[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, November 20, 1996
.1807 
[English]
The Chair: The meeting is called to order. What I'm going to suggest that we do for this evening is simply have our researcher take us through the outline of the report and the recommendations. We can ask any clarifying questions about the recommendations, then take them away to look at.
We will then set up another meeting for next week. We had tried to have this meeting at 3:30 p.m., but there simply was not a room available.
Because people's committee times have changed, it appears that Wednesday afternoon is a better time than what had been our regular meeting time, which was 9:15 a.m. on Thursday. Is that still the case? Does Wednesday afternoon seem to be about the best time for most of our members?
The Clerk of the Committee: I have a conflict -
The Chair: Yes, you do.
The Clerk: - if that's of any concern.
The Chair: Yes, I think it has to be.
The Clerk: I have another subcommittee that's meeting on Wednesday afternoons. I think I can shift that to another committee clerk if it comes to that.
Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Which other committee is that?
The Clerk: It's the subcommittee on defence conversion. It's a subcommittee of the industry committee. It's the usual - everybody's in town on Wednesday. Of course Wednesday is a difficult day because of the votes.
Mr. Williams (St. Albert): If today's any example, Wednesdays are a bad day for votes.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I am replacing Mr. Laurin today. Normally, I set aside my Wednesday afternoons and it's unusual for me to be able to be here today. Mr. Laurin had another appointment. You are aware of his timetable and you probably have a better idea than I about whether he would normally be able to attend this committee's meetings on Wednesday afternoons.
The Chair: He indicated that Wednesday afternoon would be his preference.
[English]
Mr. Langlois: So be it.
.1810
The Clerk: I'll speak to my seniors.
The Chair: Perhaps once you have the recommendations in hand we should then set a maximum of three meetings. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, because Brian does have a very thick report. We thought it would be better to give you the recommendations first to get some agreement or some changes in the recommendations. Then he could change the report to match what the subcommittee has decided it wants in the recommendations. My hope would certainly be to get this to the procedure and House affairs committee before the House breaks.
Perhaps we should just go straight to the recommendations and let you take us through that, Brian, if that's okay.
[Translation]
Is that agreeable to you?
[English]
Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): Yes, Madam Chairman.
I'm actually going to back up a little bit and just make a quick reference to the first report the subcommittee tabled back in June of this year. In this first report, which was an interim report to the procedure and House affairs committee, the subcommittee essentially set out the basic elements it intended to place in the final report. The reason I'm bringing this to your attention is just to let you know that the outline and the draft recommendations and suggestions adhere pretty faithfully to the interim report that was tabled in June. So there's nothing really in this draft that departs from a number of basic decisions the subcommittee has already made.
Not included in the material that has just been handed out to you is an outline or a table of contents for a suggested draft. The reason you don't have it is because there were some glitches in translating it into French. Hopefully those glitches will be cleared up and tomorrow you will have in your hands a copy of the table of contents.
Essentially what I have proposed there be in the final report is a preface that sets out the history of the committee and its work. There is an introduction that discusses the guiding principles behind the work of the subcommittee, and a glossary of terms, which is the result of the suggestion made by Dr. Pagtakhan at one of our last meetings. There is also a lengthy section that discusses the origin and the evolution of the business of supply. All of that in my draft takes up approximately 35 pages, so there's quite a bit there.
The real heart of the draft, the part that contains the recommendations and suggestions, is outlined in a section that has to do with new procedures for the business of supply. There is a section on the role of standing committees.
The first substantial recommendations have to do with the creation of a single estimates committee. It was a concern expressed by a number of witnesses that the creation of a single estimates committee might overshadow a lot of the work currently being done by standing committees on the estimates. They felt there might be a problem in that no single estimates committee could ever hope to fully understand the work being done by the individual departments and agencies.
So what these recommendations seek to do is to create a balance between the recommendations made by witnesses who feel there ought to be a single committee looking at the estimates and the estimates process and those who feel this is really the primary responsibility of the individual standing committees.
What you have here is a series of recommendations that essentially call for the creation of an estimates committee. You then have set out the various duties and responsibilities that might be given to it.
.1815
This is a fairly lengthy list. I'm going to suggest that you take a careful look at this when you have some time. Perhaps you can think about some of the proposed duties that have been set forth for a single estimates committee, then come to some conclusions about it. We can discuss this later on.
A second recommendation under this section has to do with a review of the appropriations for crown corporations. Again, it was suggested by a number of witnesses that there actually ought to be a single committee set up to examine crown corporations.
However, the next recommendation is in keeping with the first set of recommendations that say essentially that the standing committees ought to remain the primary line of responsibility for departmental and agency estimates. It says the estimates committee might take a look at some of the roles, mandates and expenditure regimes of crown corporations at a more macro level, not at an individual corporation level.
The next set of recommendations has to do with committee membership. During some of our meetings, particularly with committee chairs, and in some of the responses to the questionnaire sent out to individual members of Parliament, there was some concern expressed about substitutions that occur on committees, while committees are undertaking a review of the estimates. A consequence of this is that often you have members sitting on committees who are not all that familiar with the department or the agency under review. So these two recommendations essentially ask that substitutions be kept to a minimum during the estimates review period.
Subsequent series of recommendations fall under a category that I've described as ``New Tools''. Apart from having a new structure for the examination of the estimates, it would seem advisable to give committees a bit more leeway in terms of the work they can do on the estimates.
The first recommendation essentially says that the government should indicate in advance that committees can make reductions in some areas, provided there are equivalent increases in others. What this would mean is that an expenditure of a department or agency wouldn't be reduced as such, it would just be reallocated.
The second recommendation isn't really a recommendation. It's just a suggestion that the approach that's being tested on a pilot basis of separating departmental plans from reports on departmental performance goes ahead. This is in keeping with some recommendations the committee made in an earlier report.
The third recommendation deals with the ability to choose from among alternative plans and priorities. Again, this is a series of recommendations that essentially flow from comments received on the questionnaire sent out to individual members of Parliament.
The feeling there was that in the departmental plan documents presented in the springtime, there are simply one set of plans and one set of priorities. There's no opportunity to see what alternatives might be available. So these recommendations touch on that and suggest that it be facilitated, not for the immediate fiscal year coming up, but in future years subsequent to that.
Another set of recommendations under ``Assessing New Program Proposals'' again comes from a concern expressed by one of the committee members. I believe it was Mr. Laurin who said that committees would have difficulty in looking at departmental plans to conduct programs in areas where there had been no prior experience. The suggestion here is that the evaluation frameworks prepared by Treasury Board Secretariat for all new plans be presented to committees so that they have an opportunity to see the basis upon which new programs will be evaluated.
.1820
The part under ``Long-Term Review of Existing Programs'' stems from concerns expressed by witnesses that committees should be reviewing the programs of departments and agencies well into the future. Currently, references are made to plans in general, but there are no references made to programs as such. This recommendation makes a focus on programs.
The next two sections deal with the reporting deadlines for departmental plans, documents and the reporting deadlines for the estimates. Some witnesses recommended that these deadlines be shifted ahead, but I've drafted suggestions that the deadlines be kept as is. The main reason is that cabinet begins its deliberations on the estimates in June, and if reporting deadlines were set forward until the fall, as was suggested by some witnesses, cabinet would not have committee reports on plans in hand, or be able to take those reports into consideration when starting their initial work on the estimates.
The other thing is that it's very unusual for committees to meet during the summer, so even if you were to set the reporting dates ahead to the fall, there is no guarantee that any actual work or extra work would be done by committees in this regard.
Another large category of recommendations falls under the heading of ``New Incentives'', and this stems from the belief that members of Parliament and committees aren't currently given enough incentive to work on estimates. The purpose of these incentives is to give them more reason to focus on their work in this area.
These are rather detailed recommendations. It starts out by saying that committees that submit reports on departmental plans ought to be able to have those reports taken under consideration by the Standing Committee on Finance when it does its pre-budget consultations in the fall; that the chairs of committees that have submitted reports on plans ought to be given an opportunity to appear before the finance committee to discuss their reports and recommendations; that the Minister of Finance include a response to committee reports on departmental plans in the supporting documents that he presents with the budget; and that as part of their plans and performance documents, departments and agencies respond to committee reports that have been issued on plans and on performance documents, and give some indication of what they're doing to respond to committee concerns.
The next set of recommendations have to do with a higher profile for the review of the estimates. One witness told the committee that he thought it was a real problem that the media do not pay sufficient attention to committee work, especially committee work on the estimates. So the suggestion here is that the standing committees hold at least one of their meetings on the estimates in a room that has television facilities.
A subsequent suggestion is that committees endeavour to invite interested third parties, people from outside of government, to appear before them when they hold their meeting on the estimates. Hopefully, this would engage the interest and imagination of the public at large.
.1825
The next series of recommendations are a little bit tougher. They would constitute negative incentives. The first one would change the Standing Orders to remove from committees the option of reporting the estimates or not. It would require the Standing Orders to say that they must report their estimates.
The next two provide a little bit of muscle behind that requirement, the first by saying that until a committee has submitted a report on the estimates, none of its other reports, with the exception of reports on legislation, could be deemed acceptable to the House. The second one says the committees should not be able to travel outside of Ottawa until they've completed their work on the estimates. These are bound to be a bit controversial, but it's also the role of a report to be a bit provocative in some respect. So I think these things are possible.
The next series of suggestions - I don't believe there are any recommendations here - are new approaches that have to do with a new attitude or way of viewing the estimates and supply process that the subcommittee could suggest be adopted by the various standing committees. They have to do with making use of the new opportunities that are coming up. They have to do with making a closer link between policy and expenditure, suggesting that when committees submit reports with recommendations they also take into consideration the financial implications of what they're recommending.
The have to do with knowing and applying the rules. There are a number of rules that apply to the whole supply process, which, in the estimation of a number of our witnesses, a lot of members of Parliament aren't sufficiently familiar with. If they did know these rules and applied them well, the estimates process would be improved even if no other changes were made.
The next suggestion stems from that minority report, that it's perfectly within the power of members sitting on committees to issue minority reports when it comes to reports on the estimates, or reports on plans and performance documents. This is a suggestion that people make use of that particular ability.
``Adopting Approaches Used by Other Committees'': When the subcommittee held meetings with committee chairs, we heard about a number of interesting ways in which standing committees are already dealing with the estimates. This section in the report will list some of those ways. There's a suggestion here that subcommittees endeavour to learn from the experience of other subcommittees and apply those lessons to their own work.
There's a suggestion that committees begin to see the estimates as the end of the process and not just the beginning. Being able to make this shift in perception ought to be facilitated by the availability of plans, documents and performance documents, so that when the estimates are presented in the spring, in some respects they should be seen as a response to committee reports and recommendations. So they could in that sense be seen as the end of a process, not the beginning.
Finally, under this section there's a discussion of improved support for committees and committee members. A number of witness talked about improving the staffing for committees, especially as it relates to the study of the estimates. No conclusions are drawn here, as it's just a recommendation that the issue be studied in greater depth by the liaison committee and the Board of Internal Economy, which is responsible for providing budgets for committees. Under this recommendation are a series of suggestions that the liaison committee and Board of Internal Economy might take under consideration, if they do embark on such a study.
.1830
There's also a section here on the role of the Office of the Auditor General. The subcommittee learned from the New Zealand high commissioner that in New Zealand their auditor general takes a very active role in committee study of the estimates. The suggestion here is that the committees make greater use of the reports of the Auditor General as background material for studying estimates and plans documents.
That's followed by a more specific recommendation, which is that departments and agencies include some reference to reports of the Auditor General in their plans documents and performance documents, and that they make specific reference to the Auditor General's observations and outline the ways in which they intend to address his concerns and the concerns of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts when it has reported on these issues.
Two other recommendations deal with improved information on the estimates and supply processes. Again, there is a feeling that members of Parliament aren't adequately informed or given sufficient support in their approach to the estimates. These two recommendations require or ask that Treasury Board Secretariat provides some assistance in that regard.
The next section is a large and very important section that deals with the scope of parliamentary financial review. In there are recommendations that deal with statutory spending, tax expenditures, loan guarantees and net versus gross amounts. There's also a section on capital and operating budgets, which I know is a concern of some members. I haven't been able to provide any specific recommendations there, so this is something that could be open for discussion and suggestion.
Next is a section on supply days. In here are two options that could be followed in terms of getting committee reports on the estimates in front of the House for debate.
The next large section has to do with the accountability of ministers and deputy ministers, and this is when they appear before committees to discuss the estimates. Again, there was some concern on the part of witnesses that ministers and deputy ministers need to be adequately prepared for their appearances before committees to discuss these matters. The suggestion is that Treasury Board develop a set of guidelines that would address this particular issue.
The next section is another very important one. It deals with the confidence convention and the business of supply. Here, if the testimony given by witnesses is any indication, not much can be done apart from the government perhaps taking a different approach to votes on supply. The suggestion is that governments announce that they will accept changes made to the estimates by committees, or that they will tolerate defeats on individual items of supply, and follow those defeats by formal votes of confidence.
The text that I've written indicates that this has happened in the past. Personally, I don't think it need frighten anyone. Governments that are in a majority position are still able to protect themselves from defeats on confidence in this area. And from the other perspective, minority governments might be able to benefit from an approach such as the one suggested here.
The last substantial section deals with parliamentary attitudes towards supply and expenditure, and in some ways it's a repeat of what was said earlier about new approaches to supply. The suggestion here is that if in the administrative side of government - in the public service - there are ongoing efforts to change the culture, to change the thinking about expenditure and programs, to see them in terms of outputs and impacts rather than just inputs, Parliament itself ought to consider undergoing a cultural change and looking at the estimates process from a new perspective.
.1835
Finally, there's the conclusion that sums all of this up.
Madam Chair, I apologize if this is lengthy. There's an awful lot in here. I'm more than willing to discuss any one of these recommendations in greater detail. I'm available in my office and I'm available to speak to members on an individual basis in their offices if they wish to discuss this.
I think that concludes what I have to say.
The Chair: If there aren't any questions, you may just want to take this away and perhaps contact Brian. At our next meeting we could start going through the recommendations one by one.
Mr. Williams: I think so, Madam Chair. I understand that you have time constraints -
The Chair: I do. We all look a little tired.
Mr. Williams: - and we all look a little tired. I think the researcher has given us -
The Chair: You played hard today.
Mr. Williams: - a good synopsis and some good suggestions. I think we make progress with this as a good starting base.
I would also like to echo your point that if we can get this wrapped up and into the procedure and house affairs committee before the recess and make some progress on this.... Why don't we do that and call an early meeting again, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Did I hear someone move adjournment?
Mr. Williams: Yes.
The Chair: Wednesday of next week is when we'll try to.... We'll try to get a meeting place in the Centre Block, because for you and for me it's particularly important to be accessible to the House.
The Clerk: I'll do what I can.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I have a bit of trouble understanding point VI dealing with the principle of confidence and the examination of appropriations. If the government were in a minority situation, not in the House but in a committee, would it have to have its confidence reconfirmed by the House of Commons? I have some difficulty perhaps in understanding the way in which it is worded.
Mr. O'Neal: I think the text does give a better explanation of this matter. It's always possible that the government might... Excuse me, but I don't have the vocabulary in French.
[English]
It's possible the government could have an item in the estimates reduced by a vote in the chamber. Normally that would be considered a vote of non-confidence, but the government could say in advance that we don't consider this to be a confidence issue, so we will have a subsequent vote that is a formal vote of confidence. That would also mean -
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I understand your explanation quite well. The text would appear to suggest that if there were amendments in the committee, then a vote of confidence would be required in the House. I understand the explanation quite well: a defeat in the House on a major point would not result in the government's defeat, it could always ask once again whether it still has the confidence of the House. I agree with you in this respect. I understand and I share this point of view. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
This meeting is adjourned.