HAFF Committee Report

Theme 3 - Reviewing and Strengthening Parliamentary Review Processes

The proposals for Theme 3 here aim to strengthen the Estimates process in order to encourage greater collaboration and partnership between parliamentarians and public servants.10 This can be achieved by:

1. Continuing improvement of Estimates reporting practices through experimentation with pilot projects and a provision for regular review of initiatives related to improved reporting to Parliament with a potential for recommendations on further changes.
2. Strengthening the role of standing committees in the Estimates reporting process by encouraging departments to engage their respective standing committees in reviewing their key-results commitments.
3. Encouraging standing committees to review Reports on Plans and Priorities and the Departmental Performance Reports and possibly involving the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in tracking these reviews.

The Office of the Auditor General considers this theme as perhaps the most critical issue being addressed by the Sub-committee. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs own Report on the Business of Supply concluded that parliamentarians are discouraged by rules and structures that do not facilitate (and sometimes unintentionally hinder) the conscientious scrutiny of proposed expenditures.

On the basis of the Office’s own work on reporting to Parliament, Mrs. Barrados proposed a few suggestions that the Sub-committee may consider:

• Consider making the current reporting regime a permanent feature of the financial procedures of the House, while still encouraging innovation and experimentation with improved approaches to reporting.
• A greater expectation of standing committees to review and report on Estimates.
• Consider making membership of standing committees more stable, thus permitting greater continuity and opportunity to develop expertise in reviewing the Estimates.
• Consider providing better tracking of committee questions and concerns over time in order to ensure greater continuity and consistency in the examination of issues and responses.
• Consider establishing a House committee that periodically reviews new initiatives to improve reporting. This would give Parliament an ongoing role in reviewing procedures.
• Consider how Parliament and its committees can best deal with electronic reporting of the Estimates.
• Consider how standing committees can effectively engage departments and consult with them in reviewing statements of result commitments, and discuss how they will demonstrate their achievements against those commitments.

On May 17^th, the Sub-committee invited the Clerk of the House of Commons, Mr. Robert Marleau and the Deputy Clerk, Mr William Corbett, to offer their comments and observations concerning proposals found in the current initiative to improve reporting to Parliament.

In essence, Mr. Marleau’s main theme was that modifying the presentation or format of the Estimates would not address the main problem of making the Estimates more relevant to parliamentarians and ensuring their greater participation in Standing Committees. He is concerned that the current project on improving reporting to Parliament is too much focussed on reforming the "How" of the review and reporting. He believes the emphasis should be more shifted on the "Why". That is how parliamentarians can be more effective and make a more meaningful contribution in the review of Estimates.

With regards to the exercise of reviewing and reporting the Estimates, the current institutional arrangements concerning the approval of the allocation of funds make it virtually impossible to make any changes to the Main Estimates. Further, little training or orientation is provided to parliamentarians on how to interpret and use Estimates documents. Given their lack of training, their very limited influence to amend spending plans, and the many other distractions that parliamentarians have to contend with, there remains very little incentive left to encourage them in participating more in the process of reviewing and approving the Main Estimates.

According to Mr Marleau, to ensure the strengthening of the parliamentary review process, what is needed is a culture change on both sides of the House. What has to occur within the Standing Committee structure is a change in culture, a new contractual arrangement, among all parliamentarians, with regards to the setting of priorities, the allotment of funding and accountability. The witness cited as an example the Standing Committee on Finance, which, with its pre-budget consultation process, has greater opportunity to contribute to policy development and the federal budget, and engages with the Minister and the ministry, more than most other Standing Committees. To have impact on policy, there needs to be some stability of the membership and Chair in order to develop over time a contractual arrangement with various departments.

There is also a need to redefine the relationship between the Standing Committees and their relevant Ministers. To ensure greater feedback, closer partnerships must be forged between the Minister and parliamentarians.

The Sub-committee also invited Mr. Peter Dobell, the founding Director of the Parliamentary Centre, to comment on the submitted proposals.

First of all, Mr Dobell noted that three of the four themes were related to improving information to Parliament, while one theme focussed on strengthening the parliamentary review process.

For the theme regarding improving information to Parliament, many of the proposals are well thought out and comprehensive. Mr. Dobell believes that these proposals will lead to better government and that the main beneficiaries will be the central agencies and the interested public, that is those individuals who possess the specialised knowledge to interpret and use the information contained in the improved reports.

But Mr. Dobell expressed doubts whether the proposals will lead to more effective review process by committees, especially the review of the Estimates.

First of all, the effective review of the Main Estimates requires resources, expertise and much time. Parliamentarians must deal continuously with many conflicting demands which often prevents them from properly focussing on investigating or working on estimates.

If government and Parliament are serious about strengthening the review process, committees will have to have more resources and the assistance of qualified and knowledgeable staff in order to carry out effective review of estimates and performance reports.

The second difficulty in reviewing estimates and performance reports is that it is the kind of work that appeal only to a minority of parliamentarians who possess the required skills and talents. Many parliamentarians are more interested in policy analysis and development, while others find constituency work more congenial.

Mr. Dobell feels that the best direction to consider is having a standing committee devote itself almost exclusively on the review and analysis of Estimates. That is why the witness supports the recommendations contained in the Catterall-Williams Report proposing the establishment of an Estimates committee. In his opinion, it would be good to have one powerful committee with enough resources, expertise and time to devote itself to comprehensive reviews and analysis of some estimates each year, instead of many committees examining estimates on a part-time basis.

Thirdly, the review and investigation of estimates is of limited interest to parliamentarians because they have very little latitude to modify the allocation of funding. This situation leads to frustration and contributes to unnecessary antagonism and excessive partisanship between government and opposition members on committees.

To this issue, the witness proposed two areas of solution. One could consider modifying the current practice of rotating committee membership. The high turnover of committee membership discourages the development of corporate memory and expertise on issues. Consideration should be given to allowing more stable membership on standing committees in order to allow members to focus and develop goals. This would contribute to better participation and allow for more constructive and collaborative engagement by all committee members.

Mr. Dobell agrees on the emphasis on focussing on results, but parliamentarians have short time horizons and they are not ready to wait for a year to see if the promised results are achieved. Also, there is very little in this exercise to interest parliamentarians, because all that is being offered is a chance to understand better what the government is trying to do.

Mr. Dobell suggests that instead of merely reporting results, ministers and departments be urged to come to committees, perhaps in the autumn, and present them with options that they are considering, not just Reports on Plans and Priorities. They could ask committees to express their preferences in their report. If six months later the options recommended by the committee were to be funded in the estimates, the committee would feel that it had made a contribution.

Mr. Dobell realizes that this is a big change in approach. It would also involve stepping outside the Estimates timetable, but it is consistent with an emphasis on results and it does link Estimates to results.

After considering the above, accordingly the Sub-committee recommends the following: