EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 5, 1995

.0931

[English]

The Chair: I am calling this meeting of the Sub-Committee on the Business of Supply to order. We do not have a formal quorum yet, but the first item we wanted to deal with was a briefing by our researcher of the members on the material in the briefing book. In any case that does not require a full quorum, the clerk informs me.

I will ask Brian to begin taking us through this rather hefty book so we will know what is there. I don't know about the other members of the committee, but I can assure you I have not read it all yet.

Mr. Brian O'Neil (Committee Researcher): This morning I am going to give you a fairly brief tour of the contents of the briefing book. I would like to preface my remarks by saying members are more than welcome to ask questions at the end of my briefing, or, if you have questions about the contents of the briefing book later on, please speak to me or give me a call at my office and I will be glad to give you a hand.

We will start with tab 1, which contains an excerpt from the Standing Orders as of June 14, 1995. This excerpt consists of chapter 10, on financial procedures, and it covers Standing Orders 81 through 82, which deal with the business of supply. Members should note that in February 1994 an important change was made to Standing Order 81 by the addition of a section, subsection (7), that reads as follows:

(7) When main estimates are referred to a standing committee, the committee shall also be empowered to consider and report upon the expenditure plans and priorities in future fiscal years of the departments and agencies whose main estimates are before it.

A subsequent Standing Order, 81.(8), gives committees until, and including, the last sitting day of June to submit such reports to the House.

The government's reasons for this change to the Standing Order are discussed in the paper on the development of the supply process located at tab 3 of your briefing book. I thought I would quote from the Honourable Herb Gray, who was speaking in the House and introducing this particular change. According to Mr. Gray, committee review of the expenditure plans would enable

The House [to] have the opportunity to provide the government and the public with its views on expenditure priorities before the estimates for the next fiscal year are prepared rather than being put in the difficult position of having to deal with what amounts to almost a fait accompli when the estimates are finally tabled.

This new change appears to reinforce Standing Order 108.(2)(c), which is also included in your briefing books. This Standing Order empowers standing committees to review and report on immediate, medium, and long-term expenditure plans and the effectiveness of the implementation of these plans by departments.

The reason I am stressing these two sections of the Standing Orders is that the subcommittee may wish to consider what role they play in enabling committees to exert an influence over the supply process.

.0935

At tab 2 members will find an article entitled ``Financial Procedures: The Supply Process''. This is a paper that was prepared by the table research branch, which serves the Speaker of the House.

The paper begins with an introduction to the traditions surrounding the financial procedures Canada has inherited from the British system. It then discusses the basic rules that govern financial procedures and their source, for example the Constitution, the Financial Administration Act, unwritten conventions, and the Standing Orders. It then provides a general outline of the financial year. Then there is a chapter devoted to the business of supply. This chapter explains the timetable and basic components of the supply process.

I should mention that there are some other components to this paper that deal with public accounts, for example. If members are interested, I could certainly provide them with copies of those chapters.

At tab 3 you will find an article that was written by James Robertson, of the law and government division of the Library of Parliament. It is entitled ``The Development of the Supply Process''. This article describes the historical evolution of the supply process in the House of Commons, beginning at Confederation and concluding with recent changes made to the Standing Orders in February 1994. This article covers some of the same territory as the article in tab 2 does, but it does so in greater detail.

At tab 4 you will find an article I wrote, entitled ``The Supply Process in Comparative Perspective''. This article briefly outlines supply procedures that are currently found in the parliaments of the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, and in the provincial and territorial legislatures of Canada.

I should mention about the portions of the paper that deal with the supply procedures in provincial and territorial legislatures that there the information was based on a series of responses we received to a questionnaire we sent out in 1993-94. In some cases the information that appears in the chapter can seem a little uneven. This simply is the result of the quality of the responses we received. If members wish any clarification or have any questions about what they find in this chapter, they should speak to me and we will get in touch directly with the provincial legislatures to endeavour to answer your questions.

Members also should note that although there are differences between these legislatures, the underlying principle found in parliamentary systems, namely that government proposes expenditures while the parliament's task is either to approve or to reject these proposals, remains the same. Each of these legislatures has developed its own ways of doing things, but the criticism that parliaments exert little real influence or control over government expenditures is quite common to all of them.

Members may also have some interest in the way the United States Congress deals with the business of supply. I am currently putting together a paper for you that describes this process. The paper should be distributed to you when you return from your break next week.

I also want to mention that Mr. Robertson's article and my own contain several references in the form of footnotes. If any subcommittee members are interested in seeing those original articles, let me know and I will supply them to you.

Tab 5, which is entitled ``The Expenditure, Planning, and Supply Process'', and tab 6, which is entitled ``The Expenditure Management System of the Government of Canada'', are taken from part I of the main estimates for 1994 and 1995-96 respectively and should probably be read together. These two articles are useful for several reasons. First of all, they situate Parliament's role in the supply process within the larger context of the process government goes through in preparing its expenditure plans for the coming fiscal year.

.0940

Both of these articles provide some very useful charts, which give you an overview of the process in a chronological sense. These articles describe what is done, by whom, and when. They're also important because major changes have been made in the way government plans and manages its expenditures between the last fiscal year, 1994-95, and this one. These two articles taken together contrast those changes and describe the alterations that have been made in the expenditure management process and that are being implemented or have already been implemented during the current fiscal year.

Some of these changes are particularly important in terms of the role Parliament plays in the process. For example, when I was discussing the Standing Orders contained in the first tab, I mentioned the change made to Standing Order 81 that allows standing committees to examine and report on the long-term expenditure plans and priorities of the departments whose estimates they are reviewing. To facilitate this change, departments are now producing documents that are called ``outlooks on program priorities and expenditures''. Since this is a bit of a mouthful, they're simply referred to as ``outlooks'' or ``outlook documents''.

These documents cover the immediate fiscal year and an additional two years; three years in total. In them, departments are expected to indicate how they will adjust their activities in order to live within the parameters established by the budget.

These documents are to be presented to standing committees at roughly the same time as the main estimates, and as I indicated earlier, are intended to give committees an opportunity to influence the estimates and expenditure priorities for the subsequent fiscal year.

Descriptions of this and other changes to the supply process, especially on the administrative side, are found in the contents of tab 6.

At tab 7 you will find an article entitled ``Information for Parliament: Departmental Reporting''. This is a chapter from the 1992 report of the Auditor General to the House. It contains the Auditor General's assessment of the part III documents of the main estimates, which contain the details of departmental expenditure plans and are the documents that standing committees use when they review and report on the departmental estimates.

The Auditor General argues that in their current form these documents do not reflect the full range of departmental activities and expenditures adequately. As a result they are not fully satisfactory, in his opinion, in terms of exercising accountability. He proposes that the department move towards the disclosure of the entire business of departments and agencies, or what he calls ``global stewardship''. The AG also suggests certain criteria that should govern the reporting of information to Parliament, looks at whether or not current reporting satisfies these criteria, and makes several recommendations aimed at improving the reporting of information to Parliament.

This chapter has been included in the briefing books for two main reasons. First of all, the Treasury Board Secretariat is undertaking a revision of the estimates material, in part in response to the observations and suggestions made by the Auditor General. Secondly, it's possible the subcommittee may wish to call the Auditor General to appear before it as a witness, and if so, his testimony might in large part be based on the contents of this particular chapter.

I should stop at this point to indicate to committee members that if someone who has written an article that appears in the briefing book is called as a witness before the committee, I will provide a summary of the contents of that particular article in the briefing notes that will be sent to you.

At tab 8 you will find an article entitled ``Parliament and the Estimates: Toward Effective Oversight and Control of Expenditure''. This is an article that was written by Peter Dobell, who is the director of the Parliamentary Centre. He outlines the shortcomings of the current process and suggests various ways of improving it, including a pre-review of the estimates by standing committees and permitting the reallocation of expenditures contained in the votes.

.0945

This article is a very good summary of the criticisms that have been made recently of the supply procedures. It is also a very good summary of the kinds of suggestions people have made to improve those procedures.

The Chair: What is the date of this article?

Mr. O'Neil: It was 1994, January; the edition of Parliamentary Government.

The Chair: It's very current.

Mr. O'Neil: Yes, it's very current. I've also suggested that Mr. Dobell might be a good witness for the committee to hear from.

Finally, at tabs 9 and 10 are two additions to the briefing book. Tab 9 contains a paper prepared by two former members of Parliament, the Honourable Ron Huntington and M. Claude-André Lachance, entitled ``Accountability: Closing the Loop''. In 1982 this was submitted to the Special Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, the Lefebvre committee, which preceded the McGrath committee, I believe.

In this paper the authors propose ways of reorganizing the House of Commons so Parliament could better fulfil its responsibilities for scrutinizing proposed and actual spending. They suggest three basic ways of doing this: first, by restructuring standing committees; second, by clarifying and enhancing the powers of committees; and third, by providing committees with better support.

Some of the conditions they're addressing have changed since 1982, but by and large the article remains interesting and relevant. Again, I've suggested the authors might be called before the committee as witnesses, at which point they can discuss the proposals they make in this paper.

Lastly, at tab 10 we've included a copy or excerpts from the Financial Administration Act that are relevant to the supply process. The act itself is about 125 pages long. I've included only a very brief excerpt from it. It makes particular reference to the roles played by Treasury Board and Treasury Board Secretariat in the process. Again, if members are interested in seeing the entire act, if you feel you're missing something, just let me know and I'll provide it to you.

That concludes what I have to say about the briefing book. I stress again that if members have any questions, either now or subsequent to this meeting, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me and I will try to answer your questions as best I can.

The Chair: I think we have a quorum and what we should do, rather than proceeding with any questions to our researcher, is hear from our witnesses, if that's agreeable to the committee.

Mr. Duhamel, you were going to make an opening statement. You were going to introduce the officials you have with you. We'll proceed in that way.

[Translation]

Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Let me just advise you that the committee is interested in hearing from the President of the Treasury Board at some time. This is background information for that meeting.

Mr. Duhamel: I shall convey your sentiments to the President of the Treasury Board.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Duhamel: I am accompanied by two officials here, Mr. Hopwood and Mr. Miller, who will be making some comments subsequent to my opening statement.

.0950

[Translation]

Madam Chair, I would first like to say that I am happy to be with you this morning to try and define precisely for you the task that was given to me by the President of the Treasury Board and to determine how we can work together within a very special and very essential model.

[English]

First, we cannot overstate the importance of the business of supply to Parliament. As we all know, it is one of the critical and fundamental roles of Parliament, and we respect that.

[Translation]

We know that with time, the information given to Parliament has changed just as much as the process it follows.

[English]

We are here today, colleagues, to describe a project initiated by the President of the Treasury Board to improve information that is provided to Parliament.

The information demanded by Parliament from government has also evolved. The previous reform, which took place in 1980, resulted in much more information on plans and performance. The focus turned from inputs and activities to results and outcomes. The traditional controls used by Parliament, votes and supplementary estimates, were seen to be less relevant than timely, quality information.

We are some time away from deciding exactly what we want to recommend, but the key areas we are looking at, this special group that I'm heading, are the kind of information provided to Parliament -

[Translation]

whether this information really make us understand what the ministers want to do and, later on, if they have done it -

[English]

and whether we can get information to members in a more timely fashion.

We are in the 1990s, the information age, and

[Translation]

it seems to me that we should be able to apply this new technology to the information that is given to Parliament.

[English]

The review of the supply process in which your committee is engaged and the expenditure management information that we are examining are clearly complementary. It will be important for us to continue to communicate about our plans and activities and make sure that our two efforts will result in a better process, fed by better information.

At this point I shall ask Mr. Miller and Mr. Hopwood to provide more information about the Reform of the Estimates project that we are undertaking and some of the ideas that we are considering. Merci.

Mr. David W. Miller (Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Program Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Madam Chair, I'd like to begin by thanking you for the opportunity to come here and discuss the project that we're carrying out to improve the information that is being provided to Parliament. I have a brief opening statement, after which I would like to ask Mr. Hopwood to provide a presentation that will last about twenty minutes and will describe what we are trying to achieve and some ideas we have for doing this.

To set the stage for the presentation, I'd like to highlight some of the key points for you.

Firstly, and most importantly, as Mr. Duhamel mentioned, our project is addressing the information that is provided to Parliament, not what Parliament actually does with that information. We recognized that there was a very real opportunity to provide better information to Parliament and at the same time make the procedures involved in providing it far more efficient and relevant. We also recognized, however, that we could not take it upon ourselves to change what Parliament does with the information, that being the job of Parliament itself.

Secondly, even though our project has been called ``Reform of the Estimates'', it's actually much broader than this. It addresses all of the expenditure management information now provided to Parliament in an extensive array of documents that include the budget, three parts of the estimates, the outlook document, which has already been mentioned, three sections of public accounts, and over 400 other reports required by legislation or because of requests by parliamentary committees.

As part of our research we looked at one department, Agriculture and Agri-Food. This document identifies the amount of material that we provide to Parliament annually on that one particular department. It's quite extensive. There is a lot of repetition and duplication, which we are going to be trying to address as we proceed through our project.

The approach we are using is to examine these reports against the four basic principles for which expenditure management information is provided to Parliament.

.0955

The first one is to allow members to understand and access the fiscal plan and the expenditure framework of the government. The second one, of course, is to vote supply for non-statutory spending. Right now that represents about one-third of the total expenditures by government; the ones that are approved on an annual basis. The rest are all related to existing legislation.

We'd also like to allow members to understand and challenge the spending plans and priorities that are put forward by departments and agencies.

Finally, we'd like to provide a basis for accountability, holding departments to account for both operational and financial performance.

The third element of our approach is that this project represents the second phase of changes that have been made to the Expenditure Management System, as was mentioned previously. For phase I we address primarily the budget-planning process and the establishment of priorities within government. The purpose of the phase I changes was to ensure fiscally responsible management by focusing on results and performance by using reallocation rather than new funding to support new policy initiatives and by giving departments flexibility to employ the best approaches to meeting objectives with declining resources.

Finally, we are adopting an incremental approach to the changes we are introducing. Even though we are limiting ourselves to issues of information, we are dealing with some very complex processes and interactions. We want to be careful that we respect the real needs of all stakeholders. We are consulting extensively with members of Parliament, the Auditor General, and departments and agencies to find solutions that benefit all parties.

The ideas we have developed so far to improve information to Parliament at this time are just ideas. We have not received approval to complete or go forward with any of them. We are now engaged in another consultation process to test them out. So this is initial work we're doing in the changes.

Madam Chair, with your permission, I would now like to ask Mr. Hopwood to provide some further detail on the Reform of the Estimates project and to describe some of the ideas we have developed.

The Chair: Proceed.

Mr. Thomas C. Hopwood (Director, Reform of the Estimates, Expenditure Management Sector, Program Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. With your permission, I'd like to give about a twenty-minute presentation. That will give some of the details of the project we're engaged in. After that, we'll be very happy to answer any questions you might have.

We have a hand-out. I hope everybody has received a copy. I'm going to be addressing my presentation against that hand-out.

At the very beginning it's probably useful to start with some definition of the problem we're addressing. Again, to go back to a point Mr. Miller made, we're not dealing with a fundamental change in the process. We're addressing information. We view this project as being a natural evolution in the presentation of information to Parliament. We don't need to do this in a hurried way. We're looking at it as an evolutionary kind of project.

The kinds of concerns we're addressing from the point of view of parliamentarians.... Over time they have found the documents presented to them have become less user-friendly, more and more detailed, more complex, harder to read, and less and less informative about the kinds of information parliamentarians seem to want to have, which is a high-level, top-down view of where the organization is going and what it's doing. There was always this tug and pull between desire for access to detail and the need to provide a comprehensive view of where an organization was going and what it was doing. So we recognized there was some frustration on the parliamentarians' side.

From the point of view of departments, departments were also frustrated by the fact that they were bound by an excessively structured framework that didn't really allow them to get their messages out. From Treasury Board's point of view, this is a very risky process. We end up producing about 12 million pages of documentation almost at the last minute. As the budget changes and as final decisions are made, all these documents, all the changes, ricochet through the entire framework, and it's a very risky process just in terms of being able to table these important supply documents on time.

.1000

So there were lots of stresses and pressures moving us towards looking at the information Parliament received. Also, as Mr. Duhamel said, the last structure was put together fifteen years ago, before we had a lot of the amazing technology we have access to today.

The next two slides basically repeat what Mr. Miller has said about the fact that we're dealing with information, and it's broader than just the estimates. It's all the expenditure management information Parliament receives and it's an incremental project. We're not going for the big bang theory of change.

As to the principles we're working with, again, we're building them on the changes that were made to the expenditure management system, which dealt largely with the internal fiscal process. We want to convey those changes out now to what I refer to as the third ring of the onion, the third layer of the accountability chain, which is information to Parliament.

We want to make those processes consistent. It also fulfils the government commitment to provide better information to Parliament. We also want to promote efficiency through the application of technology.

Getting into how we're going about the project, in rough terms there have been three major stages to what we're doing. The first stage was a needs identification benchmarking stage. We consulted with a sample of MPs, senators, OAG officials and senior departmental officials to get their views and concerns. We also read AG reports and consulted with other people who had an interest in this subject - academics and so on.

We also benchmarked internationally to look for some of the better ideas out there, primarily in Australia, New Zealand and the U.K., to see how their reform efforts were going and observe the kinds of difficulties they encountered. We learned a lot from that in terms of how their parliaments responded to certain proposals and so on and how to implement the process to meet everybody's needs.

From that initial round of consultations and idea generation and by looking at the information as a system of information, we generated some ideas that we think would basically represent a win-win-win situation for all parties: better information, more efficient, better access. Those are the ideas we're coming forward with now.

We're just entering into the next stage, which is the consultation stage. We're establishing an ad hoc MP working group to receive their ideas and to bounce our ideas off them. We're testing the ideas with an interdepartmental committee of senior officials. We're taking our ideas and placing them out in the marketplace, essentially, and getting some feedback.

When that's completed and we settle on the option we want to present to Parliament, we want to pilot those in the next cycle of the estimates, so in March we'll have pilot departments presenting some new options to Parliament. After that, of course, we'll do a thorough assessment of whether or not it really did represent an improvement, and hopefully before the end of the next parliamentary year we'll be able to come up with an option we want to implement over time.

The ideas for change that we're working with fall into four main areas. Probably the most fundamental one is the idea of splitting planning and performance information and not having it all happen at the same time, stacked up on that appropriations process that occurs in March. That's one of the fundamental ideas.

Building on that, we feel there's an opportunity to bridge the gap between when plans are actually made and when performance is actually reported. In most cases there are more than two years between when departments actually sit down and say ``This is what we intend to do'' and the time it reaches the next part III of the estimates and the performance is reported. We think we can provide better information to Parliament by providing some in-year updates on that performance.

We're looking at the vote structure as a way of improving both flexibility and information to Parliament. Overall, through technology and rationalization of documents, we're hoping to make the process more efficient.

On the next page we give a little bit more detail on what we're talking about in terms of splitting the planning and the performance document. What we have considered as one of the better ways of improving information to Parliament is an idea that we didn't invent; it's being used in other countries as well.

.1005

The performance information that's now included in part III of the estimates would be tied more closely to the financial performance that's contained in the public accounts, and a document would be prepared, by department, that gives a top-down, broad-based view of the department's actual performance against the plans they specified 16 months earlier, which is the previous fiscal year.

In effect, this moves the timing of that performance information up by six months. In other words, Parliament would get the information six months earlier than it would have if it had waited until the next part III of the estimates came out. It also has the effect of turning performance into a bit of an event. It brings it together in one spot and makes it far more understandable and readable.

We think that's a good idea. That's one of the core elements we're going forward with in our changes to the information that Parliament receives.

The fall performance then, as I say, would be tied to the financial information that comes out in the public accounts, so it would be both financial and operational in nature. We haven't defined precisely how, but it would be tied to the president's annual report on review, which is coming out for the first time this fall in response to a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. That's notion number one.

Idea number two has to do with bridging the gap between plans and reporting. This has to do with providing an in-year update on where the department is going, both financially and operationally.

I guess the feeling is that supplementary estimates are not a very good mechanism for conveying to Parliament what's happening to the department. It provides a control, in terms of whether or not spending exceeds a certain vote threshold, but it doesn't provide very much else in terms of understanding where the priorities are going and what the resource reallocations are within program elements.

It's largely a mechanism of input control, as opposed to one of output control. One of the fundamental principles of the expenditure management system is to move more toward the results and place less emphasis on the management of inputs.

We feel that by doing this we can provide better information to Parliament. It's an idea at this time, but it's an idea that we want to pursue.

The Chair: Mr. Hopwood, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I didn't understand the connection. You said ``by doing that''. I wasn't sure what ``that'' was.

Mr. Hopwood: It means providing regular updates throughout the course of the fiscal year on financial and operational -

The Chair: Is it to replace the supplementary estimates?

Mr. Hopwood: It wouldn't replace the supplementary estimates, but it ties to the next item that I want to talk about, which is the vote structure. It concerns whether or not the vote structure and the supplementary estimates, as they're now defined, actually provide useful information to Parliament in the broader sense.

So if we swing to the next page, I'll talk a little about the vote structure.

Again, this is an idea that we want to put on the table. It was implemented in the U.K. over a two-year period. It was phased in over a two-year period. Basically, in the U.K., they moved to a one-vote-per-entity system. So you would have one vote per department, agency or major organization, instead of having votes by classes of inputs, capital, operating, and G and C, and instead of having votes at the sub-entity level.

That allowed ministers a greater capacity to reallocate resources within their ministry without having to go through fairly heavy processes, in terms of supplementary estimates and that sort of thing, to get approval to do that.

They complemented that with in-year information on what those shifts were, which was top-down, readable, understandable information of what the changes were. In effect, Parliament received better information and the departments were given greater flexibility to manage their resources in a period when resources were declining rapidly.

.1010

So it looked again as if this win-win-win scenario we're looking for seemed to be an element that fit well with that. As I say, it's an idea that we want to put on the table to see how people respond to it. If Parliament is satisfied that the information it receives in-year is meeting its expectations, then we could move, over time, to a one-vote option if that was attractive.

I'll swing to the next page. In terms of the more efficient process, we have technology as a key element of the framework we're putting together. There are four levels of technology that we're looking at.

One has to do with the relationship between the government and Parliament, which means getting more of the information on something like the PubNet system, to which parliamentarians have access. Beyond that, the information would be available through Internet to the general public.

So we could imagine a scenario in which somebody phones in and wants a copy of the part III of a particular department's estimates. We could say that if you wanted a printed copy, it'll cost $65, which is the cost of production. If you want an electronic copy, we can give it to you for $10. If you go through Internet, it's free. We could improve accessibility that way, and provide a range of use.

Part of the concern is that cart loads of these blue books get brought in in the morning and, according to some, cart loads get carried out at night in blue boxes. It seems that 12 million pages is a lot of trees. We'd like to see if we can use technology better to improve that.

With those first two levels, we think there's an opportunity as well to provide a lot of the more bound up and published routine information on an accessible database so that parliamentarians, if they wanted to know the details of individual grants or capital projects, don't have to have it printed in blue books. We could have that accessible on a database at the same level of quality and with better accessibility.

Then, finally, we're talking about an electronic data interchange between departments and Treasury Board to improve the efficiency of that process.

So technology is going to play a big part in the changes to the information processes that we're talking about. As for the impact on parliamentarians, we're hoping, if our ideas survive, to be able to provide more strategic information to Parliament.

Again, this is a top-down view. The little logo at the top has a stack of boxes to represent the cascading concept we're looking at.

We feel we can provide at the high end, which is the published format, the critical information, which is the key stuff, that allows parliamentarians to understand where the programs are going.

The next layer down in the cascade would mean access to the details that are most often used, either through a database or other forms.

The third layer down would be the broader base of information providing parliamentarians with access to that through contacts or other printed matter.

So the concept we're working toward is better in-year information to reduce that gap I talked about earlier.

The separate performance report, we think, is a major step forward. There's no loss of detail, but improved access. It provides a basis for inputs for decisions on future-year spendings, as opposed to trying to influence the estimates that have just been tabled, which is when, in fact, some people have indicated that it's almost too late for any influence.

Finally, there's timing. We're looking at the fall of 1995 for beginning our stakeholder consultations, getting these ideas out on the table, and canvassing very broadly to get a measure of acceptability.

Early in 1996, we'll present some more substantive and finalized options to parliamentary committees and present our piloted, new documents.

Then, in the spring of 1996, we'll select the option we want to start moving toward. Over the course of the next several years, we'll gradually and carefully implement the changes.

That concludes my presentation.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We're ready for questions.

Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams (St. Albert): I would like to congratulate the witnesses on the work they are doing to bring us into modern management techniques, styles and presentations. I can only commend them for what they are doing and encourage them to continue.

.1015

I believe that another committee is actively studying the process of information development for parliamentarians and so on. I presume that the presentation you've given to us this morning will be presented to that committee as well.

As a member of this committee, I'm concerned about the concept of co-opting parliamentarians into the supply process that provides the finances to run the government. While there is the change in the style of presentation and the evolution of the numbers, I'm still very concerned that when it will get to the floor of Parliament we're going to be forced - not just expected, but forced - to rubber-stamp what appears there.

Of course, Parliament is the ultimate arbiter and decision-maker when it comes to whether the government will have the money, and the role of the opposition is being eroded all the time.

Mr. Hopkins said that the consolidation of the votes, for example, is going to allow greater ability for departments to transfer money from one area to another within normal management decision-making. While that might be appropriate, and even desirable, as far as parliamentarians are concerned it means better information but less control. I can't go along with that part. I can go along with the better information. I can go along with an improved process. However, I certainly can't go along with less control for Parliament.

We must remember that the reason why Parliament even exists and how it actually evolved in its early stages was to control the public purse of the monarch, which of course became the executive branch of government. That whole area of control by Parliament, which is the representatives of the people, has been totally circumvented, and I feel it has to be examined and brought back into being. I see that as a major role of this committee.

While I don't have many questions for the witnesses, because the presentation has been excellent, I have to say that I see it as a large improvement in the way in which the civil service, as a representative of the executive branch of government, are doing their job and improving how they do it, and I have to compliment them on that. But, from the role of parliamentarians, another step has to be addressed.

Mr. Miller indicated in his presentation, at the bottom of page 1, that the reason why all this information is being provided to Parliament is, first, to allow members to understand and assess the fiscal plan, which is fine, but, second, to vote supply for non-statutory spending. Up to this point in time we haven't had the opportunity of being able to vote because of the confidence being applied by the government. Confidence - meaning that any defeat of one measure, one dollar, one cent out of the estimates, would cause the government to fall - has not allowed an appropriate debate and decision by Parliament on the information provided by the civil service as the representative of the executive branch.

That's the position I'm coming from.

The Chair: I believe Mr. Duhamel wants to make some comments.

Notwithstanding Mr. Williams' comments, I seem to recall voting on the business of supply in the way in which I wanted to vote.

If you weren't there for the vote, then I guess that's your problem, Mr. Williams.

Mr. Duhamel: I thank my colleague for his comments.

I want to ask a question for clarification purposes.

Clearly the intent here is to try to provide better information for most parliamentarians so they can get greater satisfaction in terms of the role they have to perform, which includes holding government accountable. Clearly that is the intent.

You've acknowledged that this appears to be a step forward.

The concern you've voiced is whether or not, by virtue of that, we shall lose on the other front; that is, that there will be less control by Parliament.

.1020

Are you suggesting that's inevitable, or are you simply concerned that that not happen? I don't necessarily see it as inevitable, but perhaps you see it differently. That's what I want clarified.

Mr. Williams: No, I don't see it as inevitable. In fact, I would like to try to reverse the process that has been. We've seen the erosion of the power of Parliament and it all going to the executive branch of government. It's an act to reverse the process...rather than the fact that I see it as inevitable.

Mr. Duhamel: Okay, thank you.

Do the officials want to add any more to that? No?

That's the clarification I wanted. Thank you. That suffices for the time being.

The Chair: The very wise officials don't want to comment on a political issue.

Anything further, Mr. Williams?

Mr. Williams: The only point I have, Madam Chairman, is unfortunately, because of other issues I have to deal with this morning, I do have to leave. Didn't we pass a motion last week saying the business of this committee may continue without the presence of all parties here?

The Chair: We did.

Mr. Williams: Then if I may be excused, I have no problem with the committee continuing with the examination of the witnesses.

The Chair: What I would like to say to you is that I hope one of the things we will get to this morning is to consider a list of witnesses. The committee and I will make sure you're advised and there's a discussion of any other input you want to have.

Mr. Williams: Thank you, Madam Chairman. As I just mentioned in my statement, my concern is more to deal with the parliamentary approval of supply, because another committee is investigating the procedures of how we arrive at the information being provided. I'm encouraged by what I see here this morning by the Treasury Board presentation.

As far as the witnesses are concerned, I would like the committee to ensure we have witnesses who can speak knowledgeably and competently on the area of confidence and the parliamentary process in the approval of the estimates.

The Chair: We shall.

Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mrs. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Deshaies.

[Translation]

Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): I am not a usual member of this committee, but I was asked to substitute this morning on a moment's notice. Nevertheless, I appreciated the presentation of the witnesses on the updating of the information provided to members of Parliament.

Unlike Mr. Williams, I personally appreciated this idea that there might be a single vote by department because I think that in administration, when efficiency is the goal, certain activities must be given the resources as long as the department can thus meet its objectives.

I'm wondering if to meet this same objective, you are planning to analyze departmental activities. I know that this is not normally done in government. Lovely programs are set up, but are not evaluated. I am thinking more particularly of the flow-through shares that Energy, Mines and Resources had set up in the 80's. No evaluation was done to see if this program had had positive repercussions or not on the economy.

When there is no analysis of programs, members have no way of knowing if the money invested has had a beneficial effect.

Obviously unless one is an analyst or an accountant, there is not much interest in having a two or three-inch volume full of information, budgets and numbers. But if the analysis is done by someone who is independant and who can confirm that the government's participation has translated into something concrete and that it has had a positive effect on economic activity, members of Parliament, whatever their party, can do a much better job when the time comes to approve departmental budgets.

.1025

Will you be including an analysis made by independent analysts? They're not systematic analysis of all departmental activities but just the relevant ones so that each department can account for the funds it gets. That would also allow for adjusting aim from one year to the next.

Mr. Duhamel: First of all, I thank my colleague for his comments. I am making note of the first one he made concerning the number of votes. That's one of the things we have to discuss and I appreciate what he said.

As for the second comment on the analysts and so forth, we're making note of that idea. It would be premature at this point to make any decision because the discussions have only just started. I also think there's too much information that we don't understand really properly and it's extremely difficult to decode.

I don't want to set aside the idea you've just mentioned; I suppose I could simply add that we do presently have a certain number of mechanisms that do allow us to analyze situations. We have the parliamentary committees for example; maybe we could use them more efficiently. But I'm not setting your idea aside.

One of my colleagues, Mr. Hopwood or Mr. Miller, indicated this morning that there will be a tie in between plans and results. We want to put more emphasis on a minister's plans and success. If that link isn't there, it's very difficult for us to play our role properly.

Mr. Deshaies: To be able to understand why a provision of $150 million is made for an item, we have to know the objective and the finality. And if we can see what is accomplished with those $150 million, it's also easier to answer to one's fellow citizens.

As I said earlier, unfortunately I must leave right away because I have a six-hour drive to get to my riding. However, I understand that it's difficult for a Chair to see all our members leaving.

The Chair: I don't think these are ordinary times. We'll make sure that if there are any discussions or decisions, Mr. Leroux or you will be consulted.

Mr. Deshaies: Thank you very much.

Mr. Duhamel: With your permission, Madam Chair, Mr. Hopwood would like to add a few words on the point we were looking at.

[English]

Mr. Hopwood: One of the fundamental principles we're applying in the reform of the information that goes to Parliament is to make sure that there is consistency throughout the cycle: that there's an opportunity to compare performance against plans, against budget, in a consistent format, so MPs don't have to try to reconcile information from one level to the other. That's a key element of what we're trying to achieve.

The next layer down, however, is at what level does Parliament want to receive the information? The problem we have is that you can't describe everything in a document people will read. If you give people a document they'll read, it has to be, by definition, fairly top-down and high-level in its orientation.

What seems to be needed is a cascade or a structure of mechanisms, to make sure actuals and plans match up. At this point we have several mechanisms. We have the printed information to Parliament. We're talking about a database as an intermediate alternative. There is the Auditor General's review of projects and plans. There are parliamentary committee reviews of special topics. Down below that we have internal audit and other mechanisms for making sure what was actually achieved lined up with the plan.

The challenge for us in this project is trying to decide at what level we want to present this printed information to Parliament. We're constantly caught in this struggle between, tell us something about everything, and then, tell us everything about something. It's a challenge for us.

Mr. Deshaies: So really we'll receive enough information for the members.

.1030

The Chair: Mr. Malhi.

Mr. Malhi (Bramalea - Gore - Malton): The departmental business plans are being treated as confidential documents and are not available to Parliament or to the public. Why? Would you object to the suggestion that the departments make these documents available to the standing committee for scrutiny?

Mr. Miller: This is something that has been under discussion. We felt it's important for a particular ministry to come forward to the Treasury Board to identify those issues, those concerns, they need to address in order to move through their plans over the coming years. In fact, many of the business plans are available, with slight modifications. But we do, for the protection of the departments...where, for instance, there may be plans that aren't approved by the Treasury Board or that don't agree with existing government policy, certain elements are actually removed and then the rest of the information is made available, both to their own employees and, obviously, to parliamentarians.

We do have a dilemma about using this document as a mechanism of change, to identify those issues that have to be resolved and then put those forward to the Treasury Board, get a decision from the board, and allow the departments to proceed. It's very awkward to table those plans when perhaps the changes weren't approved by Treasury Board. Perhaps there's a legislative reason or something else. It is very difficult and we realize it's awkward.

But most of the information that constitutes the business plans is available from departments in one form or another, except for the elements that are put forward for specific approval or discussion.

Mr. Duhamel: And I expect that will have to continue to be. Obviously we are moving towards more openness all the time, but there comes a point in time when someone needs to bring something over to discussion when it has not received all the endorsements yet, and may not. Putting it up prematurely could really impede rational discussion, if one can say that, in these kinds of situations, or some sort of objective analysis.

So I suspect that will have to continue to be. While the intent is to share as much as possible, there are certain initiatives that, if they had not gone through all the various steps, cannot be made public.

Mr. Malhi: Also, you were talking about the 12 million papers. If somebody needed a copy it would cost $65 or something like that. How much money are they saving by the Internet program? You say if they go through the Internet it's free.

Mr. Hopwood: It's hard to tell at this point what the marginal savings would be if you reduced from 12 million pages to 8 million pages, but it would seem fairly clear that there has to be some reduction in cost as we reduce the number of pages. I think initially there'll be a certain reluctance on the part of some people to swing automatically into the electronic format, so they'll want to receive both the hard copy and the electronic copy. I know it took me about seven years to become comfortable with the fact that I wasn't carrying around pieces of paper, that I could carry things around on diskettes and read them just as easily.

I guess the only comment is that this seems to be where the future is. Every organization we've talked to, dealing with large amounts of information, is moving towards that kind of public access in a very strong way. We're now reading documents from Australia and New Zealand on Internet. All our colleagues and other disciplines are accessing documents through Internet. I've been set up with an Internet account. I can't admit to being great at it, but it's a beginning.

I think over time what we'll see is that the 12 million pages will reduce to some substantially lower number. The savings should be substantial.

Mr. Miller: Madam Chair, the way we price the publications for part III does not include any cost of actually developing the document. It's really the printing cost of producing those extra copies.

.1035

Departments actually have to pay to receive their own documents. They're not able to get free ones. So if we reduce the number even from 12 million pages down to 8 million pages, the only savings would be to those who actually paid for the documents in the first place.

We do have a system of providing these documents free to libraries and we do have a system of ensuring that they have a fairly wide distribution without charge. Right now it's just the cost of actually producing the volume of paper that's passed on to the purchaser.

Mr. Duhamel: There's the environmental savings, though, which could be significant over time.

The Chair: I'm glad you mentioned that, Mr. Duhamel. Your statement and your department's presentation are only on one side of the paper. You just doubled your costs for this morning.

Mr. Duhamel: That's a good reminder and I assure you that we'll fill in those blank pages for you.

The Chair: I'll keep them to use the back of anyway, but it would save my stacking up a big supply.

Mr. Peric (Cambridge): My question is to Mr. Hopwood.

By reducing the number of pages, you would probably reduce the cost, but what about the employees? Would you reduce the number of employees to achieve that goal, or would you have to even increase the number of employees?

Mr. Hopwood: In the departments that produce the information?

Mr. Peric: Yes.

Mr. Hopwood: There will still be the requirement to assemble the same level and quality of information for Parliament. I wouldn't expect that the implementation of technology to streamline the processes would result in a substantial net reduction in the number of people involved, but generally speaking more efficient methods should allow people to reduce their workloads. It's hard to tell how that would filter through the system.

For example, if somebody in a regional office in another part of the country who's providing input to the production of these documents is now using electronic methods to assemble and transmit the information to the centre, it may result in a savings on that particular aspect of what that person does, but the person also probably does several hundred other things in the course of the day. So how that would actually net out is hard to tell.

Mr. Duhamel: But is it not true that our major focus is not really on savings at this particular point in time? It's a little premature because we don't know, for example, with regard to the question of the number of pages, to what it will be reduced. Likewise the assembly. I think I'm correct in saying we do not see any major savings there.

Our focus is really on making sure the information you and I and others get as parliamentarians is more usable, more understandable and permits us to do a better job. That's our priority and our main objective. The others may come about, but they've not been the major focus of discussion or of particular interest to date.

Mr. Peric: I fully agree with our colleague here as a witness. I believe the changes are very necessary, especially for us parliamentarians to receive that information on time. At the same time I am concerned about cost. If the production of that information will be double what it is at the present time, I would have my doubts.

Mr. Duhamel: I don't think we see that. Perhaps I didn't say it correctly, and I'm not going to be offended if I'm corrected.

We have all of this information and we're having a lot of parliamentarians tell us it's not very helpful most often for doing the things they need to do to hold the government accountable. So we're asking whether we can do it differently. That's what we're exploring.

We think there may be some costs with regard to paper. It's a little premature to say. We don't want to mislead people.

With respect to the preparation, it will roughly require the same number of people. So there, again, obviously if there can be savings, there will be. But I do not think we anticipate additional expenditures as a result of this exercise. We believe that within the expenditures available now, this could be carried on.

Am I not correct?

Mr. Hopwood: That's a very fair statement.

Mr. Peric: Thank you.

.1040

The Chair: Mr. McClelland, are you up to speed enough to want to intervene at this point?

Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): No. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Williams expressed his interest in being able to adjust the estimates after the fact. An equally and perhaps more important concern of Parliament is to be able to set priorities for future directions that the government is taking, or at least to influence those priorities.

Because some initiatives were taken this year, I shall ask if Treasury Board has made any assessment of the effectiveness, the usefulness, the quality of the outlook documents in order to allow Parliament to achieve that.

Mr. Duhamel: There have been some initial discussions about that. In fact, I've been involved in...I can't call it a formal evaluation - perhaps somebody has more information than I have - but obviously there have been some discussions and some points have been raised as to how those might be improved. That's ongoing, and in the near future there will be more to say about that.

If there's more out there than I've said, then please put it on the table.

The Chair: Yes. I would like to hear what the reactions of the departments were. Did they find it useful as part of their planning process? Did they find that the committees made use of the outlook documents? Did they find that the information was what was necessary?

Mr. Miller: I could start, and Mr. Hopwood can fill in.

We did a preliminary review based on discussions with departmental officials about how they felt the process went for outlooks. We are encouraged by that.

We had a very short time period in order to introduce these and place them before the parliamentary committees. Given the year we went through with program review and the number of changes and decisions that had to be made for each department, it was extremely difficult. However, as was mentioned, it was an ideal opportunity for the ministers then to have a concise way of indicating the directions they foresee for their own departments and agencies. So it was successful in allowing them to put a document on the table that focused on those multiple-year future impacts.

Some departments and some ministries felt, for example, that their business plan was almost identical to their outlook document. They felt that the two of them should be out there and should be tabled at the same time, and they approached it in that manner.

However, we're looking to assess on a more formal basis how parliamentarians reacted to that information. I wouldn't say that it was 100% successful in terms of their use by the standing committees in order to look at estimates.

Some very good questions were raised and some issues were brought forward that were highlighted in the outlook documents, but in other cases they weren't used. That might depend on the ministry more than it does on the actual document itself, and on what kinds of issues parliamentarians wanted to discuss, those kinds of aspects.

Certainly, in general I would consider the first year to have been successful.

The Chair: Obviously the business of this committee is to look less at how you provide information to Parliament than at how Parliament, parliamentarians, the committees, deal with the information. I find that it's very much an interconnected process.

Your first page of presentation mentioned that departments are frustrated by excessive structure and inability to convey their message. From the point of view of this committee, you are only our second witness, and our first really substantive one. In your view, what changes to the parliamentary process would aid (a) accountability for performance and (b) Parliament influencing future directions from a strategic point of view?

Mr. Duhamel: Our focus has really been on the information today. We've not had an opportunity. In fact, I saw it as not being part of my mandate. So we have not focused on the point you've raised.

We've focused entirely, I would say - and I believe that's correct - on the amounts of information, on how we can make it better and more accessible and more meaningful.

.1045

Unless the officials have something else to add...to date this committee has not dealt with that particular question.

The Chair: Let me just add to my question, though. You can only tailor the information if you know what's going to be done with it. The only purpose of the information is to do something with it, to make it useful. I have no doubt there have been numerous discussions at the officials' level about how the parliamentary process either aids or doesn't aid in the overall budgeting process.

Mr. Hopwood: I could make a comment that links back to the earlier question about the outlook documents and whether or not the outlook documents were a success. To restate the point Mr. Miller made...like any new initiative, it was probably variable. Some were very good, some had some room to go. But overall, people were pleased with the directions it took.

One of the things that seemed to work, and one of the principles behind the Standing Order that led to the outlook document, was giving parliamentary committees the capacity to look forward rather than to respond to decisions that in effect had already been made. By the time the appropriation bill comes down there would have been eight months of planning, thousands of decisions, a whole range of internal processes that have taken place, and it would be extremely hard to.... I talked about the risk to the process just in terms of tabling the estimates at that time, getting the numbers out.

So one of the concepts behind the outlook was to allow the committees to look forward, to look into the next cycle. One of the principles we're hoping, if we can go ahead with the split between planning and performance and getting the performance information on the table earlier.... That would also allow the committees to look forward and have an influence, through the committee process, on the next cycle of estimates...and not looking backwards into the previous cycle.

This opens up a number of questions for us. When the performance document comes down, where is it going to go and how is it going to be used by the committees? What use are the committees going to make of this in terms of the general concept of influencing future-year spending? Where is that going to go?

If that becomes a mature cycle, if you end up, according to Standing Order 81.(7), with planning information that goes out three years, and you have a mature cycle where committees are reviewing plans and performance information that have this longer-term window, then it gets into, well, could that appropriation bill be viewed as being the end of the process and not the beginning of the process? I think that would be useful for the committees, if it allowed a longer window to deal with that information.

Whether or not that happens, from an information point of view, we still feel comfortable with the proposal we're putting forward. But it is one of the concepts that were behind the introduction of the outlook document.

The Chair: On this theme, I have just one more question. The idea of Parliament and parliamentarians looking forward I think means looking at it in more than a 12- or 24-month period. You have to know the long-term influences that are affecting decisions in the programs and expenditures. But it also implies parliamentarians, either individually or through the committees, know what some of the key choices to be made are. That means giving them some information about the options, not just about decisions that have been made.

So I want to come back to Mr. Duhamel's point about the business plans. If parliamentarians aren't free to discuss things that haven't yet been approved, then what is the point of even asking them to look forward? In fact, isn't making those business plans with the approved and unapproved possibilities part of involving Parliament and helping plan for the future?

Mr. Duhamel: I can see the point you're making, and it's a good one. But I don't think it's mutually exclusive, from what I've said. It's quite clear...certainly as a deputy minister of education in the past...there were certain things there was no way I was going to share with anybody at that particular time, depending on the issue, depending on the circumstances. And that will forever be. I really believe that will forever be.

.1050

I also recognize that increasingly we're trying to share. We're trying to be more open, whether it be this government or others. That's the order of the day, and I support that.

I just wanted to be particularly truthful, in terms of my own feelings - I'm not going to make the ultimate decision - in saying that that's the reality with which we're faced. I'm not excluding that possibility.

All I'm really saying is that there are certain circumstances, certain conditions, certain situations, where it's probably not possible.

The scenario you've drawn up under ideal circumstances, under normal circumstances I think could be done.

I don't know if colleagues want to add more. From my way of looking at it, one does not exclude the other. All I'm really saying is that in certain situations - let's be very truthful - they just cannot be brought forward and exposed publicly until there has been some discussion.

Otherwise what we're going to do is prevent the public and civil service from coming forward with anything that's potentially awkward. They'll bring it forward when it's safe.

I don't think that's healthy.

The Chair: Isn't it part of the problem that we've had too much looking for the safe solutions and trying to protect ourselves and not enough of being creative and taking risks? Isn't more risk-taking one of the things we're trying to encourage?

Mr. Duhamel: It might be. I've always believed that, generally speaking, we don't treat the public and civil service adequately because when they take risks and they don't work out, my God, we as politicians really like to pounce on that. If the moment someone is creative someone else with greater power or authority or opportunity to criticize takes advantage of that situation, then that's not a great motivator to having somebody come forward with some creativity.

In many instances that has been the climate. There are great opportunities to pounce on public and civil servants.

The Chair: I make this just as a comment. I don't want a response to it, because I want to pass to Mr. McClelland.

I would like to ask your officials to consider how the parliamentary process needs some change, whether it needs some change to allow the business of supply from their perspective to proceed better, to be more productive. In other words, how can the work of this committee mesh with the modernizing of the business of supply within the bureaucracy? If possible, put forward some suggestions to this committee.

As I mentioned when we started, we intend to have the minister before us. A very good background to that is to have the experience and the recommendations of the officials for us to consider as well.

Mr. McClelland.

Mr. McClelland: For this side of the table, I apologize for not having someone here. I know that it's very discourteous to the witnesses and to other members of the committee, and I apologize for that.

Perhaps it's serendipitous that I have been seconded into attending this, because I think that what we're talking about is particularly important and, oddly enough, I've spent quite a few hours in thinking about exactly this kind of thing over the last while, since I was given the opportunity to be the critic of the public service renewal. All of this fits in.

Also, there is the whole notion of the outlook documents.

Before I had the honour of being elected, I was a businessman. I still am a businessman, this being a temporary occupation. One thing I've learned over the years is that a financial statement is really not of any value whatsoever in as far as all it tells you is what has been. It doesn't tell you what's going to be. By the time you get a financial statement, either you're in trouble or you're not in trouble.

A financial statement and the estimates as we see them today, in my view, from my perspective and my background and my experience, are virtually useless. That might well be why there hasn't been a change to the estimates in Parliament in twenty years. Not one dollar has been taken from the estimates in twenty years.

.1055

So why do we waste our time going through this process? It is a colossal sham; a total waste of time. As members we are deposited with this: four or five inches of documents. We are expected to make considered opinions about these documents to people who know them inside out. We all end up looking like fools. It's a complete waste of time.

In my opinion, if we were to put more emphasis on the outlook documents, keeping in mind we are not going to be privy to everything but we can be privy to general direction.... It seems to me the Parliament of Canada should be providing general direction, similar to what would be done by a board of directors. The bureaucrats are the management of the company. They provide the day-to-day management and operation. When elected members get involved in micro-managing, all that does is create problems for the people who are charged to do the job. So this is the germ of an idea I would like to put on the table and perhaps get a response on from witnesses, if it's appropriate.

In the very worthwhile document prepared by our Auditor General's department called Toward Better Governance - it's a review of lessons we could learn from other jurisdictions, notably New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain, and Sweden - the point is very clearly made that as part of the clear distinction between those responsible for outcomes and outputs, the elected parliamentarians are responsible for outcomes and the bureaucracy is responsible for outputs. By legislating a clear line of authority, they were then able to inculcate responsibility.

As it stands now in our parliament, if we as politicians decide on a particular course of action, we then give the instruction to the bureaucrats. The next day somebody changes their mind, or for political reasons there is a stirring of the pot or a dash of this or a dash of that. It changes. At the end of the day, the outcome that was anticipated is not realized. The bureaucrats point their finger at the politicians and say, well, how could we possibly achieve the outcome when you kept changing the rules? The politicians point their finger at the bureaucrats and say, it's not our fault, it's your fault. So we have nothing being done, but we have a muddying of the waters.

By having legislated responsibilities, when the bureaucrats get a job, that's it. They are given the responsibility to do it and then...``stay out of our way'', and then hold us accountable for what we do.

What they had done to make this work is that senior people responsible were appointed for a term that transcended the normal political process. If the government in power today and we as Parliament decided this was what we were going to do and were out on our ear in three years...when the next Parliament comes in, the people charged with the responsibility of administering that don't get a new set of rules two or three years later. It tended to take the politics out of what they were doing, so you could have longer-range programs.

I know this is a concept you may or may not have discussed, so I don't particularly invite or expect much response. But it would be interesting to consider this at some time.

Mr. Duhamel: Very briefly, we have just begun, really, and we will take any suggestion. The chair has made some suggestions - in fact she just made some specific requests - and we will respond, as to other colleagues with ideas. You've made three or four comments, and we will explore those.

What we really want in the end is better information for all of us in order to do our jobs. If we can't achieve that objective, we have not been successful. That's what we really want.

The Chair: With all due respect, Mr. Duhamel, I think Mr. McClelland was asking a question relating to the role of the officials. Since we're going to hear from your minister from the policy perspective and the political perspective, I wonder if we could hear the officials' views on what he just had to say.

.1100

Mr. Hopwood: I would just offer a general comment. One question that comes up fairly frequently as we talk about the information to Parliament is what is the role of the committees relative to that information? I've been very careful to distance myself from that question.

I'm dealing with the information and the information processes. If there's a change in the role of committees, the models we're working with would satisfy a variety of roles. We want to stay flexible on that ground, but it's not within the mandate of the project I'm working on to get into what the committees actually do with the information or the role of committees.

Concerns have been expressed about whether the committees act as a board of directors or whether the committees have some other function in the parliamentary structure that has to do with scrutiny and accountability, but not the board of directors, in the sense that Parliament does what it does but the executive decides. Throughout the last three decades there's been discussion and concern about the Americanization of the Canadian parliamentary system by its moving towards a more congressional approach and so on.

Quite honestly, I don't have any either personal or professional opinions about that. I'll only say that with the information project, whatever happens to the committees, we want to be able to satisfy them with a good flow of high-quality information.

Mr. McClelland: Would it be appropriate to respond in general terms to the question about the distinction between outcomes and outputs once a decision is made? I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

Mr. Duhamel: It's not a question of putting us on the spot. Frankly, any issue that's brought to our attention we will deal with. We can't give you the answer today, but it's an interesting point that's been made and we will explore it.

The Chair: I think maybe it is a technical question about how Treasury Board and the administration would look at the difference between reporting to Parliament on outputs and on outcomes, the first of which I think of as activities, the second of which I think of more as results.

I guess the question to the officials is, is there an understanding of that difference, and how is it understood by the people responsible for reporting to Parliament?

Mr. Hopwood: Again, we're at the early stages of some of these ideas, but as we struggle with, for example, the performance document, we ask ourselves what level we want the performance document to report on. Should it be a bottom-up document that has a wide range of information that members could discuss, or do we want to target at the very highest level the impact on Canadians in almost a ``state of the union'' sort of commentary?

What happens is as you move from the concrete and the stable to the very high end, where you're dealing with complexity and the height of instability, the capacity to measure in clear terms decreases. It becomes less and less to attribute an expenditure to a result.

In other organizations of government I have been in, we ran into that problem. You say ``We had a goal of doing so and so, and we spent a certain amount of money on it. What impact did we have?'' Well, there might be thirty other influences, everything from automobile accidents to defence of the country. There are hundreds of different influences that move the needle from one point to another. Linking your input to that output becomes increasingly complex.

.1105

It's not that we shouldn't try. One of the principles we want to put down for departments as they prepare their performance documents is that they lean towards that outcome and results end of the spectrum. Start there, vision it from the top down, and work from that point, because we think that's where parliamentarians want to be from the point of view of the information.

I don't know personally whether it's possible to say this is an outcome and this is an output in every case.

The Chair: Mr. Miller wanted to add something.

Mr. Miller: Last month there was an international colloquium on financial management that involved seven or eight countries and where one of the major issues we're trying to face was just what you've described. New Zealand was there...and I'm not sure our Auditor General has accurately portrayed every element of their accountability structure, according to some of the officials who were actually involved.

But certainly what Mr. Hopwood mentioned is true. From an individual manager's perspective it's very easy to align your outputs and your outcomes and decide, all right, I have a certain amount of money and this is what I'm trying to achieve and I feel I've done that. But when you roll that up into the broader objectives of that organization, then they do become very blurred, not only in the outcomes but in the outputs. I look at my own organization, Treasury Board, and say well, I know I'm doing good work, but how can I then provide that evidence to the parliamentarians to assess whether or not we should continue in that vein?

It's very difficult. If we could deal with each individual manager throughout the public service, it would be a much more straightforward issue. The complexities of an even larger organization blur organizational activities. You can take the Department of Agriculture, which does research and food inspection and the delivery of safety-net programs and all these things. By the time you get even that one organization together there's a multiplicity of objectives and outcomes, and certainly outputs too.

So it's not an easy thing. We're dealing with our colleagues from other countries in trying to see what lessons they have for us as well.

Mr. McClelland: The perspective I brought to this was I felt if we were able to have more accountability in the public service, and consequently then in politics, in the politicians, because the accountability would flow both ways, over time that would have the impact of reintroducing the sense of pride and esprit into the public service that the public service should have. The public service would not be the whipping-boy for everything that goes wrong in Canada. It is not the people being paid to do the job who made the decisions that got us where we are today, yet they are the people who are being held accountable and responsible for the outcome. They were responsible for outputs but they are being held responsible for outcomes, which resulted in the wage freeze to the public service. I then found myself in the situation of asking, is this right or wrong?

This is not for this discussion now. But I didn't have any knowledge of this until I started to investigate it because of my critic responsibility.

I further thought if we go down the road some of these other jurisdictions have gone, what that has done in addition.... If we decide this is what we're going to do...if General Motors can do it, we can do it. It's just a question of having the will to do it, and it can be done and it will be done. Although it's difficult, it may well be worth doing.

In my view, one of the major benefits of this approach could be in re-establishing the sense of management. The people of the public service are not fodder. They are highly capable, highly dedicated, and should be paid commensurately with industry so they can come back and forth, in and out. They should be doing management functions and audit functions rather than the line delivery of services.

I just throw that out for what it's worth. We really have to rethink the wheel. Tinkering isn't going to fix it.

.1110

Mr. Duhamel: Madam Chair, perhaps I could finish.

First, I want to thank you for the invitation. I want to reiterate that we're at the beginning of the process. We will accept any ideas and see what can be done with them. I'm always very prudent on those things. It's very easy to say, ``Yes, we'll do it''. It's easy to define, in an academic conceptual sense, the difference between outcomes and outputs, but the operationalization may be very difficult.

I'm being very, very careful. It's not unlike the question I was asked before, if we can make all of this information public. Well, yes, in theory, but at the same time there are practical considerations.

Having said that, we will look at every single point that's raised in a very responsible way, because the end-product has to be better information, and that means simply that you and I, as parliamentarians, can use it more easily, more quickly, and more understandably in order to hold the government accountable. That's what we really want to do, and we will virtually stop at nothing within the time lines we have.

Let's remember that we are working in an all-party committee. We're hoping that this will not be politicized, and there has been no suggestion that it will. We really want to try to do this in a cooperative fashion.

So, again, my prudence is because I don't have the endorsement of other political parties who have members. They might say that what I've said just now has to be the centrepiece, at which point I'll be less prudent. But if they don't agree that it has to be the centrepiece, then my prudence will continue.

The Chair: I want to take this opportunity to thank you, and the officials as well. What is important to us is how we can have a look at the parliamentary process to complement and perhaps to influence what is coming forward and what your committee of parliamentarians are looking at in our report back to the House of Commons. Thank you very much.

We look forward to receiving some further suggestions from you.

Mr. Duhamel: Merci.

The Chair: There are a couple of things that we want to look at and we might plan to look at them, but I would like, with at least the three members who are here, to have a preliminary look and get your thoughts on witnesses for our next meeting, following the break. Obviously we won't be meeting next week, and that means I would like to have witnesses invited for at least a couple of meetings to come.

I think we'll continue to meet on Thursday mornings. Procedure and House Affairs is not going to hold its normal full committee meetings on those days, so the subcommittees can do their work. That would give us a three-hour period.

What I see ahead of us is that the committee has to start defining the issues in which it's interested. Our researcher has put together a preliminary list, which we can consider at our next meeting. That's the main issue.

Then there is the issue of deciding what witnesses we wish to have and whether, once we'll have seen the list of witnesses, we'll want to consider having groups of witnesses at one time, which can be another productive way of doing it.

Ian, do you have the list of potential witnesses that was distributed?

Mr. McClelland: No, I don't. I was seconded for this meeting, so I won't be a regular member of this committee.

The Chair: I realize that, although you might be a very good back-up to Mr. Williams for the times when he cannot be here.

I'm wondering if we could just quickly have a look at the list of witnesses for any preliminary comments. I would then ask the committee to trust me to put together our first panel of witnesses for immediately after the break and to give me any recommendations. In fact, I might ask you to contact members of the committee and ask for their views on witnesses.

Mr. McClelland: Without asking him, may I suggest the Honourable Maurice McTigue. He is the High Commissioner of New Zealand, the finance minister of New Zealand, and the person who implemented many of the changes I've described. I know he would be delighted to participate and would do so in a very non-partisan manner.

.1115

The Chair: I would like to suggest that we start perhaps with some overview witnesses. I think it would not be a bad idea to start with the Auditor General of Canada, go to the meat of what he reported in 1992 and ask him what progress he feels has been made and what he feels the main issues are at the moment.

I'd like to suggest that Peter Dobell from the Parliamentary Centre might give us a similar kind of overview.

Mr. McClelland: Madam Chairman, I think it was Larry Meyers at the Auditor General's department who did the reports in the 1993 estimates. They were very conclusive on exactly what we're talking about today in the Auditor General's department.

The Chair: Yes, and I think the Auditor General will bring with him whatever witnesses he thinks are most appropriate.

Mr. McClelland: I'd love to be part of that. I'd love to see it.

The Chair: I'd like to perhaps start with those two, and if it looks like we might have time for a third witness on our first meeting after the break, we'll do that. We'll try to get that kind of overview witness, okay?

Mr. McClelland: Yes. I don't know if I'll be here or not, but I'll see. I go where I'm assigned, and I'm assigned in the House in five minutes.

The Chair: We would welcome your participation.

Mr. McClelland: Thank you.

The Chair: Is there any other business we have to take care of?

I will formally adjourn the meeting then.