[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, December 7, 1995
.1515 
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting to order.
We left off this morning discussing a motion for a subcommittee report to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and subsequently to the House of Commons. The clerk has recommended a minor revision, and I understand that others may be coming forward to the specific motion. Given our discussions this morning, there may be other issues that the committee wants to include in the report to the House.
The recommended change is that this subcommittee report to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; its concurrence in the direction being taken by Treasury Board in its reform of the estimates process by allowing six departments - and it names the departments - to table, on a trial basis, revised part III documents for the 1996-97 fiscal year for consideration by the appropriate standing committees.
.1520
Mr. Williams (St. Albert): Madam Chair, I have some minor editorial changes to the motion as submitted to me and read by you. Before we get into discussion of the motion, I tend to think we're the cart following the horse of Treasury Board staff. That is the way I read the motion. Maybe I'm incorrect in that, but I would like to suggest some minor editorial changes.
The Chair: We might suggest that Mr. Duhamel join us at the table so that it's clear this is not the staff of Treasury Board but the political leadership of Treasury Board.
Mr. Williams: I'm proposing the following minor editorial changes, Madam Chairman. I propose that we delete the word ``concur'' and replace it with ``agree with'', so that it reads ``this committee agree with the direction''.
The Chair: ``This subcommittee reports to the standing committee its agreement with'' - is that what you're suggesting?
Mr. Williams: That's right - ``taken by the Treasury Board in its Reform of the Estimates'' - I suggest we delete the words ``by allowing'' and replace them with ``and recommend that''.
Mr. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur): Say that again.
Mr. Williams: Delete the words ``by allowing'' and replace them with ``and recommend that'', and after ``Resources Canada)'' delete the word ``to''.
The Chair: I don't want to be a stickler on procedure, but we don't have to recommend; all we have to do is agree that six departments table, on a trial basis....
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Arseneault: And agree with.
The Chair: Or agree that six departments....
Mr. Williams: We agree with the direction taken by the Treasury Board in its reform of the estimates project in that six departments....
The Chair: Or ``and agree that six departments table on a...''.
Mr. Williams: Whatever. It changes the tone of the motion but not the substance.
The Chair: Okay. As I have it - I'll leave out all the departments because they're there and we all understand what they are - it is that this subcommittee report to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs its agreement with the direction being taken by the Treasury Board in its reform of the estimates project and its agreement that six departments table, on a trial basis, revised part III documents.
Is there any disagreement with that? So it's carried unanimously.
Does the subcommittee wish to include anything else in its report to the standing committee?
Mr. Williams: Madam Chair, I would like to include in my report that I think the style presented by the Department of Transport was a superior product and that all departments should aim for that level of presentation. I would also recommend that the Treasury Board develop principles and general guidelines for the format, presentation and information to be contained in the new style of presentation of part IIIs in the pilot project, with the idea that this would become the new format we would use from that point forward.
.1525
Mr. Arseneault: Madame Chair, on that item, as I mentioned this morning, I don't think we should bind the hands of all the departments in a strict way. It is a pilot project, and for the sake of getting good evaluation, I would like to see, in the example used this morning, Indian Affairs and Northern Development continue in the direction they've gone in, and the transport department as well. So we would get two models, basically.
I do agree, though, that there should be some general criteria, principles, and guidelines established in the beginning and that they work within that framework. But I wouldn't want to put a straitjacket on all the departments and say, this is the model and that's it. Otherwise, why have a pilot project and why have evaluations? It would be, let's just go ahead, this is how you do it, and just have one department do it and that's it, these are the results, and have one committee look at it and then decide from there.
I would like to see a little bit of divergence and some flexibility in the approach. I would hope that the guidelines are there in general but that they wouldn't create a problem for some departments in not allowing us to get a good, diverse product.
The Chair: Let me suggest, then, that we agree on the one we obviously agree on, that Treasury Board should develop guidelines for the departments in the production of the revised reports to Parliament. Is that what we want? Then we'll come back to the one we're not quite agreed on.
Mr. Williams: I'm agreed on that point.
The Chair: Okay, then we'll include that in our report.
On the third point, as to whether the report should be standard or not, I would suggest at this point that what we might do is indicate that the committee discussed the inconsistency between the models we have seen of reports to be tabled...something along these lines: proposes that in its evaluation, Treasury Board endeavour to assess which of the different styles of reporting best meets the needs of parliamentarians for information for the future.
We could, if we wished, indicate that this subcommittee wishes to consider this issue again when the evaluation is available.
Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I somewhat agree with you, Madame Chair, but I think our emphasis is not on standardization but to achieve a high level of communication and information that is succinct and well presented in an overview style that I think parliamentarians would want.
As concerns Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the presentation we looked at - and I understand they have made some improvements since that point - I feel that the idea is to bring up the standard of reporting, not to have standardized reporting, which means each department....
With Mr. Arseneault's comment that we compare one with the other, I have a concern that the committee on Indian affairs will look at one and the committee on transport will look at the other, and we're not going to get feedback on comparison. That's why I'm trying to ensure a high level by all reports, rather than do a comparison between something that has the appearance of being very good and something that appears to be somewhat of a lower calibre.
Mr. Arseneault: I think the evaluation process would bring out the strong points of each model - I would hope.
Going from this morning, I think one of the areas we mentioned is that the evaluation process, the criteria and the process itself, should be well established before the evaluation begins. I would hope that would be included in that process. That would allow that evaluation to take place in each model, but I would not want to have an evaluation on six models that are all the same.
.1530
Mr. Williams: I'm not talking about standardization; I'm talking about a high standard.
Mr. Arseneault: So what would you propose then in the report?
The Chair: The difficulty I have is that although you and Mr. Alcock and I have been participating in this other consultative committee and have seen these, this subcommittee as such has not seen the different models, which means Mr. Arseneault has not.
Mr. Arseneault: I'm guessing at what you want from what you said this morning.
The Chair: I would suggest, though, that Mr. Williams gave a very succinct - to use his own word - description of what we're trying to achieve or what Treasury Board is trying to achieve by this revised reporting. We might use the words from that statement he just made, or the first sentence, at least, to indicate that subcommittee agrees with what Treasury Board is trying to achieve, that it notes that there are substantial differences between the styles of reporting, and that it expects - if that's not too strong a word - Treasury Board to consider in its evaluation how different formats meet the needs of Parliament for better information.
We'll do up a draft, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I have one other comment, perhaps, Madame Chair. When the departments are preparing these documents, the primary focus of these documents has to be for the use of Parliament. I don't think they should be considering this as an all-purpose document that - take, for example, Indian Affairs - they can use in their explanation to the bands, and so on, about what their policies are.
That is not the focus of the part III documents. The focus of the part III documents is very definitely to serve Parliament. If they then say, well, this is also available for some other use, so be it, but the information for Parliament should not be watered down or focused in a different direction so that they can allow it to have another purpose.
Mr. Arseneault: That's a good point, and that's why I like the different models, because from the testimony this morning it was clear that some people preferred Indian Affairs and Northern Development's report as being more readable and more able to follow.... You preferred Transport's report. I haven't seen either one, so I would like to give both a chance and see what's best.
The Chair: Okay, I think we should make it the second point, that Treasury Board and the ministries involved take note that the primary purpose of the estimates document is for the purposes of Parliament.
The third point is in terms of different formats. The other thing we have to recognize is that this is mid-December. By mid-February, the format of any models we've seen may have changed substantially.
Now, is there anything else we wanted to include?
Mr. Alcock (Winnipeg South): Clear up something for me, Madame Chair. Are you stating that as a form of recommendation to the committee as a result of this discussion? I don't know if we should be debating that or not, but I don't necessarily concur with what Mr. Williams has said.
The Chair: I think primarily we are commenting on the discussion we've had. We're in a rather unusual position of saying to Treasury Board, or recommending to the main committee and then to the House to say to Treasury Board, that it's okay for them to do what they're doing, when they don't really need our approval.
Based on our discussion this morning, certain themes came out. That was certainly one of them, that whatever other use is made of the estimates, the primary purpose is for the information of Parliament in its consideration.
Mr. Alcock: Yes, but that's not inconsistent with good presentation of information that is broadly usable or tied to the process that creates it.
.1535
Mr. Williams: The point I was trying to make, Madam Chairman, is that we are not the secondary reason for preparing the part IIIs, and I don't think the information that needs to be presented to Parliament.... The focus should move in a different direction just so it becomes a multi-purpose document.
Mr. Alcock: I suppose we can sit and pick fly shit from pepper for a long time on these kinds of points.
I've been really impressed with the work that's been done by the staff in the departments who have participated in this. I think there's a real attempt to create a more holistic approach to how these things are prepared across all departments. The culmination of that is the approval process that Parliament represents.
I frankly would like to see more of a relationship between what's happening at the table here and what's happening in an office as they start this process in your preview.
So I wouldn't want to give any sense that the estimates document should be something devoid or separate from what's happening when they start the whole process of determining how they're going to build the estimates for the next year.
Mr. Williams: I agree with that statement and taking a longer view of the estimates document, that it is going to cover off not just one year, but that it's going to have a continuum in the past and the future as well.
That's a very important part of the new focus of the estimates presentation. We're not going to see a snapshot of this year devoid of what went before, or what we anticipate will come after. It will be in context.
Mr. Alcock: Yes.
The Chair: Can I just say though, no, we're not making specific recommendations. In its report the committee is simply including some comments it wishes to make.
We realize this is a trial process, and we simply wanted some comments on the table at the beginning.
Mr. Williams: I just have one other point to make, Madam Chairman. It was brought up this morning, and it might be premature, but I think the Treasury Board was actually looking again for some guidance from parliamentarians as to whether the outlook document and the estimates should be two separate documents, or whether they should be combined. It's certainly my preference that they be combined into one document.
The Chair: I'm trying to put what we agree on into this report. I personally would rather see if there are a couple going ahead on a different track, see what difference that makes, and how the parliamentary committees deal with them.
I have some serious concerns about whether not having a separate outlook document might further discourage Parliament from looking forward to the next year. But I'm prepared to see pilot projects two ways -
Mr. Williams: Then why not let some go one way and some the other?
The Chair: We could, however, express in our report the fact that there was a discussion about combining the outlook document in the new reporting scheme and that the committee recognizes the value this has in terms of giving a context to the estimates. But the committee also questioned whether not having a separate outlook document might diminish the interests of Parliament in looking to the next year's budget.
That would cover your concerns and it would cover my concerns. Is that okay?
Mr. Williams: I'm going to have both styles in the pilot project. Fine.
The Chair: Any others?
Mr. Arseneault: The evaluation process? Are they going to establish those criteria beforehand?
The Chair: Yes, I'd like to see us say something about the evaluation process.
Mr. Arseneault: Will they report back on that process soon enough for us to make some type of decision next year again, but not at the last minute?
The Chair: I think the whole evaluation process could be helpful to the main report and the main issues we are dealing with. The crux of the matter for us almost seems to be how we improve the level of interest members of Parliament take in the estimates.
.1540
Certainly this is an opportunity to find out whether a new reporting mechanism.... It's difficult because they haven't drawn up an evaluation plan, but I think we certainly discussed some things we'd like them to take into consideration in doing that.
These things would be linked to the task of this committee. One was defining the evaluation process ahead of time. Evaluating at the various stages as we go through the first year was part of it, as clearly was involving the standing committees in the evaluation.
Mr. Arseneault: And before the evaluations.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Miller.
Mr. David W. Miller (Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Program Branch, Treasury Board): Madam Chair, I think it is important, and we would welcome the opportunity to come back before this committee to discuss that. Our timeframe is such - and I think it was mentioned by Mr. Hopwood this morning - that we're just starting with the departments, and obviously we will also be discussing it with the Auditor General. The break that's provided by Christmas will then allow us to do some work on that.
The documents themselves will not be tabled until the main estimates, which is at the end of February. So we'll have that period in the month of February in which to look at the framework. There will also be time after that before we get into the actual evaluation.
So we would welcome any comments from the committee when we've developed it far enough that we can bring back something useful for you to review.
The Chair: Let me suggest something. I think our researcher has heard the discussion this morning and just now has heard the expressed intentions of Treasury Board.
Perhaps just draft a comment that we feel the evaluation is extremely important, we encourage Treasury Board to develop that evaluation process before the committee is to deal with these new documents, there should be an evaluation at each stage as the new system is implemented, and this subcommittee should be kept informed. Good enough?
Mr. Arseneault: Do we have to move that motion officially or has it already been approved?
The Chair: I would suggest that we leave it to our researcher to draft up a very brief report incorporating these points and circulate it to all of us.
If any of you have any problems with it, you can let Brian know and he will let me know. If I feel there's a need for another brief meeting on Monday to finalize it.... I don't think there will be, frankly.
You raised what would be the fifth point in your report, which is quite important to the idea of discussing with the standing committees, before they're faced with the estimates, the nature of the change, what they can expect as standing committees and that they also be informed of the evaluation process.
Mr. Arseneault: Yes, and we could be kept informed as well.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Arseneault: Officially, this motion has been approved.
The Chair: Officially, the motion has been approved. This is all background to the report.
Mr. Arseneault: Okay, that's fine.
The Chair: As you know, we cancelled witnesses for today. I want to know if the committee wants to have one more meeting before the House rises.
I think we've had enough witnesses now that we might want to look at how we break our work. It seems to keep growing in substance into biteable chunks.
I would appreciate some guidance, though, that we can prepare our work for February, and if there were an opportunity to meet next week for a short time, we could deal with the issues paper and agree on that or modify it.
We could perhaps review the draft survey of members of Parliament that was circulated. We could look at what further witnesses we want, or don't want. We still have a number on our list whom we haven't dealt with yet.
I'd certainly like to schedule our meetings in February, schedule our witnesses, and ask Treasury Board not to surprise us with any more approvals they need. Then presumably by early March we should be in a position to start writing at least phase one of the report. I have a feeling this may be a series of reports.
.1545
Mr. Williams: I was kind of hoping, Madam Chairman, that we would get into deliberating on what we might want by early February. If we are having one more meeting this week, I would ask the committee members to give serious thought to what else they need to hear from witnesses, because I'm not sure we really need to hear a whole bunch more. As you say, we need to break this into identifiable areas so that we can talk about each one specifically and individually.
I would hope that if we take the Christmas break to do some of our own research and homework, by February we would be prepared to do some deliberations as to the direction we want to go in. Then we can maybe have at least an interim report tabled in early March. If we go beyond that, then the estimates process in the springtime is going to be absolutely finished and complete, and the only thing we'll see is these half a dozen different reports that are going to be tabled by the Treasury Board. Our input is going to go off for at least another year.
Therefore, I would like to see us bear that timetable in mind. If we are going to talk to the standing committees, if we are going to try to educate them on the revisions we are bringing down, we have to have it pretty well put to bed by mid-April.
The Chair: Is there any disagreement that we should have the meeting next week? My concern is that people may not want to meet on Thursday. Their minds may already be travelling back to the riding if their bodies aren't. It is a ``take note'' debate Thursday and Friday on next year's budget, so a lot of us will be here, but it might be wiser to try to schedule a meeting earlier in the week rather than wait until Thursday. Please let me know what you would prefer.
Mr. Arseneault: I would prefer Thursday morning.
The Chair: Reg, are you going to be participating?
Mr. Alcock: I think Thursday morning is okay. Foreign affairs usually meets Thursday morning, but I don't think we're meeting next Thursday.
The Chair: John?
Mr. Williams: I don't think there's a problem with Thursday morning. I'm in town Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday next week. I understand there's a rumour that Friday may be added to the end of Thursday and we sit late, so that's a possibility.
Mr. Alcock: It's not a rumour; it's a potential agreement. It's all left in your hands.
The Chair: The item on the agenda, then, will be future business. I will ask that the issues be circulated - it's still a draft, subject to revision - that we look at witnesses we had agreed on and decide whether we want to proceed, so that we at least start breaking this down into chewable chunks - the jargon these days.
We're agreed for Thursday and we'll proceed as usual.
The meeting is adjourned.