Financial Procedures / Supply

March 16, 1990

Debates, pp. 9381-3

On February 22, 1990, Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell) rose on a question of privilege to object to the Government's tabling of only 73 of the 87 Part III reports after having tabled all of Parts I and II of the Estimates for the year 1990-1991. Other Members also intervened on the matter.^[1] The Speaker took the matter under advisement.

Later in the course of the sitting, Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster­ Burnaby) rose on a question of privilege regarding the fact that information about certain programs had not been available during the in camera session preceding the tabling of the Main Estimates in the House.^[2]

Moments later, Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie) rose on a point of order to question the accuracy, and indeed the credibility, of the figures in Part III's Agriculture Canada report.^[3] Having looked into all three of these matters, the Speaker returned to the House on March 16, 1990 to deliver his decision which is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: Before commencing debate, I would like to give a ruling which I undertook to do some days ago.

During the course of the sitting, Thursday, February 22, 1990, three different Members raised questions relating to the Estimates and the traditional lock-up preceding their presentation by the President of the Treasury Board.

The first question was raised as a point of order by the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell who noted that while 87 Parts I and II of the Estimates were being tabled, only 73 Part III reports were available and complained about the 14 missing Part III reports.

Later in the day, the honourable Member for New Westminster—Burnaby rose on a question of privilege to object to a Jack of information respecting certain specific programs during the lock-up allowing Members an advanced look at the Estimates prior to their tabling.

The third complaint came from the honourable Member for Mackenzie who challenged the accuracy or credibility of data printed in the Part III report for Agriculture Canada.

I have had an opportunity to consider all three cases and am now prepared to rule on them.

With respect to the first matter, the honourable Member for Glengarry­ Prescott-Russell argued that the Government breached a rule of the House in not tabling all of the Part III reports at the time Parts I and II of the Estimates were presented. The honourable Member recalled that in 1982 the House had concurred in the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which supported major reforms to the preparation of the Estimates. The honourable Member further argued that in not presenting all of the Part III reports, the Government had failed to respect the expressed wish of the House with regard to Estimates.

The honourable Member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan (Mr. Iain Angus) intervened to support the complaint made by the Member for Glengarry­ Prescott-Russell. On behalf of the Government, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Albert Cooper) explained two points. He maintained that the Government had complied with the rules of the House, in that Part II of the Estimates, known as the Main Estimates, are all that are explicitly required to be tabled according to the Standing Orders, and that the Main Estimates were presented in advance of the March 1 deadline.

Moreover, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that the Government fully intended to provide the 14 missing Part III reports on or before March 12. This statement elicited an objection from the honourable Member for Windsor—Lake St. Clair (Mr. Howard McCurdy), who pointed out that the Standing Orders set March 1 as the date by which the Estimates are to be referred to the standing committees.

I want all Members to know that I have considered this issue very care fully. I have reviewed the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and statements made by the President of the Treasury Board when the present format of the Estimates was introduced over a span of years, beginning, I believe, in 1981.

I can understand the sense of frustration expressed by the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, but I must point out that technically, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is correct in claiming that the rules, that is the Standing Orders, require simply that the Main Estimates be referred to standing committees by March 1. In the present format of the Estimates, Part II constitutes the Main Estimates, the document that directly relates to the votes that will lead to an Appropriation Act to be adopted by the House usually no later than the end of June.

That said, however, I must also state that when the House concurred in the Twelfth Report of the Public Accounts Committee in 1982, the House endorsed the Committee's support for the new style of presenting the Estimates devised by the Government in response to a recommendation put forward by the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.

This new format makes up the complete Estimates and all three parts are necessary for the standing committees to do their work effectively. Part I provides an overview of the Government's spending plan while Part III gives details for the expenditure proposals and expectations of each department.

Part III, therefore, is necessary to the standing committees if they are to adequately understand the votes they must consider that are presented in Part II, the Main Estimates. In this particular case the frustration is all the greater because the 14 missing reports, I understand, constitute approximately 75 per cent of the Government 's proposed spending for the fiscal year 1990-91. Were these documents to remain unavailable, the work of the standing committees would be seriously handicapped.

However, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated at the time that the Government fully intended to present those documents on or before March 12. Indeed, they were tabled on March 5. There remains, I believe, a sufficient opportunity for the standing committees to do their work in the time they have available up to the end of May.

The second objection raised concerning the Estimates was brought up by the honourable Member for New Westminster—Burnaby who complained about the inadequate information she had received from Treasury Board officials during the lock-up prior to the presentation of the Estimates in the House Thursday, February 22.

The Member explained that she had asked specific questions about the impact of the budget on women's programs, multiculturalism, native affairs and programs assisting visible minorities. Despite the fact that officials told her that the information she sought would not be available for a week or so, the honourable Member learned from some women's groups of the effects of the Budget on their organizations shortly after returning to her office after the lock-up. This, she contended, proved that the information was available but that it had been withheld from Members of Parliament. In consequence, the honourable Member raised this issue because she felt it constituted a breach of privilege.

After having examined the question both in terms of privilege and in terms of contempt of the House, I cannot conclude that the question raised by the honourable Member meets the very narrow criteria of privilege, which concerns certain very specific rights deemed necessary for honourable Members to carry out their duties and assume their responsibilities.

The lock-up is provided by the Government in order to give Members information on the Estimates in advance of their presentation in the House. The fact that the Government has undertaken to provide the lock -up suggests, on the face of it anyway, that the Government understands the needs of Members to have this kind of information. At the same time, however, the lock-up is not a procedure of the House and there is no guarantee the Government will furnish absolutely all the information that might be requested.

Moreover, there was nothing in the honourable Member's presentations to suggest that Treasury Board officials sought wilfully to deprive her of the information. Such a situation, while it may indeed be a grievance, does not, in this context at least, constitute a question of privilege or contempt.

Finally, the honourable Member for Mackenzie raised a point of order concerning certain data presented in the Part III report prepared for the Department of Agriculture. Specifically, the honourable Member complained of the way the appropriation or possible appropriation is given for the Farm Credit Corporation listed as a non-budgetary item.

At the time I suggested to the honourable Member that I did not think the Chair could address this question as a point of order. I have subsequently had an opportunity to review this matter and have noted that the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts presented last October offered certain criticisms of the way the Department of Agriculture has presented some information in the Part III reports in previous years. As I originally suggested February 22, one avenue open to the honourable Member to obtain redress of his complaint is to raise it in the Standing Committee on Agriculture or in the Public Accounts Committee. It is not an issue which the Chair has the authority to resolve.

I thank all honourable Members who raised these important issues related to the Estimates process and all those who contributed to the discussion and assisted the Chair in the consideration of the matter. I certainly feel that while certain Members may indeed have a grievance in this area, it is not a question of privilege.

F0606-e

34-2

1990-03-16