we need to have some sort of sense of where we want to go, as well as a game plan. I suppose the committee will always have the mandate to say we're going to look at the latest hot-button issue, but we have to have an approach that is rational and steady instead of being consumed by the flavour of the week or the month.
The Chair: I agree.
Andy, did you want to come in on that?
Á (1130)
Mr. Andy Scott: Collectively, we're not going to be doing anything as a group over the summer. At least, I assume that. Consequently, what I would recommend is that when we first come back, we're obviously going to have to narrow the mandate. We'll have to discuss a work plan and pick some issues. I'm thinking everyone here is saying this is a wonderful committee, but for different reasons. Therefore, the exercise of narrowing is going to be a very complicated exercise.
If I could be so bold, I would suggest that, as members of the committee, we access the research staff over the summer and talk a little bit about our particular areas of interest so that we can build our case. We can find out what's out there and find out what kind of interest there is. If we could, I would like to have access to CCMD to find out how much they're interested in the things I'm interested in. That way, when we come back here in September, we'll all be armed with a case for our lens in terms of what that big mandate offers. It will be good for all of us, because we'll have to educate ourselves if we want to be able to make a coherent case in the fall for whatever it is we think this committee should be about.
Is that fair? Does that scare the research people too much?
Mr. Jack Stillborn (Committee Researcher): We're trying not to show fear.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: You're doing very well, Jack.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Lebel.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I'm still wondering about one thing, Mr. Chairman. I gather this committee is also responsible for government operations. This morning, on our very first meeting, we seem to be aiming for something that's terribly complicated, something I find highly interesting, but which will probably take almost all of our time. We won't look at the current operations of government. Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that there has not been a committee like this one for two years. That issue had been transferred to the Transport Committee, who is overloaded with work on transportation. So, it's been two years since we've questioned the minister responsible for government operations or, for that matter, the ministers responsible for Crown corporations, who also report to us.
As time goes by, we shouldn't forget that aspect of our mandate, which is also very important. I'm a bit concerned when I hear Andy talking. I know you're keenly interested in new things, but frankly, I'm afraid one aspect will overshadow the other and we might have to wait another year or two before we get to question the minister responsible for government operations. We should keep a window open for an appearance of the minister in the fall, and we can then get to the aspect you're most interested in, which I also find interesting.
[English]
The Chair: Roy.
Mr. Roy Cullen: I'd like to pick up on Andy's point about how we go about our work plan and set priorities. This is not going to be straight-ahead stuff. I'm not looking for work, but perhaps there is a way to have at least a mini-dialogue over the summer or a way to look at some of the options. That way, when we come back in the fall, we're at least hitting the ground running a little bit instead of just entering this debate with a cold start.
The Chair: Carolyn.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Regarding what Monsieur Lebel had said, maybe we should also circulate the paper that we did with the Library of Parliament and Statistics Canada on measuring—what did we call it?—the quality-of-life determinants used for parliamentarians. A committee such as this was actually one of the suggestions or one of the recommendations coming out of that work that John Williams and I did with Statistics Canada, the Auditor General, Treasury Board, and the Library of Parliament.
One of the things that was most interesting to me as the chair of the disabilities committee was that, on these horizontal issues, we called thirteen ministers, none of whom seemed to know what the others were doing on the issue of disability. In other words, when we actually have these horizontal issues, that's when we will find that this committee can do its best work on all of the things on our brochures in terms of cleaner air, healthier communities, a safer society, and all of those things. It will be really interesting to see what this committee can do.
In building my case for us to be able to look at a couple of horizontal issues in this committee in order to see the “whole of the government” piece and what Treasury Board is trying to do on the horizontal issues, it would be really interesting for us to take one little pilot and find the pockets of money that are in ten different departments for the same objective that is not coherent. I think it would be helpful for all of the members of this committee to look at what we were noodling about last year in those round tables.
Will we circulate that?
Á (1135)
The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): This may be directed more to the researchers than it is to you, Mr. Chair, but what we're seemingly trying to grasp is some kind of schematic approach to dealing with what is an ominous commitment of a committee. Maybe we're trying to evolve that. We're obviously going through that process now, but whether or not it is in fact possible to have some kind of overall schematic approach to what we're doing, along with, dare I say, some kind of a flow chart, is what I'd like to grab onto. That would actually show the issues coming into this thing and how we'd deal with them at the committee stage.
I deal with this as a kind of schematic approach, and I think it's something very structured, like the estimates process. I suppose that's a lot of our concern. The estimates are a highly structured process. How do we have some impact on that process without having some degree of structure ourselves as well?
The thing throwing that out is the idea that, if we're structured just to mirror the estimates process, we may be defeating one of the concepts you're getting at, and that is going across silos. We're going to have to deal with the stuff on the table today, only the stuff on the table today is a very structured process called the estimates. How do we develop some kind of schematic approach to dealing with them? How do we develop something that fits in with some of these larger issues?
It would be wonderful...I guess I'm looking for somebody to come up with the magic of saying, “Yes, here's the schematic, here's the flow chart, and this is how it works.” I guess we're all conceptually going through that now, but maybe you could spend some time putting your mind to how you could do that, and maybe then get back to the members during the summer. I think that would be an ideal framework.
The Chair: I think it's an extremely good idea, Alex. I'll come back to that.
Mr. Perron.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: You can call me Gilles.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, I realize we're creating a challenge for ourselves this morning, a big mountain to climb. I also realize nobody around this table seems to know where that mountain is and what tools we might use to climb it.
Let me make a suggestion. Would you be able to produce a four or five page summary of your vision of that mountain and the tools you are offering us? We could study it over the summer in order to be better prepared in the fall. I like to think that the majority of members here don't want to come back without knowing where that mountain is and what those tools are. We should spell out more specifically the task ahead of us and define our goals and objectives.
[English]
The Chair: Absolutely.
Mr. Mahoney.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a suggestion. Over the summer, maybe we could bring together some information in regard to some of the committee work done at the level of our provincial counterparts. When I was in Ontario, we had a committee that maybe wasn't as broad as this, but it did all of the estimates rather than having individual committees doing them. I'd be interested to know if something similar exists in the Province of Quebec. And there may also be others. Rather than just totally reinventing the wheel....
Andy makes a telling statement when he says each member may think this is a great committee, but for different reasons. However, the spirit of the motion that came out of that report from public accounts was basically that committees on their own, due to time constraints, don't seem to have the time to really look into the estimates or the governmental operations of a given department. If that's going to be the role, then we'd obviously want to focus it department by department, or perhaps issue by issue within a department that goes across other departments, as you say, to get some focus.
So I would just ask that some research be done initially to see what other governments are doing within Confederation, and how what they're doing is working.
The Chair: Ms. Frulla, did you want to add something?
Á (1140)
Ms. Liza Frulla: It's true that Quebec had some committees, one of which came from l'Assemblée nationale, to study the expenses or estimates or whatever of the parliament. We also had another one to basically study the expenses, etc., and the way the assembly was giving out l'ensemble des estimations et tout ça of government. The aim was basically to study if the money was well spent. It was not up to those committees to see the impact of technology or whatever. The issues revolved around money—money invested and money spent in all the ministries and departments.
But I think it's important to get what we said. I add my voice to say that we have to really define the spirit of this committee, parce que, moi, ça me fait un peu peur when Andy says, “for different reasons”. Well, if our mandate is to say we are here and we want to make sure that in every department, vertically and horizontally, the money is well spent, then this is part of the philosophy and the spirit of this committee. We can then also define sa vocation, because I agree with Ghislain that it's very large. So let's really cast our priorities.
The Chair: Mr. Lebel, if I may, let me just reflect on some of this.
A couple of things have evolved as we've had this discussion. On the issue of information and communications technology, it's not suggested that this committee would study that. It may choose to study aspects of it, but I'm not suggesting that we launch into a great big process. It's more that we spend a couple of the early meetings getting a basic understanding of what these things make possible, so that when we're looking at other processes, we're better informed on the potential changes to government. That's all. The committee has a mandate in that area, but it's not to be the sole driver.
Mr. Lebel, when you talk about government operations, I believe you're talking about Public Works and Government Services, but we also have Treasury Board, the PCO, and the PMO, for that matter, as well as the Senate, but we never call them until.... We have departments that come to us in the normal estimates process around here. We would have the responsibility for the full estimates of those departments.
Madame Frulla, I also came from a provincial legislature. I was surprised when I came here, because we do almost no review of the estimates. In fact, there's often a rush in the departments in the last few weeks in order to get everybody to at least vote the votes. On the other hand, in the provinces, we wouldn't do all departments every year. We would choose some in order of priority, and then we would really go into them very intensely.
It's not the intention of this committee, in its mandate, to take over that process. There was discussion of that in the Catterall–Williams report, as Mr. Mahoney points out, but it was felt that the role of this committee, aside from its departments, would be to look at the estimates process in order to offer advice to other committees on how they should be driving their estimates and on ways in which the estimates process could be improved for them. If one committee were to try to do the entire estimates, that's all we would do. We would do nothing else.
The other thing comes back a bit to the comments made by Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Perron. The estimate cycle here is actually not a bad cycle. It's just that nobody follows it, and nobody follows it for two reasons. First, we can get caught up in other pieces of business that are the flavour-of-the-month kinds of business Mr. Cullen was talking about, when there's an issue in front of us and we want to look at that. Second, we can also get a big piece of legislation driven at us—something that may well be the case with this committee.
Given that the Information Commissioner reports to this committee, it is theoretically possible that the access to information bill that is going to come forward in the fall will come to this committee. That will add to our work. It's an enormously important piece of legislation relative to transparency and accountability in government, but one we're not going to pass overnight. It's going to take some pretty concerted work.
In my mind's eye, when I think of what Mr. Perron and Mr. Shepherd were saying about providing a structure, there's also a season for these things. The estimates themselves will not be before us until February or March of next year. In all likelihood, that would be the normal time when we'd get them. On the estimates piece, then, we just put that off. We don't bother trying to recreate. They've already been passed for this year. We might want to look at some supplementaries if we feel so inclined, but we can concentrate more on the early parts of those cycles, on the outlook reports and the planning documents for departments.
We can bring in the departments that Mr. Lebel wants to bring in. And he's quite right. These departments should be before committee because they haven't been for some time. But in the early part of the cycle, we'll do it from the perspective of what they're saying they're going to do, what their plans are, and what their recommendations are for their budget. We can then review their estimates in the context of what they said they were going to do for us.
If we build cycles like that so that we can put chunks of this work into repetitive cycles that take up a certain amount of our time at a certain time of the year, I think our work will be more manageable. We can then pick up more specific pieces of work that we might be concerned about as a committee and want to go into in more depth.
Mr. Lebel.
Á (1145)
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Chairman, listening to Ms. Frulla, I get the impression that the real vocation of our committee is not clear for any of us. Ms. Frulla says our committee is very close to the Public Accounts Committee, but the chair says we have to supervise all that.
Frankly, I have a feeling we don't now how to approach that monster this morning. Therefore, I think it would be useless to discuss it much longer. Please try to send us proposals during the summer. We can talk to each other this summer. We can discuss and possibly have a meeting, if need be, to go through all that and define a specific objective. As I listen to the different members, I have a feeling we're going in all directions. We all have the best intentions, but I see no coherence here this morning.
That's what I'm suggesting. But you can do as you please.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Scott, Mr. Valeri, and Madam Bennett, and then I'll try to provide a conclusion.
Mr. Andy Scott: Further to Monsieur Lebel's intervention, I think the reason we're all over the place is that this committee was born of a number of parents.
Reg has an interest in information technology that is bigger than that of any committee that currently exists. What happens with estimates that go across departments? Remember the grants and contributions debate. It wasn't limited to HRDC. It covered all kinds of departments. How do you deal with these overarching issues that are bigger than any one department? The process of estimates was one piece that everybody recognized as a problem. On top of that, though, nobody has been in a position to also deal with government-wide estimates until today.
We have measuring outcomes; we have technology; we have the role of citizens in the process and how they are engaged by their government. These are all overarching issues that we're all going to be communicating to the research people that we're interested in. The research people presumably can then see that our information gets out from time to time over the course of the summer, and we will see this emerge. It's obvious to me that some people see this as being about estimates and some people see this as being about other things. I see it as being about something else, which I believe is why we're here.
If we can slay the monster, as Mr. Lebel has said, my sense is that we're all bringing different instruments to do that. I would propose that we have the opportunity to put ideas forward over the course of the summer, and that we perhaps engage in some back-and-forth with committee members so that we have a little bit of this discussion electronically—or on paper, in my case—over the course of the summer.
The Chair: Mr. Valeri.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Very briefly, as has been indicated, everyone has a different slice of this thing, but I think it might be worthwhile to walk through the actual mandate that we have line by line, and have people respond with respect to their interpretation of their line-by-line examination. We're talking about the mandate in global terms, but we have it in front of us.
I'm not sure, but it might be a useful exercise to actually walk through the mandate so that we all understand what it is we're being asked to do as a committee. People can then react to what's being said and react to different people's interpretations. That would at least give us some initial structure in terms of what it is we're being asked to do and what mandate we've been given as a committee.
The Chair: Madam Bennett.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett: As you and I discussed informally, Reg, maybe different members of the committee would like to expand on different parts of the mandate. We could let everybody do a bit of homework over the summer to expand on the part they're particularly interested in, and they can then do their sales pitch. Every member of the committee would prepare some part of the mandate in terms of their input into the brainstorming or the exercise. We would all have our stuff.
The IT is hugely a part of the potential for accountability and transparency across government departments. I do see the IT as being integral to our ability to do this job properly and to the capacity of government to monitor what we're doing.
But the real reason I asked to speak is this ethics package that's being put today. Can somebody help me on that? Is it just coming like tablets of stone out of the air and being voted on in Parliament, or is it coming to this committee? What's happening? Where are we going to have the debate and the conversation about the upsides and the downsides of this particular prescription?
Á (1150)
The Chair: Just to respond specifically to your question, Madam Bennett, no one knows at this point. All we are dealing with are the pronouncements that have been made to date. I believe the actual release of information is going to come around 3:30, after question period today, but I understand that, within that, there is a commitment to a report by the Ethics Counsellor to the House on an annual basis. Given that the Ethics Counsellor now reports to this committee relative to the Lobbyists Registration Act, it's reasonable to presume he would report to this committee relative to other activities that the current Ethics Counsellor takes on, but that's only a guess.
As I understand it, also reading between the lines of the announcements that have been made, there's talk that the initial package is just a set of guidelines. That means no legislation is required. They are guidelines that the Prime Minister puts out for cabinet, but there may be changes to legislation down the road. If it's election finance legislation, I assume it would go to procedure and House affairs rather than finance. So I think our only potential involvement in the short term would be in relation to this report to this committee.
As for whether a package of legislation is required to set up a separate office—because there has been talk about that—we'll have to wait and see. I believe that's slated for the fall, which is what they're saying for the ethics package for members as opposed to the ethics package for cabinet. If there is, it may well come here. But where it goes, where it gets directed, is at the discretion of the government. It's indicative that it may come here because the Ethics Counsellor now comes here, but it's not a given.
Mr. Shepherd.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: I would just try one more attempt on my schematic. It seems to me that the variable here is time. The reality is that the issues that you see consuming most of the committee's time are those with a wide-ranging, long-term impact. In other words, it would take time to impact the government. As we go down, there is a conical effect. When you get into more historical things like the estimates, they become less important. The ability to change them is less likely, because most people would realize that the estimates themselves are close to being historical documents.
The Chair: I would reframe what you said this way: Your suggestion about a structured overview of this is important, and I'll work with Jack to make sure that gets built. I'll also take on Mr. Perron's suggestion about some sort of mandate statement that's a little less legalese and a little more function.
It seems to me, though, that a number of things are what you describe as long-term change. You can have an enormous effect on the operations of government over a number of years if you take a consistent approach to something. I would put some of the estimates and operational processes into that kind of box in which you're setting objectives and then responding to departments.
Committees actually have quite a lot of authority, but they don't exercise it. It may be possible to structure that authority into a piece of work the committee does episodically through the year when those opportunities open up, leaving the centre part of the committee's agenda open for the tasks that it chooses to take on—maybe an in-depth look at one department like Treasury Board or Government Services, or maybe a piece of legislation that comes forward. But we should never allow that to knock us off of the core. I think that's what happens to estimates now. We've given up.
Madame Frulla, you're new, so I think you'll be surprised to see how what was the prime function of the House of Commons—to provide accountability in the taxing and spending of the King—is no longer done. We have ritualistic appearances, and everything is all done two hours later.
We might want to put more energy into fixing that process, doing it in a way that doesn't cause us to lose it when we get into something that's meatier and more interesting. It's a marrying of those two things.
What we'll try to do is build a list of the various streams of activity, circulate it to people over the summer, and make some hard choices on our part as to which one.... We can't eat everything. We're going to have to pick up one or two themes and just drive them. It's just a matter of identifying the place where we think it'll produce the biggest change.
Does that make sense, Alex?
Mr. Alex Shepherd: We're getting there.
Á (1155)
The Chair: Since people are perhaps getting near the end of the time they have available here, can I just raise one final question? I will then adjourn the meeting.
We had also talked about one of the problems raised when you're dealing with complex subjects. The way the committees sit now, they sit for two hours on a Tuesday, two hours on a Thursday, and that's it, until they get into legislation, when they may sit in the evening. Rather than do that, we may try to move this committee outside of those normal sitting hours and just sit once a week, but for a longer period of time. We can then get into more of a discussion amongst ourselves and get more in-depth on whatever it is that we're taking on.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: How about Wednesday mornings?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Wednesday mornings? You could probably gather a crowd on our side.
We'll also circulate some possible times for that in discussion with the whips. We'll leave it up to our wonderful whips.
So just as a summary, Jack and I will work together for the next little while to put together these documents. We'll circulate stuff to you, and if you have things that you want to get, then get a hold of Jack or me with your modifications or areas of priority, and come back here in September prepared to change the government—not the way you normally think about, Mr. Lebel, but in terms of improving the government.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: If you attempt to do a meeting during the summer, do it in Winnipeg. The nights are long and dull, so we could have fireworks.
The Chair: I would love to entertain you in Winnipeg anytime.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: There's a French song about Winnipeg.
The Chair: That's right.
We are adjourned to the call of the chair.