Government Operations Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Whoa.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Opposed? Are you opposed to the amendment?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Yes we're opposed to the amendment. And now that the amendment is done, there is debate on the main motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

That's what I'm saying, that now we're on the main motion, as amended.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Now we have debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Yes.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

And who has the floor? Do I have the floor, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Would you like to have the floor? Then yes.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

All right.

With regard to the main motion, we are obviously more than prepared to have people from every one of the affected departments that the opposition describes come before the committee to discuss these cuts. We are more than glad to have them here, obviously.

The Treasury Board president, Mr. Baird, was here discussing expenditure review and the $1 billion in cuts, and quite proudly. In fact, the opposition ran out of time for questions. If the opposition has more questions, we'd be more than glad to have ministers come before the committee. Minister Fortier has agreed to be here in the near future.

In our parliamentary process, one of the reasons why we don't have officials come ahead of ministers is generally because officials implement the policy, but the government sets the policy. When John Baird comes here, if there afterwards are supplementary questions about how the expenditure review is being enforced by the Treasury Board, it is entirely perfect for any member of this committee and any member of the House to ask those officials how the expenditure reviews are being implemented. But if the question is policy--in other words, why was this cut and not that--then you ask the minister first, because it's the minister who made the call.

So the minister comes first, and often with their officials. If a committee wants to know why the court challenges program was cut, you ask the minister. If you want to ask how the cut is being implemented, you ask the officials. The officials are often there with the minister, or can come after the minister.

Within our parliamentary process, having deputy ministers and people from regional offices come before the committee gets it exactly backwards. The purpose of committees is to scrutinize government decisions, not to scrutinize bureaucrats who are putting in place the decisions made by cabinet and by the ministers responsible.

Every minister that this committee has asked to come before it has agreed to come. We have a set schedule here.

Frankly, this motion is redundant. It gets parliamentary procedure precisely backwards, in that ministers, not officials, are responsible for the decisions. Therefore, we will be voting against this motion.

But we are entirely prepared to defend our cuts. As a matter of fact, we're quite proud of our budget. We were very pleased to see it pass the House of Commons with the full support of all the opposition parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Madam Nash, I have you down on the list, but you did speak on your motion. Or did you want to speak to this one?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Regarding this motion, I just want to get on the record that we did have Minister Baird here, and I felt that the answers we received were not adequate. They did not answer the questions that we posed. We need to really understand what specifically is going to be cut, and we need to know what the impact is going to be for Canadians. We didn't get that specific information from the minister, and I believe Canadians expect us to do our job and to find out this information.

I know I've had a huge concern in my community about these cuts. I've had many people contact me about all areas of the cuts. We need to get more specific information, and I believe it is the senior government staff who can give that to us, so I intend to vote in favour of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Alghabra, go ahead, please.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I'm really bewildered. We have so far been given three different answers as to why the officials are unable to make it. One answer is that they're busy. The second answer is that the minister has already answered the question. The third answer, which we've just heard now, is that the officials are not really supposed to answer policy questions; the minister is supposed to.

I don't want to waste time trying to figure out which one is the right answer, but it's really quite confusing, and it really shows that they're not even sure how to defend that excuse.

Second, I'm even more bewildered by the reluctance of the government to allow officials to come and speak to us about those cuts. They're very proud of these cuts, and if the questions we're going to ask are about policy, the officials can tell us, “those are policy questions; we can't answer those questions”, but we need to understand a lot more beyond policy. We need to understand what impact those cuts will have, how they came about, when they came about, and who is going to be affected. Those are operational questions. The minister could not answer them. We want officials to come and answer these questions.

Earlier my colleague Ms. Thibault and I were talking about the irony that when the Conservatives were in opposition they would have jumped all over this, and now that they claim to be championing accountability, they're shutting down officials from coming to this committee. It's complete disrespect for this committee, for Parliament. If the committee asks the officials inappropriate questions, the officials can easily say, “this is not within our mandate; we can't answer these questions”.

But the committee has a role to play on behalf of Parliament and Canadians to examine these cuts, to talk about the operational side of these cuts, and to speak directly to officials, especially and particularly given the attitude that we saw from the President of the Treasury Board when he was here last week, when we didn't get a lot of these operational questions answered.

So I think, first, this motion is appropriate. I want to express how outraged I am and the rest of my colleagues are about the response they've given us. And I really hope they come and appear before this committee and answer these questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Kramp, go ahead, please.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't want to take up a fair bit of this committee's time, but I plan on doing it right now. I plan on doing so, although I didn't think this would have to be stated.

Naturally, knowing where we're going with this, I thought we should take a look at some longstanding traditions, some directives, and some methods by which this House operates, methods our chair alone, as a senior minister of the crown, has operated on for years, and the relationship between the public service and the PCO and the responsibilities they all have.

Madam Chair, you have abided by the responsibilities, the history, and the tradition that I'm basically going to be reading here. This is a directive that has been followed through on for ages in the relationship between the public service and the PCO, and their responsibility.

I suggest this would be good reading for every member of this committee to take a look at. It's the notes on the responsibilities of public servants in relation to parliamentary committees. It's good reading for all of us.

Mr. Alghabra, I mention this. You and I are relatively new members in comparison to a number of the senior members in the House. It opened my eyes a little bit. Quite honestly, we're learning something every day.

When I read through this, I realized that, my goodness, I really wasn't aware of it, and so I'm bringing this to our attention.

I'm going to read a little bit. I won't read the whole thing, and I'm certainly not going to paraphrase or cherry-pick, but these are some comments that I think we should all be mindful of. It starts off:

The following notes have been prepared for the guidance of officials appearing before Parliamentary committees. They set out the constitutional principles that underlie relationships among Ministers, officials and Parliament. In our system of government, the powers of the Crown are exercised by Ministers—

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Can I interrupt you for a second?

What document is it? Can you name the document and where it's from?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

The document comes from the Privy Council Office, December 1990, and it has been carried on, basically, in principle, by successive governments in the relationships they have between the House of Commons, and the Senate, and the public service, and the operation of committees.

It goes on. It says:

Responsible Government:

In our system of government, the powers of the Crown are exercised by Ministers who are in turn answerable to Parliament.

And they are answerable directly to Parliament

Ministers are individually and collectively responsible to the House of Commons for the policies, programs and activities of the Government. They are supported in the exercise of their responsibilities by the public service, whose duty it is to give loyal, professional and non-partisan support to the Government of the day. It is the responsibility of individual public servants to provide advice and information to Ministers, to carry out faithfully the directions given by Ministers, and in so doing to serve the people of Canada. Public servants are accountable to their superiors and ultimately to their Minister for the proper and competent execution of their duties.

Ours is a system of responsible government because the Government must retain the confidence of the House of Commons and because Ministers are responsible to the House for everything that is done under their authority. They are answerable to Parliament and its committees. It is Ministers who decide policy.

As was just stated by my honourable colleague Mr. Moore, it is ministers who will make policy and who are responsible for the administration of it, and they must defend it ultimately before the House, before the committees, and before the people of Canada.

“Accordingly, responsibility for providing information to Parliament and its committees rests with Ministers”--it states that exactly. I'll get to it more in response, but “Officials have no constitutional responsibility to Parliament, nor do they share in that of Ministers”. And this gets right to the point that they definitely should appear before this committee: “They do, however, support Ministers in their relationship with Parliament and to this extent they may be said to assist in the answerability of Ministers to Parliament. ”

So they should be here with ministers to answer questions.

Now, we were talking in this motion about subpoenaing the witnesses; you want to summon the witnesses here. Well,

Under the Standing Orders, committees of the House and Senate are entitled to exercise all or any of the powers delegated to them. These include the right not only to invite witnesses to appear but to summon them to appear, if necessary. They include the right to examine witnesses on oath.

We agree. But I caution you, on the summoning of public servants:

The House and Senate, and their committees, have the power to call (or summon ) whomever they see fit and thus could in theory call officials even against the wishes of a Minister. (However, only the House and Senate themselves can compel witnesses to attend.)

This is very important, this statement here:

Committees, mindful of the principle of ministerial responsibility, usually solicit the testimony of officials by informal invitation rather than by formal summons and do not generally insist on the appearance of particular individuals, leaving it instead to Ministers to determine which officials will speak on their behalf at committee. In the same vein, it is for Ministers to decide which questions they will answer and which questions properly can be answered by officials.

Now, Madam Chair, you have operated as a senior minister under these guidelines of operations, and this has been the standard operation from this House and for committees to follow. All of a sudden, now we want to deviate from that. I'm suggesting....

Madam Chair, we have ministers and senior public servants appearing before not just this committee, but every committee in most cases. They can't just go here, go here, go here, go there; they also have responsibilities and timelines. Our ministers have never refused to appear before this committee. They have willingly appeared before this committee and they are willing to come back before this committee, the ministers and their officials.

So might I suggest--

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

A point of order?

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Madam Chair, a point of order.

I just want to clarify that this is relevant to the motion we're discussing. The motion clearly outlines that we are referring to government officials and not to ministers, so I'd request my colleague to stay on the subject matter and specifically talk about government officials. He's talking about ministers, and that's not something that is part of the motion.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

That's fine. I deviated a little bit. I'll go back to my point. I will accept that point of order, Madam Chair.

I'll return to my point, Madam Chair:

Witnesses testifying before Parliamentary committees are expected to answer all questions put by the committee. However, additional considerations come to bear in the case of public servants, since they appear on behalf of the Minister.

They appear on behalf of the minister. I want to make that clear.

Public servants have a general duty, as well as a specific legal responsibility, to hold in confidence the information that may come into their possession in the course of their duties. This duty and responsibility are exercised within the framework of the law, including in particular any obligations of the Government to disclose information to the public under the Access to Information Act or to protect it from disclosure under other statutes such as the Privacy Act.

These are the directives of your House. They have been honoured by successive governments over time.

I could go on and on; I could go into the swearing, but everyone can read here.

I would suggest that you take a serious look at this document. In closing, what I will do is cut out a number of pages and just simply go to a section called “Guidance to Officials”, about who will appear before this committee.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

On a point of order, is this document in both official languages?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Yes. That is your own copy, but we have some here. We have it in both official languages here.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

It is good reading.

Next is “Guidance to Officials”. Let us bear this section in mind when we have people here. We have no objection to senior public servants coming in with ministers; I think that is a full and fair response to what you're requesting.

Officials may give explanations in response to questions having to do with complex policy matters, but they do not defend policy or engage in debate as to policy alternatives.

It is exactly the point my honourable colleague Mr. Moore made here earlier. The government has made the policy. If you have a problem with that policy and/or an objection to that policy and/or want clarification of that policy, that is why we have had ministers here and that is why it is your choice to have a minister back, with senior public servants if you wish.

We willingly stated that we would do that, but might I suggest in closing that there is to me a very obvious conclusion? It is aptly titled; it is in the document that is available to all of us here and it has been a guideline for all ministerial staff, all committees, to follow.

The relationship between the Government and Parliament expresses the fundamental principle of responsible government, namely that those who exercise constitutional authority must be part of and responsible to Parliament. It is Ministers, and not officials, who exercise the constitutional authority of the Crown; and it is Ministers, and not their officials, who are responsible to Parliament. Officials are accountable to Ministers. They may assist Ministers by answering directly before Parliamentary committees; but there should be no doubt that Ministers, and not officials, are constitutionally responsible for the exercise of the power of the state. Thus the cornerstone of responsible government, as manifested in ministerial responsibility, ensures the supremacy of Parliament.

I might suggest to all of my honourable colleagues that they take a very serious look at this document, which has been standard operating procedure for decades for this Parliament, for committees, and for responsible members.

We are talking about bringing in the public works minister. That is wonderful. On the record, I hope my honourable colleague recognizes that the spending in that area accounts for maybe 5% to 7% of the entire savings, or cuts, as someone would classify them. It is important, yes. I don't wish to demean the 5% to 7%, because it means a lot to a lot of people, but let's try to keep everything in perspective while we're going through here. Let's not just be using this committee to score political points. Let's get solid answers.

Madame Thibault has raised some very good points. She wants some solid answers on this. I am suggesting that we bring in the officials with the ministers and ask those questions.

We had senior ministers here. We had Mr. Moloney as a senior public servant with Minister Baird, and the meeting was curtailed early, because there were no more questions.

That is a whole different kettle of fish, but I read it into the record, Madam Chair, because I think it is responsible that we act in a manner that is consistent with past history and tradition and not go out and embarrass the purpose of this committee.

We are very close to moving beyond the normal realm of responsible activities. I think we all share a common goal. You want accountability; you want answers. So do we. We've made decisions. If you don't like them and want to discuss them, or if you're in favour of them, then that's fine; that's fair ball. Let's get to the bottom of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Bonin.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Chair, the committee can invite who they want. They can invite the janitor. We would probably get better answers than we got last week from the minister. There is no doubt about that. The fact that we can summon the officials, if they don't come, is proof that we can invite them. There is no doubt about that.

I've been here 13 years tomorrow—as well as Mr. Mark—and never, never had officials refuse to come to a committee, never. They wouldn't have dared. Everything that was read has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

I take serious offence to Marie-Claude Tremblay, chief of parliamentary affairs, who is telling this committee: “The 2006-07 Main Estimates will be the subject of rigorous review at that time”--it's not up to her to decide that--“and all MPs will have the opportunity”--it's not up to her to decide that--“to join in the debate. MPs will therefore be able to discuss these issues with the Minister on two separate occasions.... I am sure they will use these opportunities to good effect and that the dialogue will be productive.”

I don't need an employee of the government telling this committee how to do our job, and I think this is insubordination. If I were chair of this committee, she would be invited to account for these remarks.

Now, the way it works, the committee invites the bureaucrats. For the first time that any of us know of, they refused. The committee summons. They refuse again, then the House deals with it. That's the way it works. We can call anybody we want. We can do anything we want, and the Speaker of the House will rule that the committee is master of its own affairs. That is the history of committee work on the Hill. Everything that was read has nothing to do with what we're doing here.

I think we should call the question very soon.