[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 4, 1997
.0939 
[English]
The Chair: Let me call to order this meeting of the subcommittee on business of supply.
Mr. Laurin was just raising the evaluation report we had insisted on when Treasury Board asked for our concurrence in a new form of reporting to Parliament on the performance reports. There were some pilot projects for different departments. We had insisted that an evaluation be done afterwards to see whether in fact this was an improvement in terms of members' understanding of the issues and their ability to deal with the financial information.
.0940
We obviously don't have time to review this evaluation report, but it should certainly be done. It's probably a fine example of why there needs to be, in my view, an ongoing committee that's responsible for the estimates process and for making sure Parliament has an improved system for dealing with the estimates and the performance of departments and their forward-looking plans. I'm just going to note that we've received that report, but I think our main task continues to be to get our primary report done.
We have two things on this morning. First, I would like to talk about the schedule for getting through our report. Second, Brian has had additional consultations with the clerk's office and has prepared some revised recommendations concerning the reallocation of funds and how that could be handled, and how it could be handled appropriately, given the constitutional requirements for the government to approve spending decisions, the so-called royal recommendation. He has also put together for me an indication of where we are in the schedule. Including this one, we have a total of either three or four meetings left to complete this report if we want to get it to Procedure and House Affairs in time for tabling for our March 21 deadline.
Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams (St. Albert): Do we have a vote this morning, Madam Chair?
The Chair: We have a vote this morning. There will be a motion at the end of routine proceedings, which means the bells will probably start at some time between 10:15 and 10:30. It's a half-hour bell. So we should be able to go on until approximately 10:45 in any case, and if routine proceedings take longer we'll have longer.
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): The bells are supposed to start ringing at 10 o'clock.
The Chair: At 10 o'clock?
Mr. Laurin: I think so.
The Chair: Okay. I think the motion might come at the end of routine proceedings. We'll just wait. When they start we'll know we have 20 or 25 minutes left.
Like all of you, I'm sure, I'm quite anxious to see the culmination of all this time and hard work we've put in. We have, as I say, three or four meetings. I think we should count on seeing what we can do in three meetings so we can have a fourth meeting to wrap up, if possible. I think we've dealt extensively with many of the major issues. That's why I would like to try to get through the new power we're recommending for the committees to propose reallocations of funds. If we can agree on that and then go back and clean up the rest for the estimates committee.... Brian has also done a fair bit of revision on that, but I would suggest we leave that for our next meeting.
Then what I'm going to suggest is that we indicate which sections of the report we're going to deal with at the following two meetings. I will ask you all to read them carefully to let me know about any problems you have with those sections and to come to the meeting prepared to say either ``yes, I agree with this'' or ``I would like to see a change here or there'', so we can get through it.
Brian, do you want to take us through these revised recommendations?
Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): Yes, Madam Chair. As you mentioned, these revised recommendations for the section of the report that deals with reallocation, which I believe begins at paragraph 146.... When the Clerk of the House of Commons appeared before the subcommittee a number of weeks ago, he suggested that some means be developed to give committees the ability to reallocate funds. Based on his comments to the subcommittee, it appeared to me the recommendation I had drafted for you was perhaps not strong enough and needed to be rethought.
.0945
When Mr. Marleau spoke to you, he essentially gave the subcommittee two options. And I should say a couple of challenges are involved in making reallocations. The first is that it's obvious that a reallocation would involve increasing an expenditure in a certain area. Increasing an expenditure requires a royal recommendation. Essentially that is a recommendation coming from the Governor General on the advice of cabinet that an expenditure of funds be made. So if a committee were to indicate or propose that moneys be removed from one area or activity and reallocated to another, since that would actually involve an increase of expenditure in a certain activity, I'm told there would be a requirement for a royal recommendation to cover that.
The other challenge involved is being aware that there are people who will be uncomfortable with a proposal of this nature and they will need some sort of reassurance that this is going to be something that's reasonable and feasible.
The clerk made essentially two recommendations or suggestions to you. First, he said what could be done is that on the tabling of the estimates before March 1 the President of Treasury Board could present what he called a ``blanket'' royal recommendation to cover the eventuality that a committee, or even all committees, might make a reallocation. The second idea he presented you with was that committees could go ahead and propose a reallocation, and then when they report back to the House the government could respond to that proposal by tabling or presenting an amended royal recommendation covering just that reallocation and then follow that up with a motion calling for concurrence in the reallocation as recommended by committee.
I'm told the first option, involving the presentation of a blanket royal recommendation, would be a government initiative and it would be at the government's discretion whether or not to present a reworded royal recommendation that would allow a reallocation to occur. The other recommendation, that committees be able to do this and then the government could respond on a case-by-case basis, effectively puts the initiative with the individual committees whether or not to propose a reallocation.
The clerk also suggested that a ceiling or limit be placed on the amount that could be reallocated. At times he mentioned 1%, but he may also have said something about 5%. I think this would effectively give those who are uncomfortable with the notion that committees should have this power a small degree of comfort. You wouldn't be able to reallocate up to 100%, just a small portion of a department or agency's proposed expenditures.
It has also been suggested that if a committee were to propose a reallocation it should report back to the House earlier than the May 31 deadline, in order to give the government an opportunity to respond to the committee's suggestions.
.0950
If I may, I would just like to take you through the recommendations I've drafted up, one by one. The first is that standing committees studying the estimates be empowered to report to the House proposing the reallocation of up to a maximum of... - and I've left that blank so the subcommittee can determine what you think might be an appropriate percentage - of only those estimates referred to them. I think that's fairly straightforward.
The second is that the Standing Orders be amended in order to give government the option of bringing in a modified royal recommendation to cover a reallocation proposed by a standing committee.
The third is that following presentation of a modified royal recommendation covering a reallocation, government move a motion to reallocate funds as per a standing committee's proposal.
The next recommendation is one that, with an important modification, already appears in the draft report. It's that standing committees, when they propose the reallocation of funds, support their recommendations with evidence that is clear and accurate.
There I have to tell you I've changed the word ``recommend'' to ``propose''. This is on advice that has been given to me that this wording is likely to be more acceptable to people who feel if you use the word ``recommend'' this would end up binding the government a little more than it might like to be bound.
Mr. Williams: Using the word ``recommendation''?
Mr. O'Neal: Yes.
The next step is that the standing committees be required to report proposed reallocations back to the House by mid-May, for the main estimates, and that the timing for such reports on supplementary estimates be moved back an equal amount of time.
Finally there is a recommendation that already appears in the report, that when governments reject committee proposals that funds be reallocated they state the reasons for their refusal in the House before the estimate in question is voted on.
I have to tell you, Madam Chair, I'm reasonably assured this set of recommendations would give the committees the kind of ability the subcommittee would like to see them have. The important thing here is to make sure the mechanics are right and will work and the instructions are clear, because what will happen if these recommendations are adopted is that people will have to draft changes to the Standing Orders to implement these recommendations. The instructions have to be clear.
The Chair: What you're basically saying is if a committee recommends a reallocation, which they've never been able to do before, the government has only two choices. It cannot ignore the proposals that are made by a committee. It has to produce a royal recommendation to support those changes or table its reasons for not accepting them. I think that is neat.
Is there any discussion?
Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Just one thing on the fourth recommendation. I heard your delineation of the word ``propose''. The second part is ``support their proposals'' or ``recommendations'', then?
Mr. O'Neal: Yes, that probably should be changed to ``proposals''.
I think the way this would work is if a committee wanted to bring about a reallocation, when they reported back to the House they would include in the report something to the effect that ``we propose that x amount be shifted to activity Y from activity D''.
.0955
Now, I've been told - it's a suggestion too, the way things may work if this is in operation - if the government is favourable to reallocation, then the government could place on the notice paper, along with all motions pertaining to the estimates, a motion accompanied by a royal recommendation and they could give credit to the work of the committee in the concurrence motion by phrasing it in a certain way. Here are the lines that have been suggested: ``Pursuant to the report of the Standing Committee presented on...the House concur in the reduction of votes X, XX...'' - and so on, in the amounts of so many dollars - ``and concur in the increases of votes Y, YY, in the amounts of Y, YY.''
Those are just examples. That way the standing committee that has done the work would get some sort of credit.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Madam Chair, of course I like the principle of reallocation. A couple of things. Where there is a maximum, should there be a minimum, to prevent frivolous attempts at so-called ``reallocation''? Then, following that point, what should guide us as a committee to firm up our consensus on what maximum percentage of the estimates would be a reasonable basis for this first recommendation?
The Chair: On my paper I've just been doing some scribbles with a whole lot of zeros. What is the smallest department of government in terms of budget? The clerk had suggested to us 1% as a possibility. That's a substantial amount of money. If you take a small department with a $3 billion budget, that's still $30 million the committee could conceivably reallocate, which is fairly significant.
Mr. Williams: Madam Chairman, are we talking about the standing committee being confined - and I think you are - to reallocation within a specific department?
The Chair: Yes. I think it would be absolutely unfair if the environment committee were to start proposing reallocations within the Department of Natural Resources, for example.
Mr. Williams: But while we're talking about reallocations, we recognize Parliament has always had the capacity to recommend a reduction.
The Chair: Yes. We're not changing that - not at all.
To make Mr. Williams' point clearer, perhaps the first recommendation might speak of a certain percentage ``within those estimates referred to them''.
Mr. O'Neal: Only those estimates.
The Chair: Again, the environment committee might say they think this $10 million should not be spent here and should be reallocated to the Department of Natural Resources budget.
Mr. O'Neal: In response to Dr. Pagtakhan's comments, I think it's difficult to establish an appropriate maximum, although as the chair has pointed out, especially if applied to large departments, or even small ones, the 1% actually is quite a lot. Secondly, about a minimum, I think that would be very difficult to set. The committee would have to exercise its discretion.
The final point I would like to make is that what you may want to do is to suggest that this be reconsidered at some other point. Again, we're talking about something there has been no experience of yet. It may seem appropriate at some later date either to increase those maximums or else to reduce them, although that would be difficult to do.
Mr. Williams: The point I was going to make in response to Brian's point, Madam Chair, is that here we are dealing with the estimates, we're not talking about the total budget of a department. The estimates, as we know, are only $50 billion in total, roughly speaking.
The Chair: Yes, that's true.
Mr. Williams: So I would argue for the larger figure, based on the recognition that a small department is not a $3 billion department, because when we look just at the administration of that department we are talking quite small numbers. Therefore I would argue for a larger number rather than a smaller number.
.1000
The Chair: The only thing the committee would be precluded from considering is statutory expenditures.
Mr. Williams: That's correct, statutory expenditures; but as we know, they make up the bulk of most departments. The estimates basically look after internal administration. That's the largest part of the estimates process. Therefore I would think we should be looking at 5% versus 1% as a ceiling. No one says one has to go that far, but I think if you restrict it to 1% based on the fact that the estimates are only $50 billion, we may find some departments are quite small indeed, and since we are looking at the discretionary part and in the estimates we're focused on the discretionary spending most of all, that's where theoretically there should be the most room for change within a department's budget. Therefore I would argue for the larger number.
The Chair: Dr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Pagtakhan: I know I raised this in our earlier meeting and I said perhaps it should not exceed a given maximum, but as I now reflect on it, the whole thing will depend on what a committee of the day and thereafter the government feels is a reasonable amount being proposed for reallocation. A reasonable amount is dependent - and it will be dependent on so many factors - ultimately on how the government views the particular amount.
If we had a set maximum, the argument around the committee table will continue to be, well, it's reasonable because it's what the Standing Order deems to be reasonable. That's why you are setting that maximum amount. Is it not possible, then, instead of expressing it as a maximum percentage, to say ``a reasonable amount'' and let that reasonableness be determined from year to year by the members of the committee and from year to year by the government, by the exigencies of the time - by the many factors that are really hard to say it is only about 1% you can change?
Third, if we set 1% or 5%, aren't we indeed retreating and limiting the ability of the members of Parliament, which is the whole purpose for the change, to determine reasonableness? The committee of the day takes the risk that if it proposes an amount for reallocation that is likely to be unreasonable in the eyes of the government, then of course it will meet with the objection of the government. So rather than saying, well, this is within 10%, I would rather have it ``reasonable''. Delete any maximum percentage, and for the same reason delete any minimum percentage because it is frivolous, it will not stand the test of scrutiny, and leave it at that.
The principle of reallocation is there. It can be 15%, 50%, if in fact.... But the committee members will be guided by their own sense of reasonableness at any given time.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Laurin.
Mr. Laurin: As I was absent, I'd like to know if the committee has decided to recommend setting up a Standing Committee on Estimates as the report suggests. Has that question been settled?
[English]
The Chair: Based on the last discussions of the committee, Mr. O'Neal has done some substantial redrafting of that section of the report and has revised the recommendations. I thought that since that's a little more complex we'll go back to it after we deal with this, which is really in a way a more significant change to the powers of the committees of the House. So we will come back to that at our Thursday meeting. It has been distributed and I thought it would be helpful if you all had an extra day or two to read it. Then we'll deal with it on Thursday.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: While looking at the summary of recommendations drawn up by Mr. O'Neal, I noticed they all concern standing committees that already exist. I wasn't at yesterday's committee meeting. That's why I thought that maybe you'd given up on the idea that there should not be a Standing Committee on Estimates any more.
.1005
The Chair: No.
Mr. Laurin: We can come back to that question then.
The fifth paragraph of your recommendations suggests that "such reports on supplementary estimates be moved back an equal amount of time". How many days are being suggested? What's the time frame?
The Chair: A fortnight.
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: Approximately two weeks. Certainly we could make that clearer, but the idea here is that if the committee is going to exercise its ability in this new area it should give the government enough time to study what it's proposing. With any luck the arguments will be persuasive enough that the government will adopt the committee's perspective and go ahead with a modified royal recommendation.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: What we're suggesting here, of course, is that each committee have the power to make recommendations leading to a reallocation of funds from one department to another. Will this matter be attributed to the Standing Committee on Finance? I think that's what Mr. White's question was about. For example, if we wanted to allocate more funds to environment or immigration or vice versa, which committee would have the privilege of making those recommendations?
[English]
The Chair: Call cabinet.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: These are matters the Standing Committee on Finance is discussing presently.
[English]
The Chair: No. The mandate is that of the finance committee.
Go ahead, Brian.
Mr. O'Neal: Excuse me, Madam Chair. As these recommendations are drafted - and I think there was some discussion about tightening them up a bit to make this absolutely clear - the reallocations would take place within the estimates of a single department. You couldn't move them from one department to another. I was going to say - maybe this is a bit mischievous - if you were to create an all-powerful estimates committee with the responsibility for all the estimates, maybe it could do something like this.
But no, this is just very compartmentalized. As the chair mentioned earlier, you wouldn't want the Standing Committee on the Environment to be able - I don't think they would want to do this anyway - to take money out of their department's budget and place it at the disposal of another department, one that is the responsibility of another committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Of course, what we're dealing with here are the government's general policies and orientations. Of course it's fundamental. But if we wished the government to emphasize research and development and de-emphasize national defence, where could this be discussed?
[English]
Mr. O'Neal: I think that could be the subject, could it not, of an opposition motion during a supply day. Maybe it could be debated in the House.
The Chair: I would like to deal with the recommendations we have here as far as they go and see if we generally agree with those. Okay?
Secondly, if we want to turn our minds to that, if there is to be an estimates committee, in fact the standing committees could bring to the attention of an estimates committee areas where they think that kind of reallocation of funds between departments should be considered. Then it would be up to an estimates committee to bring together the appropriate committee chairs or a subcommittee of those various committees to look at things that go across different departments. Because right now, you're right, no committee of Parliament has the authority to do that. The finance committee does not. It deals not with the estimates but with the general economic policies of government, the fiscal policies.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mind you, I think that's a rather perilous mission. If a committee on Estimates were to call before it the chairs of the several standing committees to suggest that one department should be getting less money than another, we'd have to be ready for war or at least a fight to the finish between all those chairs who will certainly be defining their own budgets.
.1010
I don't know if that would be the best forum for that. I still wonder if our committee should try to come up with a recommendation like that on that question or whether we're going beyond our terms of reference.
[English]
The Chair: I think we can make just about any recommendation we want. I think in fact it would not be unreasonable for us to comment on the inability of Parliament to shift priorities between departments and to propose some ways in which at least recommendations could be made to government along those lines. But it couldn't be at the initiative of one standing committee, I don't think, unless it were the committee with the specific mandate to look at how government-wide allocations are made. It would probably be precipitous to try to suggest the reallocation power to that extent be given to a committee of Parliament at this point, until we've tried something like this to see how it works.
If I can comment on the percentage.... Frankly, I think Dr. Pagtakhan is right, you probably don't need to put in a percentage, except we would like to see this recommendation get accepted, because it is a new power for parliamentarians and, perhaps less at the political level than at the senior level of the bureaucracy, this is a recommendation that would, I suspect, create some substantial nervousness. In my view, from the discussion of the clerk the feeling of our researcher and perhaps myself is that putting a modest maximum in here might increase the chances of this being accepted.
I think that was some of your discussions with the senior people in the clerk's office, wasn't it, Brian?
We could leave it without a percentage - that's the other possibility - and simply have the reflection that we had discussed the possibility of a limit and government might want to consider that but we decided not to propose a specific limit. That's the other possibility. So in a sense the idea of putting in a 1%, 5% maximum, or whatever, as the clerk suggested, would be there to improve the chances that this recommendation might get accepted.
Mr. Williams: Madam Chair, I would like to see this report go through and be accepted and these types of recommendations accepted. I would not want this particular recommendation to be rejected on the premise that it's not Parliament's role to govern. If we don't have a limit on our reallocation.... Remember, the reallocation is (a) a reduction and (b) an increase. It's not Parliament's role to increase, which is why we need this royal recommendation. If there is no limit to our ability to increase, then in essence Parliament is governing. I wouldn't want it to be rejected on that premise. Therefore I would suggest, Madam Chair, that we put in a limit of 5% and if all is agreeable we move on.
The Chair: Is there any major disagreement with that? The report can reflect some of the discussion.
Mr. Williams: And it's 5%?
The Chair: Yes, 5%; which out of $50 billion comes down to about $500 million.
Mr. Williams: No, $2.5 billion.
The Chair: Sorry, yes.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Inherent in the subsequent recommendation is that there is clear and accurate evidence for any proposal. If it is clear and accurate indeed for a given percentage, why should 5% automatically be the arbitrary figure? Any percentage we set would be arbitrary, as a limit we're allowing.
Remember, this is interdepartmental reallocation. Sometimes to reallocate 5% could be within the maximum, but to do that would serve no useful purpose unless you made it 6%, because the change, although it may constitute, say, 4%...that additional 1% may be the clinching factor for effectiveness of such a reallocation.
.1015
So I would not like a committee of the day -
The Chair: Then the committee can always make that argument.
Rey, look, we can sit here and argue about whether it should be 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, or no percent, but the fact is if we want to get this report finished, if we want to get these recommendations through, we have to deal with this issue. The opposition seems not uncomfortable with having a maximum. What I would suggest in fact is that since this is a totally new procedure and we want to have it looked at again, if we come back to the section on an estimates committee, we should propose that its role and effectiveness be reviewed within five years, and I think we would also want this reviewed on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Pagtakhan: One last point on that. Because this is a subcommittee report to the mother committee, like John, I would not like this to be rejected only because the debate is about the percentage. So to allow some flexibility, perhaps we should let the mother committee decide -
The Chair: Oh, God, no, we don't want them to get into a debate or it will never get out of here before an election.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Okay, let's put it this way -
The Chair: If we can't come up with an arbitrary figure after a year and a half on this report I don't know how we can possibly -
Mr. Pagtakhan: Okay, at this point my position is to make it undefined but to say ``reasonable''. I think there's a lot -
The Chair: Well, given that the rest of the committee seems to feel putting a percentage in there -
Mr. Williams: Is reasonable.
The Chair: - I'm asking my colleague to be reasonable and join the rest of us.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: We also have to avoid just allocating a symbolic amount.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Laurin: If the government said it was accepting the recommendation and suggested 0.1%, then that would be an answer to the recommendation, but the amount of money would have no impact. It wouldn't be significant. Could the Standing Committee not suggest allocating a significant amount not exceeding 1 or 5%, for example? The amount would have to be significant and not just symbolic.
I don't know if this suggestion rallies both parties' proposals.
[English]
The Chair: That's exactly why -
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: You could always make a one dollar reallocation, but it would be ridiculous.
[English]
The Chair: Even though the clerk mentioned -
Mr. Pagtakhan: If it's a frivolous type of thing, you're right.
The Chair: That's why even though the clerk mentioned 1% as a possibility I'm not uncomfortable with 5%.
Mr. Williams: Can we move on?
The Chair: Yes, I'm wondering if we can move on before we get drafted into a vote.
Mr. Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte): We certainly can, Madam Chair, but just as a point of interest, the percentage shouldn't be a hang-up, because a lot depends on what the percentage is of.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Culbert: Are we talking about the percentage of the estimates of the total budget of a particular department? Are we talking about 5% of the breakdowns of those various estimates? I think that's very important, because 5% of the total is a lot of dollars, but 5% of a particular breakdown might be a much lesser amount, depending on which breakdown within that department it is. I would think that should be clarified so there's no misunderstanding.
From the other perspective - and I agree with my colleagues - playing devil's advocate a bit, if I were on the other side and I were a minister of that department I would be very, very concerned on my side. But I'm not a minister. I hope to elevate to that at some point, but not as yet. I would want to be assured some committee isn't going to tear apart the estimates my department brought forward. That would be the concern I would have. I would think 5% would be reasonable if you look at the total, but it would also be reasonable if you were to look at the individual breakdowns within that department, and it would be more relevant to what we're talking about, I would suspect.
Mr. Williams: For clarification, or for my comprehension and understanding, Madam Chair, we're talking about 5% of a department's estimates. The committee of that particular department, such as the Standing Committee on National Health on the Department of National Health, would potentially have 5% of the Department of National Health budget to reallocate within the Department of National Health. It would then go forward as a conclusion of the committee to the House and the government would have to consider it seriously and perhaps bring forth a royal recommendation to acknowledge that conclusion or refute it by putting forth a clear and logical argument as to why not.
.1020
The Chair: Mr. O'Neal.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, I think the question that has been asked is a really important one. With your permission and the permission of the subcommittee I would like to clarify that with the people in the clerk's office, because I think what they may have been talking about is 5% of a vote within. As you're aware, some departments will have two or three votes within an estimate. I would just want to make sure it's either that or 5% of the total at the bottom of the page. I will just make sure what they had in mind.
The Chair: The Department of Health is a very good example where the large bulk of its estimates is statutory payments, which you really can't do much about, but if you take 5% of that total rather than 5% of what they can do something about....
Anyway, subject to some clarification from Mr. O'Neal at our first meeting, are we prepared to accept that recommendation?
Mr. Pagtakhan: That is subject to clarification, but what really is the sentiment of the committee? What Harold did bring up was this. A particular vote within the department, the initial appropriation by the government, may constitute no more than 5%. So it will end up, if we allow 5% of the top-up, that the particular item may be completely eliminated. Is it the intent of the committee to be able to do that? I don't think so.
The Chair: Parliament has that ability now, Rey. It has the ability to reduce the estimates in any way it wishes.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Yes; but the question here is a constructive approach to reallocation. One thing is almost inherently political, symbolic, or what have you, but the constructive one is whether the committee is now prepared to say one item of a given series of votes within a department is such that it can be completely eliminated and reallocated to something else. I'm asking.
The Chair: The committee always has the test of reasonableness. Why it's doing all this work is try to get the government to accept something that seems reasonable.
Mr. Pagtakhan: If that were the case, I could still be persuaded along that line and the argument for no limit in percentage should stand. We could not argue reasonableness -
The Chair: I'm asking you to give up that argument so we can move on, Rey.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Madam Chair, I have made my case.
Mr. Culbert: You are right, Rey, but it's not going to fly.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, I just wanted to confirm what you said. Committees already have the power to eliminate a vote. You can negative it, or recommend that it be negatived. What this is really talking about is topping up in a particular area. It's saying you can't top up higher than 5%. But I will make sure whether what we're talking about is 5% of the item in the estimates in question or 5% of the entire.
The Chair: Thank you for raising that, Harold.
I was going to suggest that maybe we should move recommendation 4 up after recommendation 1 so things read a little more consistently. Then it would be that ``Standing committees, when they propose reallocation of funds, support the recommendations with evidence that is clear and accurate''. That seems only reasonable to me. Is there any disagreement?
Mr. Williams: I thought we were going to remove the word ``recommendations'' and put in -
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Williams: What was the word we were going to put in?
The Chair: ``Proposals.''
Mr. Williams: I would also remove the word ``accurate'' and replace it with the word ``supportable''. You will always have debate on what is accurate.
The Chair: Okay, ``supportable''. Then I would suggest we make what is now recommendation 5 recommendation 3, so we're dealing with things in the order in which they happen: that standing committees be required to report proposed reallocations back to the House by mid-May for the main estimates and the timing for such reports on supplementary estimates be moved back an equal amount of time.
.1025
What are we suggesting here for the equal amount of time, two weeks?
Mr. O'Neal: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Estimates are tabled around March 1. So you're talking two and a half months less, presumably, the two weeks at spring break, etc. You have about six House sitting weeks during that period. The estimates are then to be brought to the House no later than June June 24 or whatever. That then gives the government approximately a month to respond.
I wonder whether that's an equitable balance, Madam Chair, whether the government needs a whole month to respond or whether the committees need more than six sitting weeks to try to examine the estimates. I would like to see more time for the committees to examine the estimates.
The Chair: I haven't really thought that through. I guess my hope is that if the committees are doing their job on the departmental plans and the performance reports, the estimates will become not something new you have dumped on you every year but something you've been preparing for.
If people feel that's too stringent, perhaps it is. It's taking two weeks off. The current reporting deadline is May 31. The month for the government to respond gives them time for some back and forth between the committee and the minister as well, which might also be an excellent idea.
I guess what I want is the sense that this is an important new power and that committees should seize it.
Mr. Williams: I hadn't contemplated, Madam Chair, that there would be negotiations between the department and the committee and the minister and the committee after the reports were tabled in the House. I would have thought that type of ongoing dialogue would have taken place before the tabling of the report, and that if the committee was starting to see that they desired to reallocate funds or reduce funds, the dialogue with the department would be brought forth.
Remember, we are saying that their recommendation has to be supportable. If they're going to try to make a recommendation that they feel is supportable, without having input from the department as to why it was there in the first place, I would think they would be remiss in their duties. They would want to know the logic behind the department's recommendation as to why an amount is in there in the first place.
So the dialogue would take place prior to the tabling of the report, not subsequent to the tabling of the report.
The Chair: Any comments on Mr. Williams's intervention? Frankly, I find it makes sense.
Mr. Williams: Always does, Madam Chair.
The Chair: The government still has four weeks, with all the powers of the bureaucracy at its disposal, even if the committee tables by May 31.
Mr. Pagtakhan: It's good to have the dialogue before the tabling, if only to facilitate the possible implementation of such a change. In other words, one thing we will hope to achieve by the process, as I see it, is that we will be able to flesh out from some of the officials any bureaucratic barrier to such a change. The committee will be able to ask pointed questions, and they will have the opportunity to defend a point of view the officials, reflecting the policy of the government, happen to take on.
So I think it is a useful time period to have, dialogue before tabling.
The Chair: So take out that recommendation?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.1030
The Chair: Okay. We continue to report May 31.
Then we get to the responsibilities of the government - number two on your page - which reads:
- That the Standing Orders be amended in order to give Government the option of bringing in a
modified Royal Recommendation to cover a re-allocation proposed by a Standing Committee.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. Number three reads:
- That following presentation of a modified Royal Recommendation, Government move a
motion to reallocate funds as per a Standing Committee's proposal.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Then we're back to the bottom one:
- That when Governments reject committee proposals that funds be allocated, they state the
reasons for their refusal, in the House, before the estimate in question is voted on.
Mr. Culbert: Madam Chair, I'll pose a question here. Would it be prudent at that point in time for the committee to consider either the minister or someone from the department who would be responsible for the particular area in which the reallocation was suggested to come back to the committee to give their reasons directly to the committee?
The Chair: That's possible. One presumes, though, as both Mr. Williams and Dr. Pagtakhan have said, that these discussions would have taken place in the course of developing their recommendations.
I think what we're trying to get here is that the government owes it to the committee to give its proposals some status in Parliament and to respond to them. The committee can always ask the minister or the officials to come back to the committee if it wishes to have that discussion. My question here is, should the government in fact be required to put in writing its reasons for not supporting a proposal?
John.
Mr. Williams: I have two points of clarification. One, I think the government should have been required to table the response to the report. The Standing Orders would have to be amended so that when a committee tables a report in the House they can ask for a response within 150 days. We would say that the government would have to respond to this type of report seven days, say, prior to the vote on the estimates so that there's time for information to be disseminated.
Second - and again, I can't quite remember - if we have the committee table a report for a change, reduction or reallocation, can we say that would automatically become an item to be voted upon at the time the estimates are being voted on? Because on that basis we now have the pros, the cons, debate and a vote. That would seem to be a logical culmination of Parliament's debate.
The Chair: If I might pre-empt Mr. O'Neal, it's logical but not constitutional.
Mr. Williams: Where did I fall down on my constitutional...?
The Chair: If there is no royal recommendation, would it be out of order for that motion to be before the House?
Mr. Williams: Excellent point.
I'm trying to think, Madam Chair, on what basis can we bring it to a debate in the House that now we have two sides of the argument presented for debate? How can we bring that forward to a conclusion?
The Chair: I think this new ability gives the opposition - and I'm constantly aware that any one of us might be sitting in opposition at any time -
Mr. Williams: Maybe sooner than later.
The Chair: - a tremendous tool for debate.
Mr. Williams: I have the concern, Madam Chair, that it can end up, even though it's tabled in the House as a committee, going nowhere. I can understand the constitutionality of it. That's why we certainly would need to have a government table a response prior to the vote on the estimates. Standing Orders can require a response today.
This type of report would require an automatic response by the government and to be tabled prior to the estimates being debated. So perhaps we could leave it at that point, where we have the two sides. I would love to be able to bring it forward to a vote, but I understand the constitutionality of it.
.1035
The Chair: I don't see a way around it.
Mr. Williams: Not at the moment, except perhaps on a supply day.
The Chair: Harold.
Mr. Culbert: Madam Chair, if it's brought up and discussed at this committee level would that limit the opportunity for any opposition member to bring an amendment forward that would be similar?
The Chair: It wouldn't, but again, if there was no royal recommendation from the government, a motion to increase spending in any area would be out of order. A motion to reduce spending would not be. But I think certainly a committee report, well documented, is tremendous fodder for debate.
Mr. Culbert: Exactly. So from the perspective of the committee report, if an opposition party or member wished to bring forth an amendment based on the criteria the committee was using, I guess the question is, would it still be their option to do so? Or because the committee has made that recommendation, would this in some way limit them from doing that?
The Chair: No. It's not like legislation where - and I think this is what you're talking about - when a committee has discussed an amendment and rejected it, you can't then move that same amendment in the House.
Mr. Culbert: Exactly.
The Chair: That wouldn't apply to this, no. The opposition, or any member of Parliament, would not be restricted from raising the same issue in the House.
Mr. Williams: A point that Brian, our researcher, can perhaps investigate is that if the government responds in the negative - i.e., they will not accept the recommendation of the committee - a standing order be created to designate a supply day immediately before the vote on the estimates that any issues the government don't agree to would automatically be the business of that supply day.
The Chair: I'm sorry - you want me interfering with the right of the opposition to decide what's dealt with on an opposition day?
Mr. Williams: Well, grant a supply day -
The Chair: Take that one up with your caucus.
Mr. Williams: - where these things could be brought forward.
The Chair: Bring it up any time you want. I would. If I had a good committee report, I'd use it in opposition.
Mr. Williams: The point I'm making, Madam Chair, is that there's a small window of time between when we know the government's response and the actual vote on the estimates. There's a very small window. The government may wait until two or three days before the estimates are to be voted upon before they respond to a committee's recommendation. At that point in time we have to vote on the estimates, we don't have the royal recommendation and the whole process has fallen away.
The Chair: The whole process is that the opposition doesn't want to use its supply days to debate supply. That's the whole issue.
Mr. Williams: That is supply, Madam Chair.
The Chair: I thought I heard you suggesting that we specify that a particular supply day be used only to debate a committee report.
Mr. Williams: No. I'm saying that a supply day be available in that narrow window between the time the government has to report back on committee recommendations and the vote on the estimates. If they deny a committee's desire to reallocate, then the opposition may have the opportunity to use the supply day to debate that particular issue.
The Chair: Which opposition party?
Mr. Williams: I didn't say which. It may be the Liberal Party.
The point I'm trying to make, Madam Chair, is that it brings the issue to a finality.
.1040
The Chair: So you're suggesting two things here.
Brian.
Mr. O'Neal: First, I remind subcommittee members that there had been an earlier decision not to make any firm recommendations regarding the use of supply days, then to leave that option of how best to use those days in the hands of the opposition.
Perhaps what Mr. Williams is talking about is timing - that is, if the government were to supply its response within a reasonable amount of time then it could be at the opposition's discretion to make that response the subject of debate.
I'd like to get some firm instruction from the subcommittee about how to redraft that last recommendation. I was going to suggest that it read in the following way: ``That when Governments reject a committee's proposal that funds be reallocated, they table'' - and this takes out the word ``state'' - ``the reasons for the refusal''.
I would also remove the words ``in the House'', because I think in some cases these responses would stand referred to the committee making the reallocation.
Mr. Williams: But it would still be tabled in the House.
Mr. O'Neal: Yes, it would still be tabled in the House.
The Chair: Let's keep that in, then, to make it absolutely clear that they're responsible to the House of Commons for the reasons for refusal.
Mr. O'Neal: Where it reads, ``before the estimate in question is voted on'', you might want to specify time. You might want to say, ``at least one week''. Would that give people enough time?
The Chair: Three weeks after the committee tables its report?
Mr. Pagtakhan: Would we even know at all times when the estimate is to be voted on?
Mr. Williams: Normally, the estimates are tabled before the House rises in June, but last year the government introduced an amendment to bring it early in September. So the government has the capacity to bypass the Standing Orders, as they did last year.
Mr. Pagtakhan: But whatever it is, since it has the ability to define the date for the vote, which it alone knows, according to your intervention, then it ought to follow that one date before whatever is that requirement. It's a definable period.
I am still worried about the sequence of dates of the calendar year. The tabling of a report always, it seems to me, would involve a series of costs, and time. The department has an initial proposal. There is a reallocation with supportable evidence. If the two are in contrast, it may well be that if there is in fact no agreement to the reallocation, it is because the government of the day believes the regional appropriation and rationale for them still stand.
So a tabling of a report rejecting the supportable evidence would be an additional bureaucratic directive saying, oh, that is not reasonable evidence or what have you. All it claims is that we believe our regional rationale for our regional figures stand. So I do not see any more any basis for another tabling of a report.
That it must be stated in the House, and be recorded in the House during debate, to me will serve the very essence of what we would like to hear. So I am not yet persuaded of the need for another report.
The Chair: One reason I support it is the fact that the estimates report of a committee is the only committee report that government doesn't have to respond to. If we want parliamentarians and committees to take the estimates more seriously, one way of doing that is to make sure the government has to respond to the hard work they do.
Mr. Pagtakhan: I can see that, Madam Chair, but a one-statement response that we believe our regional rationale for our regional figures should stand, therefore we will not allow reallocation...? I mean, to me that would be an exercise in futility in terms of meaningful debate. I would rather it be held accountable to state its reasons, but....
.1045
The Chair: I think if the government's own members on a committee have agreed with a proposal to reallocate, the government would be hard put to give it a superficial response. It's easier to do that verbally than in writing.
Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I think we're coming to the agreement, Madam Chair, that the government should table a response seven days, say, prior to the vote on the estimates. I agree that this now gives us the two sides of the argument if the government is not going to recognize the conclusions of the committee. Then I would like to think about the idea of just amending the estimates on the supply days, that there be one supply day within one week prior to the vote on the estimates. That's all. Should Parliament wish to be seized with the issue that the government has rejected a proposal of the committee, then they may do so.
The Chair: That sounds reasonable to me. In fact, we might accomplish the two things by suggesting that the government table its response 48 hours before the last opposition day in that supply period. That would force the government to ensure that there is an opposition day in the last week before supply is likely to be dealt with. That might work best rather than saying a certain number of days.
Mr. Williams: That's fine.
Mr. O'Neal: Madam Chair, it might require an amendment to Standing Order 109, which reads:
- Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the
government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto.
Mr. Williams: You will have to amend the Standing Order designating this type of a report by committee as a special one requiring a special deadline for the government's response. I have agreed - I hope the others will agree - that we need a change to the Standing Orders regarding the allocation of supply days to ensure that one supply date does show up after the tabling of responses but before the vote on supply.
The Chair: I think it almost always does, but it would be a good way of ensuring that it does, yes.
Harold.
Mr. Culbert: Madam Chair, I guess I'd want to be assured that this process is for accountability - I think it is, from what I understand this subcommittee is going through here - and not particularly for criticism of government, no matter what the government might be. I would want to be assured that if this committee, or any committee, were to make a recommendation for a reallocation of funds, assuming it is the government members on that committee supporting that - obviously we'd have to support it - it would go forward and indeed be listened to.
Having said that, put yourself in a position of minister or departmental official looking at it coming through, knowing information that perhaps was not privy to the committee, or for one reason or another the committee of the day didn't pursue. I would think that I, as minister, or my officials, would want the opportunity to go back before the committee to explain the reasons for turning that down.
In the majority of cases I would think it would be accepted, but in those cases where it was turned down, if I were a good minister I'd want to come before the committee, or have my officials come before the committee, to say that perhaps the committee in its wisdom didn't realize this or that aspect, to bring forward whether this is really what they want to do, and to give the reasons for turning it down.
So I would hope that option would be there for a minister or officials of a particular department to come back before the committee, or to request an opportunity to come before the committee, to explain the rationale. Indeed, I see that the committee may well agree with the minister or the officials if the committee is provided with additional information they may not have been privy to at the time. That would be my concern.
.1050
The Chair: I think we should perhaps incorporate some of that in the text in the discussion leading up to the recommendation. I think the requirement to have the committee support its recommendations.... When committees are dealing with estimates, officials from the department are always there. It would make it quite clear to the committee chair if they had information to present.
I don't know of a committee that looks at the estimates without inviting the minister before it. That's just part of the normal routine.
Mr. Williams: Madam Chair, if the response is negative by the government I don't think a committee would ever refuse to hear from a minister who wanted to explain his position.
The Chair: Right.
Mr. Culbert: That should be understood, I think. That's the only thing I was pointing out - the minister and/or officials.
Mr. Pagtakhan: On that point, though - this is almost reconciling what John had said earlier - the dialogue must be more formalized, in a sense, before. So is that after a vote on the reallocation that's taking place at the committee level or is that at the semi-final vote of that proposal? In other words, if a vote had been taken already and the minister did come back to the committee, if that were to be pursued, would the committee then have the authority within the Standing Orders to change back its recommendation for a proposal for reallocation? At what stage is it?
In other words, it is one thing to hear the minister say this is the evidence, and the committee in its wisdom then say, well, yes, we understand now.
The Chair: Come on, Rey. You've been around here for eight years. Can you imagine a committee bringing forward a recommendation like that without having had consultations with the minister beforehand?
Mr. Pagtakhan: No. Sometimes, though, the availability of the minister before committee -
The Chair: That's precisely why we didn't shorten the time period for tabling a report like this. I think we could have Brian reflect the importance of the committee seeking the views of the department and the minister when it's considering a reallocation. Without making it a recommendation, I think we can certainly have a discussion on it. I think it's an important point.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Let's assume, then, that a meeting and dialogue happened between the minister and the committee after its tentative final draft on a proposal for recommendation. The committee then in its wisdom decided to proceed despite the presentation by the minister with a particular reallocation proposal. Then we have one special extra day set aside. Is that one special day set aside for the opposition?
The Chair: No, it would be normal opposition day. It would just be asking the government to ensure that one opposition day is set aside in that final week before the vote comes.
Mr. Pagtakhan: The point is, why should it then be opposition day when in fact that recommendation only became possible?
The Chair: We're not saying it has to be used for that. We're just saying the opposition should have that option.
Mr. Pagtakhan: But by and large it will be an opposition day.
The Chair: There'd be one opposition day in the last week of that period of supply.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Extra.
The Chair: No, not an extra one, just one of the regular opposition days.
Mr. Pagtakhan: But I'm raising the issue because a proposal for reallocation to proceed and to be able to be tabled in the House has to be by a majority decision of the committee.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Pagtakhan: By definition, this means -
The Chair: It's not an opposition motion.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Exactly.
Mr. Williams: If I may interject, Madam Chair -
The Chair: Look, we have to go in one minute.
Mr. Williams: - if the recommendation of the whole committee is rejected by the government, then the opposition may desire to make it their business to bring it forth.
The Chair: That's right. That's what opposition days are for.
I would like to ask you, finally, to think about how, if we're going to have an estimates committee, we make part of its mandate to review how effectively this ability to reallocate has served Parliament, and do that on an annual basis.
The meeting is adjourned.