PRHA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 8, 1998

• 1109

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, I'd like to begin.

As you know, our main order of the day, pursuant to the order of reference from the committee at its November 3, 1998 meeting, is a briefing session on the recommendations contained in the 64th report of this committee from the 35th Parliament on the business of supply.

• 1110

Before I introduce our witnesses, I'd just like to bring the committee up to date on the business we discussed the other day regarding the leaking of committee reports. I thought it would be useful for you—as I understand there's a good chance the House will be finishing on December 23—to bring you up to date.

A voice: That's a leak.

The Chairman: That's a leak, okay.

At our last meeting, as you know, the committee received a request pursuant to Standing Order 106(3) from four of our members: White, Strahl, Grewal, and Solomon. In accordance with the Standing Orders, we met last Thursday to consider this issue and decided the committee would look into this matter early in 1999. The issue is very topical. As you know, it's been raised in the House a number of times recently.

For your information, I want to point out—and this is what I outlined the last time, but somebody said to me that what we were doing wasn't clear—I want to point out that our staff will be putting together some background material to assist us. We're trying to get some idea of the frequency of leaks of committee reports, particularly the number of times this issue has been raised in the House as a question of privilege or a point of order.

We will also see if we can get information on what is being done in other jurisdictions to discourage the premature release of committee reports, including any sanctions or procedures other jurisdictions may have. It is my intention, and I hope it's your intention—and this is what I tried to indicate as clearly as I could the last time—that when the House resumes in the new year, the committee will hear from the clerk and the staff of the House of Commons with respect to current mechanisms to prevent the leaking of reports and any proposals the clerk might have to address this problem.

It is my understanding that depending on the direction the committee decides to take after that presentation, we will determine whether we hear from other witnesses.

Colleagues—again, because a number of people have mentioned this to me—is that your understanding of where we are on this matter?

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): That sounds really good. That should cover it.

The only thing I think would be helpful is if somewhere in this discussion... We're going to have a whole bunch of discussions on what should be prohibited. We should spell out for MPs what should be allowed.

During the consideration of a report, the cone of silence comes on the thing. I'm guessing that partially what's happening is when you get these long, drawn-out reports, like the nuclear report—a six-month study—everybody has to quit talking for six months. Well, you can't ask an MP or a committee to be silent for six months. They need to do something to get their messages out and keep talking to the media.

It would be useful as part of that discussion to say what it is we can or should allow MPs to do. Should they be allowed to espouse their own personal opinions? Should the chair be different from the rest? We need to find a way to make sure MPs have some latitude, or tell them what we suggest should be a latitude, anyway.

The Chairman: That's useful direction, and I'll certainly take that into account, Chuck.

Anybody else? Are we okay on that? Lynn Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I certainly like the process. I think it's very important and very timely that we do it. What happens if we have some knowledge about the times this has happened? Do we bring that to you, or the committee?

The Chairman: I think in the interim it would be quite appropriate to send it to me. I do receive such things from time to time. Now, the other route is of course the House of Commons, and the points of privilege and points of order I mentioned. We're going to be dealing with it, Lynn, so I'd be glad if it came in. I could see how whatever it is that someone had could be fed into the process.

Mr. Lynn Myers: The reason I raise it is that I was speaking to a Liberal colleague last night who happens to sit on the child custody and access committee. She had been called by a news outlet in Alberta and they gave details of what was in the report. She simply asked them how they knew that, and as it turns out, they referenced a Reform member who had given them all the details.

I think this kind of information has to be put on the table, has to be looked at, and has to be—

The Chairman: Absolutely.

Mr. Lynn Myers: So I'm hopeful this will be the process.

The Chairman: I appreciate that. And again, that's part of what we're dealing with, and we'll deal with it as efficiently as we can.

I'd like to move on then to our main order of business.

I want to welcome our witnesses. We have Marlene Catterall, our colleague on the committee, who is the MP for Ottawa West—Nepean; John Williams, who is the MP for St. Albert; and Rey Pagtakhan, former member of this committee, who is the MP for Winnipeg North—St. Paul. We welcome the three of you here. We know the business of supply is something you've taken a great deal of interest in.

• 1115

John, we appreciate your being here. As chair, I will say you've been most persistent on this matter, so we're glad to see you here.

Marlene, your representation on the committee has been recognized by us all.

And Rey, we know your interest in these matters.

It's my understanding they will be relatively short presentations, followed by a question and answer period. Have you decided among yourselves? Could you tell us how you're going to do it?

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Williams and I had the chance to consult on how we'd make the presentation to the committee. I'll cover the process issues around the estimates and the consideration of estimates. John will deal with some of the more technical aspects, and we'll divide our time accordingly. Rey is here to fill in the blanks we missed, because he wasn't available to consult with us earlier on how we would divide up the report.

The Chairman: Do you have some time lines?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm looking at a maximum of ten minutes.

The Chairman: Okay.

Rey.

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mine will be the same.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Sure.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But we have close to 100 recommendations to go through.

The Chairman: Very good.

Colleagues, you have before you the list of recommendations from the 64th report of this committee in the 35th Parliament.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: First of all, I want to remind the committee that this subcommittee was established pursuant to an order of the House that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs undertake a comprehensive review of the business of supply. The subcommittee was struck and presented a report to you just prior to the dissolution of Parliament for the last election. That report was tabled. What we want to do today is give the committee an opportunity to actually consider the recommendations a bit more carefully and request you retable the report with a request for a reply from the government.

Our whole focus on this was that the primary role of Parliament is to tell the government how it can raise money, how much it can raise, and how it can spend it. In this report we were attempting to provide both the incentive and the tools to Parliament to play a much more active role in influencing the budget and the estimates each year.

I want to point out that there has been a series of reports. It seems every four or five years members of Parliament decide they need a review of their involvement in the estimates process. Changes have been made as a result of some of those reports. But seems to be an ongoing requirement of Parliament to have the views of members of Parliament and their involvement in the estimates process enhanced. I think it's something we're all hearing from our constituents. They want their members of Parliament to have more influence on decisions, resources and how they're spent. We've been very conscious of how we can do that, and that is the basis for one of our principal recommendations.

I want to say thanks to the committee members. One who was particularly assiduous and is not here is René Laurin from the Bloc. He is out of the country, or we'd certainly have him with us here making this presentation.

We also want to point out, as the report does, that there have been a number of improvements that enhance the ability of members of Parliament to have a greater influence on the spending patterns of government. There have been changes to the Standing Orders, which give the committees much more freedom to act on their own initiative.

The tabling during the year of the plans and priorities document follows shortly after the estimates are tabled and well before the House breaks for the summer, and the performance reports are tabled in the fall. Those tools give Parliament the opportunity throughout the year to build up the capacity to have a significant impact, along with the policy work they do, on how government allocates resources.

One point I want to make particularly is that committees have the potential to give much greater effect to their policy recommendations and the excellent work they do in the policy area if they can start using these tools to actually have the estimates reflect the work they have done and the priorities of government.

• 1120

Recommendations 1 to 13 basically deal with one of our primary recommendations, which is that a standing committee on the estimates be established. I realize that is a difficult thing. We've been trying to reduce the number of committees, because every party is having trouble keeping up with the workload of committees. There are some practical ways that could be handled. The work of the public accounts committee that has traditionally been government operations could be rolled under this committee. However, that's a matter of implementation.

I want to stress this morning why we feel this is necessary. One, as I've pointed out, there's been a continuing slew of special efforts to set up committees to have reports done that deal with these issues. That seems to demonstrate there's an ongoing need on behalf of Parliament to have greater involvement in how the estimates process runs.

On just a couple of examples, there are a number of issues our committee simply could not deal with but that desperately need to be dealt with, like accrual financing, the accountability of crown corporations and statutory programs. Mr. Williams will cover those in more detail.

There is also the issue of the estimates process. Departments by and large, primarily Treasury Board, have continued to try to make improvements in the reporting to Parliament but have had no mechanism by which to consult with parliamentarians on whether they meet their needs. There are a number of issues coming up that are attempting to be resolved within the bureaucracy, such as accrual accounting and whether that would meet the needs of Parliament—net versus gross votes on the estimates, and so on. There needs to be a forum for Parliament to ensure the estimates process continues to evolve to meet the needs of Parliament, not simply the administration or the government.

The committee is necessary to deal with issues that can't be dealt with by standing committees within the purview of their own department, because there are too many areas of expenditures that stretch across departments. Expenditures in different departments affect different program areas. Right now the standing committees are confined to that silo we're all trying to break down of their own departments. Things like crown corporations can't be dealt with by one committee in isolation from the whole issue of crown corporations government-wide, for example.

We also see the committee playing an important role in developing the expertise and being able to provide a support role to standing committees in their consideration of the estimates. We're recommending that if such a committee is established, it be established for two supply periods and then reviewed at the end of that, in terms of its effectiveness.

Another series of recommendations goes to giving standing committees the incentives and support to give more attention to the business of supply, and to develop their capacity to influence throughout the year. Let me just mention a few. If committees report on their plans and priorities documents of their departments, for instance, we believe they should be given priority and profile when the finance committee holds it pre-budget consultations in the fall. We believe the finance committee should specifically consider the reports of committees in their report to the minister and to the House. We believe the minister should have to respond in his budget document to committee reports on plans and priorities and indicate how he has or has not accommodated the views of committees. We believe that departments, in their estimates, should have to refer to committee policy reports and how the estimates and the allocation of resources respond to those issues the committees have recommended throughout the year are important.

We also recommend some things that would increase the profile of committees that choose to spend time on the estimates. One is that any committee actually considering and reporting on the estimates should be televised. Two, committees should be encouraged to invite public interest groups when they are considering either the estimates, the plans and priorities, or the performance reports of their departments.

• 1125

Finally—and this is by no means everything—we believe it's necessary for guidelines to be developed for deputy ministers and other senior officials appearing before committees. We foresee and would like to encourage the development of a much more cooperative relationship between the bureaucracy and the committees, not to miss saying a more respectful relationship from both sides of the table, and that those guidelines should be developed in consultations with MPs, particularly the chairs of committees, and made public and made available to the committees. There are a number of other recommendations throughout the report that go to strengthening that relationship.

Finally, there were a number of outstanding issues, as I indicated, which Mr. Williams will be covering more thoroughly, that the committee simply could not deal with but that indicate a really ongoing need for a forum for the continuing review of the estimates, in the interest of the members of Parliament fulfilling their roles.

Thank you.

The Chairman: That's extraordinary—ten minutes and four seconds. That's very, very impressive, and the content was impressive also.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I hope we've overwhelmed you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

John Williams.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's certainly a pleasure for me to be before the committee today.

First, I would like to acknowledge the contribution by the chair of the subcommittee on the business of supply, Ms. Catterall, who guided us through some long and arduous discussions to bring forth the report we have today. As she said, we would like you to take this report, and if you feel it's worthy that it be re-tabled in the House as it was tabled in the last Parliament, and seek a response from the government, in order for us to move the issue forward. When we have that response, then we can perhaps look at the potential changes to the Standing Orders to implement the recommendations of the report, all 52 of them, which are included. I understand that everybody has a copy.

On Ms. Catterall's point that we feel that an estimates committee that focuses on the business of supply on a year-round basis, to develop the expertise and to ensure that Parliament has a real oversight on the spending, as Ms. Catterall pointed out Parliament's primary role is to approve the purse for government. Right now we spend approximately $150 billion a year, of which only $50 billion, approximately one-third, comes before the House to be voted upon on an annual basis. The other $100 billion is part of what we call “statutory program spending”, and what is provided to us is only for information. We never actually vote on or approve the $100 billion that the government spends on programs. We feel this needs to be addressed.

The recommendations of the committee are that we look at five fundamental areas of spending by the government: one, the estimates that we currently have before us; two, program spending; three, crown corporations; four, loan guarantees; and five, tax expenditures.

The estimates, the $50 billion that we currently spend, at the moment unfortunately receive a fairly cursory review by the committees. I don't have the actual statistic available, but approximately half a dozen reports a year, if that, by committees deal with the estimates. As you know, if they don't report, they're deemed to have reported. No changes have been made to the estimates over the last 25 years. Sometimes many MPs feel that the process of achieving change is far too onerous for them to focus their activities in that area.

As Marlene pointed out, there have been some serious changes and improvements to the way the estimates are presented to Parliament. They are now in the plans and priorities document within a context of looking forward two or three years. So they're not just numbers in isolation any more, but they're actually within a context of where the government intends to go. This is now the second year that they have tabled performance reports in the fall saying exactly, in looking backward, what they achieved in the reports by the various departments.

• 1130

These are major improvements. We would like to continue to further evolve and improve the process of supply, and the management of funds, and the supervision of funds by Parliament.

For statutory programs, as I said, there is $100 billion of spending that is not voted upon by Parliament that I think would be a real role for the estimates committee to look at. When legislation is passed they are granted ongoing funding, and it may be very many years before that bill is ever revisited by Parliament.

Therefore, we're looking at the concept of program evaluation, whereby we would look at four fundamental areas of program spending and evaluate it on the basis of what is the public policy the particular program is designed to achieve after we have developed or articulated a public policy. We then ask how well this program is achieving what it is supposed to achieve. Are we doing it efficiently? Perhaps we could achieve the same results in a better manner if we were to investigate that potential.

This would be a role of the estimates committee to look at program spending and evaluate it and report back to the House on any potential changes they felt were deserving of merit.

Loan guarantees show up in the estimates as a single dollar, and behind that single dollar there are billions in potential liability by the government. Again, at best, it's a cursory examination. Most often there's no examination at all. We feel that an estimates committee could look at this quite closely to ensure that the liabilities of the Government of Canada are approved by Parliament.

Tax expenditures don't show up anywhere due to the fact that it's forgone revenue by the Minister of Finance. A simple one of course is RRSP deductions, where a person can deduct from their income taxes because they have put some money into an RRSP. The Auditor General has commented on the public policy this entails. There are many other tax expenditures that cost the treasury billions of dollars and should be evaluated by Parliament and don't show up anywhere. The Minister of Finance has started to table a report on tax expenditures after a break of some number of years. We feel that the estimates committee could again look at tax expenditures.

Crown corporations again are something individual committees look at, but the estimates committee could help them in their overview. It is not intended that the estimates committee would in any way, shape, or form take away from the role of the individual committees to perform their oversight functions, but it would be there to assist the individual committees should they require some additional expertise.

In addition, we are talking about the committees having the opportunity to reallocate funds from one area to another, very closely within the defined vote. And remember when we talk about the estimates being only one-third of the total expenditures, we're talking about a maximum of 5% per maximum reallocation. It actually ends up being a lot less than 5% because it may only be 1% or 2% maximum.

Remember that departments today have the capacity to carry forward budget surpluses, so we are getting into a more open managerial relationship on budget management as far as the departments are concerned. We feel that the same opportunities should be given to Parliament where they can make their recommendations if they feel, based on the testimony before committees, that a reallocation of funds would be desirable. They could table a report in the House, along with substantive reasons for doing so, and that would cause the President of the Treasury Board to table a response back to the House, either concurring or disagreeing with the recommendation, and again requiring that he provide his reasons for doing so as well.

• 1135

We're talking, Mr. Chairman, about giving the whole estimates process a higher profile, giving the MPs or those who sit on an estimates committee the expertise and the tools to perform the parliamentary oversight that $150 billion of spending should have. That's why we talked about television, the opportunity to do so, the ability to assess new program spending, rather than just being a perfunctory process, which it unfortunately has become in the last few years. It's to redress and address the issue of the real role of Parliament to approve the public purse for the government and to review the program spending on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada to ensure that their tax money is spent in the most beneficial way.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: John, thank you very much. Again, we realize it's not easy for you to compress your thoughts on this important matter you've thought about for so long into the timeframe we've set ourselves. So thank you for that.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'd like to say that what John and Marlene have done for you is they have defined the vision of the subcommittee for you very clearly and have outlined a plan of implementing that vision. It shows that perseverance pays. And this report is about having identified individual concerns of members of Parliament and the hunger of the public for information, identifying the five areas that have been identified with a specific plan such as this and a sense of a need for self-evaluation on the part of the subcommittee. I think the prayer of the subcommittee report is to so that we can have better government and therefore citizen participation. It is now incumbent on this committee on procedure and house affairs that this report be acted upon with speed and hopefully favourably.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you, Rey. I appreciate it.

Again, I repeat my thanks to you all. We're dealing with something, the oversight of expenditures, that is very close to the way our system functions in Parliament. It's one of the core things.

On the list we have Gurmant Grewal.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, colleagues, to the committee. I appreciate the hard work you have done. Your reports are very good.

My first question is related to the recommendations. I didn't get a chance to go through these recommendations because we got a copy just now of the list of recommendations, even though we got the report earlier. I would like to see two recommendations there, at least. One is about the mechanism of how should the MPs be consulted so that their needs are met by the reporting system. Is there any recommendation in relation to the need or requirements of the MPs, how they should be consulted, and what's important to the whole process?

And the second recommendation is about the estimates. About half a dozen committees study the estimates, but what is the productivity after discussion? There is absolutely no change in the estimates. I don't see any output coming out from those discussions except that we just discuss for the sake of discussion.

Is there anything about these two recommendations?

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Let me talk first about consultation. This was one of the reasons we're proposing a committee that would be charged with the estimates process and keeping on top of that constantly. Right now there is no mechanism. In the last Parliament, for instance, Treasury Board was doing substantial work on the plans and priorities, changes to the estimates, the performance documents that you get in the fall, and the only way Parliament could be consulted was by the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board setting up an ad hoc committee really. And that's not terribly satisfactory, because you need to have a base of knowledge of how the process works and the views of members of Parliament before you can really have a constructive role to play in improving the process. So that's one reason we feel the estimates committee, or some committee charged with that responsibility, is extremely important.

• 1140

Secondly, we do recommend, for instance, that in developing guidelines for the administration on their relationship with committees, members of Parliament be consulted on that.

Thirdly, there's quite a bit in here about having the finance minister in particular, but also the bureaucracy in their documents, respond much more specifically to the work a committee has done throughout the year.

So that's what I would say about consultation.

What is the productivity? That's one of the concerns we have, that committees have not seen any major reason for dealing with the estimates because it hasn't been terribly productive.

John can elaborate on what we're suggesting in terms of reallocation, because that's certainly part of that. We're also making a number of suggestions that would give a higher profile to the work they do.

Quite frankly, my view is that the estimates are the end of the process. By using the plans and priorities documents in the spring to comment on the long-term plans as well as the specific plans of the department and to make that as input to the next year's budget and to the priorities the committee feels the government should be reflecting in its spending is probably the most effective thing the committees can do.

In other words, don't wait until the estimates are on the table; work on what you're going to want to see in those estimates, starting the day after the estimates are tabled for the previous year.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: What are the—

The Chairman: I have a fairly long list. I'm at the committee's disposal. Make it a very short question.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: On a more serious question, for about three years in continuation the Auditor General has issued a qualified statement on the government accounts. The first year it was about the harmonization of HST and GST the government charged, even though it was not a liability, only a commitment. The next year it was the research foundation—I don't remember the name. There was $980 million that was commitment, not liability. Then there was the millennium scholarship fund.

Those three issues are very important. And since this is the procedure and House affairs committee and we are discussing that in detail today, is there anything this committee can do, or is there any recommendation from the witnesses as to anything that can be done so that we adhere to generally accepted accounting principles as pleaded by the institute of chartered accountants and other financial institutions? Since that's not allowed in the private sector, and what we study from the academic point of view is that those are the generally accepted accounting principles the private sector has to adhere to, how can we see that the government also adheres to those guidelines and principles?

Mr. John Williams: That's a good point, Mr. Grewal.

The public accounts committee is actually dealing with that particular issue this very afternoon. The Auditor General will be there, the Treasury Board will be there, and the Department of Finance will be there to explain their situation.

The estimates committee is looking forward to anticipated spending, and the public accounts committee looks back at problems and issues that are raised by the Auditor General through his value-for-money auditing. That's where the clear difference is between an estimates committee and a public accounts committee.

The mandate of the public accounts committee is retrospective, whereas we want the estimates committee to be prospective in looking at planned spending by the government that has been tabled through the plans and priorities, to give direction to the government and to the departments and the administration as to how parliamentarians would like to see spending going in future years, and so on.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I would like to call to the attention of the members recommendation 8, on page 33, which deals with this specific question.

Because of the recommendation for this envisioned committee to sit with the public accounts committee and the Standing Committee on Finance, in a sense, within that broad mandate, such a question potentially may be answered in the future.

The Chairman: Is that okay?

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Okay.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I have now Chuck Strahl, Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bob Kilger, and then Lynn Myers. Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1145

Thank you all for coming. This is a pretty major report, and of course it deals with an issue close to everybody's heart, both MPs and taxpayers, which is the control of spending and the input of members of Parliament. It's a good report, and lots of good work has been put into it. I suspect you don't feel that every single part of it is going to be adopted by the government, but it does highlight the problems and ways to improve the situation. So I think that part is good.

As you know, a simple idea such as the televising of committee proceedings, which you've recommended for this new committee, is probably part of the reason we have had to deal with that in this committee as a broad policy issue for all of Parliament. So you've already started to trigger some new thinking on that, and that's good. I think this committee already has made good recommendations on that front.

I'm not going to ask about the report itself, because it's just too extensive. I have read through it, and the recommendations are before us now.

I just want to make sure I'm clear on this. What this group is recommending is that we again table this report, as the 60th report of this committee, or whatever number it would be, and just ask the government to respond and then take up the mantle, depending on what the response is. They may say gung ho and away we go, but I suspect they'll cherry-pick their way through it, in which case neither this committee nor yourselves through representatives can respond to it. I just want to make sure that's what we're looking at here today and that's what you would like to see happen. If so, I'd be happy to make that motion later on, because I think that is the way to do it. I think following a recommendation that this be done or standing order changes be initiated, we have to let the government respond, and then we can always respond to their response.

Mr. John Williams: Standing Order 109, I think it is, which is appended to the report, requires the government to respond within 150 days of the tabling of the report. We'd like to see the report tabled with that request of Standing Order 109 attached to it.

A voice: How many days?

Mr. John Williams: It's 150 days.

A voice: Is that sitting days?

Mr. John Williams: No, it's just days.

The Chairman: Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): First, I would like to congratulate the committee members. They worked very hard et very seriously, there is no doubt about that. Like Mr. Grewal, I am a bit frustrated because I haven't had the chance to read the recommendations. Therefore, I just had a very quick look at them.

I must admit that I am very happy that such a committee may be able to play a prospective role, as Mr. Williams said. Of course, reacting to past events is fine, but we must also make sure that our reactions are concrete and source of changes. I think that the suggested committee, if established, will be efficient.

Secondly, when will that committee be operational? Next September? At the beginning of the winter session? May be in the next Parliament? In recommendation 1, it says: “That the Standing Orders be amended to create...” Are the necessary deadlines to amend the Standing Orders specified somewhere? I can't answer that question. Does someone know? It's a very good recommendation, except that it should be implemented.

Mrs. Marlene Catterall: Ideally, the committee should be created for September. It could get ready during the fall and start its complete follow-up of the estimates in March, which would allow the possibility of evaluating its efficiency during two full years.

I am being optimistic.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: All right.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Bob Kilger and then Lynn Myers.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to join in welcoming our colleagues, who have presented us with a very substantive report that's going to require a great deal of thought and scrutiny.

• 1150

I'd just like to ask our witnesses if in the last Parliament there was a similar report tabled, or whether there are new elements added. Is this pretty similar or almost identical to the previous one? In brief, the government reply was... Or did they not reply?

Mr. John Williams: The report was tabled around February 27, just prior to the election. Parliament dissolved in April, so there never was a response by the government. This report is identical, word-to-word. There has been absolutely no change whatsoever to the report that was tabled in February 1997.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Would Mr. Williams know if this report has already received some circulation among my government colleagues?

Mr. John Williams: I couldn't speak to that. Perhaps Ms. Catterall could mention it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have had some discussions with officials who would be primarily responsible for responding to this—just in terms of presenting the concepts in the report to them and identifying any difficulties they have with it. I've certainly discussed it with the House leader's staff in some depth, but not in a great deal of depth with him.

Certainly a number of government officials from different departments were invited as witnesses before the committee. You can see the fairly extensive list of witnesses we had. So they're well aware of the report. But given that the committee at that time did not ask for a response because they recognized Parliament would be ending soon, there hasn't been any focus on actually responding to it. I think they would be well prepared to begin doing that.

Mr. Bob Kilger: If I may, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Grewal was making the point about private sector practices, and I wonder if the committee, in its deliberations, looked at other precedents in other Commonwealth jurisdictions.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We did. For instance, we heard from the former finance minister from New Zealand. Their experience in establishing a somewhat similar committee was extremely helpful to us in sorting through what we would recommend to the committee and to Parliament. We heard from other people who had been involved in similar reviews by this Parliament previously—for instance, Senator John Stewart and several others from previous committees. We found they had laid the foundation for the work and the changes that have been made, and they were certainly very helpful to us as well.

Mr. John Williams: Also, the Auditor General commented in his December 1997 report. I think it was on page 13. He said:

The report makes a series of recommendations for further enhancing the information available to Parliament on expenditures outside annual appropriations, and for strengthening the ability of Parliament to scrutinize these regularly. Particularly noteworthy were the Committee's recommendations that statutory and tax expenditures be explicitly subject to cyclical parliamentary review. The Committee also called for strengthening program evaluation of statutory expenditures, similar to recommendations I have made in the past. These suggestions deserve serious consideration by the new Parliament.

Bringing these various flows of money under formal, recurring parliamentary review would be a major step in strengthening the role Parliament plays in holding government to account.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, I have a closing remark for the witnesses. It's a very substantive document. Clearly, a lot of work has gone into this, and if a motion is brought forward to ask for a government response, I would certainly view that favourably, given the substance of the subject matter, its seriousness, its importance, and the hard work that's already gone into it by the committee members.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): What the passage of time has given us since the original report is that a lot of thinking and understanding of the whole concept have evolved and emerged, even to the point of public versus private accounting practices. In the same Auditor General's report there is a view prevailing on the part of the Department of Finance that has to be seen as well—an equally persuasive view. So I think what the recommendation in this report is about is to bring this to the fore so we can have a better understanding, and hopefully a consensus, a meeting of the minds, will be developed on these two approaches to estimates.

• 1155

The Chairman: Thanks, Rey.

I would be glad if someone suggested, later on, to call for a motion or motions. But continuing debate, next is Lynn Myers, and then John Solomon.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of questions, and then I actually would have a motion.

The Chairman: Let's continue with the debate first; we still have John Solomon to get on the record.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I think it's a very exhaustive set of recommendations, and I certainly commend everyone involved in this.

As you know, Mr. Williams sits as the chair of public accounts; I'm the vice-chair. So I was very interested in recommendation 8, when you start to talk about the interface between public accounts and this new proposed committee.

I was specifically interested in recommendation 32—and perhaps, Mr. Williams, you could answer this—with respect to the department and agencies including reference to outstanding issues that the Auditor General, for example, has indicated. I wonder if you have an example of where this could work and work well, and if you could provide that now.

Mr. John Williams: One issue that is quite topical is the social insurance numbers, which the Auditor General commented on in the report he tabled in September. No doubt that audit was ongoing for quite some number of months and wrapped up prior to the printing of his report.

The performance documents that I pointed out in the public accounts committee had absolutely no reference whatsoever to any problems or initiatives regarding the social insurance numbers. What we're talking about here in recommendation 32 is that when departments are asked to take an initiative, such as to address the problems with the social insurance numbers as raised by the Auditor General—and it's important to note that every recommendation by the Auditor General in his report was agreed to by the department in the report tabled by the Auditor General—we would see in the priorities and planning documents the initiatives they plan to undertake to resolve these problems, and we would expect to see in the performance documents a report on how progress was being made and how the problems were being addressed and resolved.

It becomes an evolving, ongoing process of management and supervision of government departments. We can see what they intend to do. They can be asked about and be examined on their prospective spending, through avenues such as the Auditor General. And perhaps other standing committees have recommended changes to legislation or spending on one particular area. These things should be responded to in the plans and priorities, and perhaps commented on in the performance documents as well.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much.

Ms. Catterall, I was wondering about recommendations 35 and 39, under the section dealing with the scope of the review, the statutory expenditures. Recommendation 35 talks about a schedule being established over the next ten years for all existing statutes. Recommendation 39 talks about new statutory programs being reviewed every five years. Was that reviewed? Is that doable? Is that realistic? Is that in keeping with what could happen effectively?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think I have to say I honestly don't know, and I certainly look forward to the government's response on that. The whole idea of a cyclical look at whether decisions made by previous parliaments are still achieving their objectives in terms of the amount of money that's being spent on them is the fundamental principle here. I think how the practical details are worked out is less important than some acceptance of the fundamental principle that we simply can't continue to have two-thirds of our spending on programs that Parliament and its committees never get to look at.

If I could just go back to your previous comment, I think recommendation 32 is extremely important. It's a red flag for committees looking at the expenditures of their departments. These are issues where the Auditor General in the past—it may have been four, five, or even eight or ten years ago—identified problems. The parliamentary committee then has the opportunity ask the department, on an ongoing yearly basis, have you fixed this problem? We have lots of things we think are priorities, and we can't afford to have money wasted.

• 1200

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you.

Finally, was any thought given to who would chair this committee? Would it be a member of the government, would it be a member of the opposition, or was that talked about at all?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We don't go into it in depth in our report, but we had a number of discussions about it. Since it's dealing with the basic expenditures of government, I think it would have to be a government chair. One possibility would be that you would have the government chairing the estimates committee. Given the problems of having an additional committee, you might in fact want to have a major, permanent subcommittee—the public accounts committee—chaired by an opposition member. In fact, those two functions working together I think would strengthen the role of Parliament in both areas. But that's something the committee could deal with afterwards.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: I think we'd better give John Williams a little kick at the cat.

Mr. John Williams: As Ms. Catterall pointed out, there was some debate on the issue. It wasn't just a foregone endorsement that there would be a government member chairing the committee. As she has pointed out, I think the point at this point in time is that we're dealing with the principles. Let the mechanics be resolved at a later date if we can get the principles put in place.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: To the question as to whether or not this is doable, I am more optimistic than our chair. Paragraphs 35, 36 and 37, as recommendations, only lay out that, firstly, a schedule would be established, and that can certainly be done within months, or at least in a year. Then, having done that schedule, we will identify those stages to be submitted. It can be one, two or three, depending on its doability. I am optimistic that the recommendations can be done soon.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion as soon as you've heard the testimony.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. John Solomon will, I assume, wind it up.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my congratulations to the committee for their thoroughness in this report as well.

Just to pick up on recommendation 32, if I might, John, is it not the public accounts committee's responsibility to follow up on what the Auditor General has targeted as insufficient accounting procedures or insufficient practices of government? Does the public accounts committee not do that now?

Mr. John Williams: The public accounts committee does follow up on these issues, Mr. Solomon, but what we're trying to say is that after the public accounts committee has tabled a report in the House of Commons, we would hope the departments would pick up the initiative and carry it forward to its conclusion and finality.

As I pointed out—and I use the example of the social insurance numbers, which the Auditor General was very critical of—there was not one single mention of social insurance numbers in the priorities, or even anywhere in the performance document of the department. Rather than just being a good news story by departments, we want to see these performance documents evolve into a management tool for Parliament so that we can use them to ensure that the funds have been spent properly and well and most beneficially on behalf of taxpayers.

The estimates committee is prospective in looking at plans and priorities. That's the concept we're proposing. The public accounts committee is retrospective in looking back at the issues and the problems. But if the public accounts committee expresses its opinion on an issue that needs to be resolved, on which we don't have the final reporting back through a performance document saying that we have dealt with this issue, that we have resolved it, it is now satisfactory, and here is a report on it, then it falls into a big vacuum and we don't know what has happened unless the Auditor General goes back a couple of years later. From a management point of view, we therefore want to see that there is accountability on the part of the departments to ensure that they report back to Parliament on issues that they do right.

Mr. John Solomon: In summary, Mr. Chair, on the SIN numbers, you can't ask them next year whether they've resolved that issue or not?

Mr. John Williams: Well, we can, and the Auditor General normally goes back after two years to do a follow-up audit and then reports back to Parliament. However, we're missing this link with the department coming to Parliament to say what it is doing, what it has done, what it has accomplished, and how it has resolved the issues.

Mr. John Solomon: My questions, Mr. Chair, were related to the overall proposal. How would this committee relate to the cabinet planning procedures, for example? I know they do a lot of this stuff. They go through the programs that work or don't work—I hope and pray that they do—and they look at demands in the future for the next year's budget. In my provincial experience in Saskatchewan, the cabinet planning cycle commenced in August and went through until the March budget. We considered all of these sorts of things in the whole picture, as well as program by program and service by service.

• 1205

How would this committee relate specifically to the government? Would there be a plug-in? Would the cabinet planning folks tap into the committee's findings and recommendations? Where would this meet in the decision-making process?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: In this report, we have obviously been far less concerned with the government's budgeting process than with the ability of Parliament to influence that. We've described it as completing the circle. What we see is the committees using the planning and priorities documents to report in June, with a broad scope of where they hope the government will go in terms of expenditures and priorities for the next year's budget. They would then have the opportunity to present those to the finance committee; to therefore have the attention of the minister, as well as the Minister of Finance, in regard to those while the budget cycle is ongoing in cabinet; to have their views included in the report of the finance committee to Parliament and to the finance... We see it as very much a full-cycle influence on behalf of members of Parliament through their committees.

Mr. John Solomon: My final question, Mr. Chair, pertains to crown corporations. Over my five years in Parliament, I've advocated that we establish a full-time standing committee on crown corporations. The example I use again is in Saskatchewan. We have a standing committee on crown corporations that calls every crown corporation before the committee annually. There were about 27 crowns when I was there and chaired the committee. We'd bring in the president and the executive officers of each, plus the minister in charge, and we would ask them all kinds of questions pertaining to their annual report, excluding issues that were before the courts and excluding personnel situations and human resource issues.

If we did not have a full-time committee to hold accountable these huge expenditures by the taxpayers on crowns, I would still certainly favour the idea that a big chunk of this committee's responsibility would be to deal with that.

So I'm wondering whether the committee looked at a separate committee on crowns, or whether you feel that in all of your listed recommendations of responsibilities you'd have sufficient time to review these crowns in the recommendations provided.

Mr. John Williams: We felt that one additional committee, that being the estimates committee, would be certainly enough at this point in time. We did not think in any way that we needed one committee dedicated to looking at crown corporations.

To get back to your earlier question, there were three areas in which the estimates committee would be involved. The committees are suggesting changes to the estimates that have been tabled until May 31 of any particular year. As I said, that would call for the tabling of a report, with justification for the recommendations. That would be followed by a response by the President of the Treasury Board, outlining why he concurred or disagreed with the recommendation. After that, committees have the opportunity to report on plans on or before the last sitting day in the House in June. And for the rest of the year, they're maybe looking further down the road, at when they're looking at performance evaluation of ongoing statutory programs. They would table a report in the House and would recommend to the government changes in legislation, perhaps, or changes in funding, changes in direction, or whatever they felt was appropriate based on the evidence they had before them. The estimates committee would express Parliament's views, both long-term as well as short-term.

Crown corporations perform two roles, in my opinion. The first is a public policy. Secondly, they are in business as well. Sometimes one masks the involvement of the other, but we wouldn't see a specific committee dedicated to crown corporations.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan.

• 1210

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Regarding your question about the relationship to cabinet, I think to a large extent recommendations 49, 50, and 51, will address the concern. Under the section on accountability of ministers, there is the development of guidelines for when officials appear to present on the estimates. As part of that process, there are consultations with the members of Parliament. Then, following the formulation of those guidelines, there is endorsement by the subcommittee on estimates.

There may be no direct person-to-person, day-to-day, or weekly contact, but in terms of structure and system, I think there will be evident the accountability and relationship that until now may not have been there as much as we would have liked.

Mr. Chair, while I am on the floor, I'd like to say it may be useful, in advancing this report, that the government not be requested to provide a reason when the report is wholly adopted. When the report is wholly or partially rejected or modified, I think it would be useful for all of us if reasons could be provided for a better appreciation of the decision.

The Chairman: Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams: One point, Mr. Chairman, that I didn't mention to Mr. Solomon is that the estimates committee does not take away from the role of the other standing committees, who have expertise and much to say about individual specific crown corporations. So this is not meant to take it away from these committees at all.

The Chairman: Yes, André.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues did, I would like to congratulate my fellow members of Parliament who dedicated a lot of their time to prepare an intelligent document.

My perception of this project is that you wanted to give more scope, more visibility to our work as members of Parliament who sit on committees. In each committee, we must deal with daily matters. Mr. Chairman, I think that committee will allow us to put our work a little more into perspective.

I have here recommendation 3 on which I would like to ask a brief question. It says that you are going to examine “proposed expenditures on a programme-based basis when more than one department or agency is responsible for delivery..”. Like my colleagues, I did not have the opportunity to read the whole report, which I intend to do, but do you also have the intention of examining the whole question of jurisdictions because some expenditures undertaken by the Federal Government could be done by other levels of government. Did that slip your mind or if you have the intention of examining that aspect?

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think I can say this was one of the areas we didn't discuss a lot, but I think it is another issue an ongoing estimates committee could deal with.

For instance, even the accountability for funds that are transferred to other levels of government or to other organizations is something that is a little loose right now. An estimates committee could in fact globally look at whether there is adequate accountability in the mechanisms for transfers or grants. That would be one of its important functions, I believe. But no, we didn't look specifically at what you were asking about.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Based on your analyses, would you even suggest to the government to intervene in new sectors?

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I would say that's something that always is in the purview of a committee of Parliament to suggest to government, but that was not something that was the intention of this report or the focus of any of our discussions.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'd just like to add that one of the parentheses and assumptions for those recommendations you alluded to is the spirit of cooperation that should continue to exist between the standing committees of the House and this envisioned committee. In other words, it cannot hold that this new committee can do the work for all departments. It would be impossible. Therefore, the cooperative endeavour must continue to be there, and it is the optimism of the committee that it will continue to happen.

The Chairman: And I think it might be useful... John Solomon's remarks about crown corporations... I recall you spoke at some length in the House of Commons about that. Am I right?

Mr. John Solomon: I actually have a—

The Chairman: If you could get chapter and verse, it might be useful for the record.

Mr. John Solomon: I actually have a motion for the House now if I'm lucky enough to be drawn. I'd like to bring that motion forward to the House and have the entire Parliament consider it.

The Chairman: Well, I wasn't suggesting anything as strong as that. I just thought—

Mr. John Solomon: I'd be happy to do that.

• 1215

The Chairman: Colleagues, I'm assuming we want to proceed with some motions. Before we thank our witnesses I'm going to ask for three motions, if I might, because there are three things we have to do. One is to adopt the 64th report as our 50th report. The second thing we have to do is pass a motion that the chair be instructed to present that report in the House and request a comprehensive government response. The third thing we need, because in fact the report has to be adapted in light of today's presentations, is the usual motion authorizing the chair to make editorial and typographical changes. I have a motion.

Lynn Myers and then Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs adopt the 64th report of the committee of the second session, 35th Parliament, as its 50th report.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We'll now turn to the second motion.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I move that the chair be instructed to present the 50th report to the House, along with a request under Standing Order 109 for a comprehensive government response.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We'll now deal with the third item. Lynn Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I move that the chair, in consultation with the clerk and the researcher, be authorized to make such editorial and typographical corrections as may be deemed necessary.

The Chairman: Before we vote on that, I'd like to point out, and Jamie has indicated this to me, that given the way it's written, because it's sort of in the past, there may be a need to change some of the dates and things like that, or at least draw attention to some of the dates. That would be included in the editorial changes. There will not be changes in substance. It's sort of bringing it up to date, and it's going to the House as coming from this committee now.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You could always change that part about the opposition being in charge of the committee, if you just wanted to throw that in.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Colleagues, on your behalf I want to thank Marlene Catterall, John Williams, and Rey Pagtakhan, our colleagues, for the time they put in on this and for the presentations today. It has been really useful and, as I indicated, a very fundamental part of the work of Parliament we're dealing with now.

We thank you for that. I thank you on behalf of all of my colleagues and the other members of the committee who produced the report.

If I might, I wish all our colleagues, our translators, and staff the very best for Christmas.

It is my understanding that we are going to adjourn at the call of the chair. Thank you very much.