Government Operations Committee on April 2nd, 2012

[John Williams]

I think you change the culture by changing the focus of the committee. Change the focus of the committee to evaluating programs, rather than looking at the estimates that have to go through the House by June—confidence applies, the government is standing absolutely firm, you beat your head, and nothing moves. If you change that to looking at programs and the efficiency and effectiveness of those programs going on for three or five years, it's not that dissimilar to what Mr. Marleau was talking about with the five-year plan.

As an example I'll use something that's in the debate right now—the retirement age and the qualification for OAS that will come in over a number of years. There is no confidence attached to having an opinion on something that will be introduced down the road. So you can have your say on that and any other program you desire to comment on, given the fact that you have the program evaluators giving you the technical details.

It's all political today because you have no details, so you take political swipes at the minister, who takes a political swipe back, and nothing changes. But if you are discussing intellectually some detail of a program that's maybe not as well focused as it could be or should be, or not as well managed as it could be, you have something intelligent to contribute.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Okay. Thank you.

I don't know if you were here at the very beginning of Mr. Marleau's testimony, but he shared with us that he wanted to start by debunking some myths. If we agree with his suggestion that we do have enough information, that it is relevant to the work we do as parliamentarians, and that the timing of the introduction of the mains and the budget isn't an issue—and you've suggested we have a wide-ranging mandate—what are some of the first one or two steps we can take as a committee?

Out of the report that was tabled when you were on the subcommittee, this committee was formed. So what are the one or two first steps we could take as a committee?

[John Williams]

I would say step back from this hard political position on the estimates of this year and decide, as a committee, that you're going to review some programs over the next three to five years—not that dissimilar to what Mr. Marleau was saying.

You'll find that this report, which was tabled in 1997, talked about program evaluation. What is a program designed to do for society anyway? Is it doing what it's supposed to do? Is it doing it effectively and being well managed? Is there a better way to achieve the same results?

When you have the answers to those four questions, those answers become a reasoned, intellectual examination of programs that are ongoing. I'm sure the government would welcome that, because we are in a period of fiscal austerity, and trying to ensure that government is focused and well managed. They would surely welcome a report from Parliament saying that some programs can be adjusted, or maybe even eliminated, improved, expanded, or whatever. Your opinion matters.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You only had about 10 seconds left anyway, Kelly, so thank you.

Denis Blanchette, you have five minutes.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank Mr. Williams. I am pleased to meet one of the spiritual fathers of this committee. It is a pleasure.

You may be able to shed some light on certain issues. Most of your recommendations have not been adopted. That includes the recommendations contained in the 2003 study. I am convinced that, if you have been faithfully following all our work, you are under the impression that we have been repeating ourselves, as if something was not understood.

What do you think we can do to avoid a repetition of what happened in 1998 and 2003, and to ensure that this work truly helps change or improve things?

[John Williams]

I would start, Mr. Chairman, by having an in camera meeting of the members to look at your standing order mandate.

It is broad. It is wide-ranging. It covers all parts of government. You need to decide how you're going to examine government spending beyond just the estimates that are tabled at the beginning of March, which have to be voted on and confidence is attached.

You should move away from there. Don't leave it behind, but don't make it your primary focus. Consider how the estimates committee could look at government spending, loan guarantees, tax expenditures. By virtue of the fact that tax expenditures are deducted from people's income tax means there's no revenue, no expenditure, no program. There's nothing. There's nothing that comes before Parliament on tax expenditures that gives you information. Yet, they can be huge public policies—RRSP contributions being one of the major tax deductions and tax expenditures that doesn't show up anywhere.

These are the things you can look at, and then you can table a report in the House asking the government to provide evaluations of this magnitude that give you detailed managerial information on how this program is doing, and then go forward from there. This is where I think you can make the greatest impact and influence government spending down the road.

Now if you take a look at the 52 recommendations, program evaluation is a big one. Reallocation within a department of up to 5% gives you the potential tool to say, “not there, but there”, without invoking confidence that the government would agree.

That's provided you put forth reasonable rational reasons for your proposal. The government would then have to respond. It would have to accept or not accept, and provide its reasons for doing so. That allows a reasoned and intelligent debate in the House.

When you have that kind of attitude, it reduces the partisanship and makes it much more meaningful. You represent the wishes of your constituents rather than just throwing political barbs across the table, and therefore they have more confidence in the work you do.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Like the previous witness, you are talking about reducing partisanship. In fact, we have been breaking all kinds of records in that area. Before I was elected, I was told that parliamentarism was based on people's ability to agree, but it is now more about people's inability to agree.

I want to talk about something else—the tools available to us. If we had all the details we needed, they would amount to something huge. However, I wonder what kind of balance there could be between the details and the big picture. The previous witness said that the parliamentary budget officer is basically a tool that could help us in our work. What do you think?

[John Williams]

I think the PBO, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, can assist committees such as this one immensely. I agree with Mr. Marleau that he should be an officer of Parliament. I also think that making him an officer of Parliament means that he does not get stuck in limbo, wondering what he can or cannot do, or what authority he does or does not have, and becoming his own little soapbox rather than a support mechanism for the committee. That, I think, is important.

The Auditor General supports the public accounts committee. His report is tabled and referred to the committee. You have this close relationship between documentary support by the Auditor General and the committee's capacity to make inquiries of witnesses. The Parliamentary Budget Officer should be doing the same, giving you the report so that you, as the members of Parliament, can ask the important questions. Because the Parliamentary Budget Officer really doesn't have a reporting mechanism right now, he has his own press conferences and speaks in public.

The Auditor General doesn't do that. I would think you should be looking at it along the same lines for the Parliamentary Budget Officer—an officer of Parliament, reporting here, giving his reports to you, and you ask the questions.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Blanchette.

If I might just say, when people talk about the good old days when parliamentary committees used to function well, they're usually talking about the public accounts committee as chaired by Mr. Williams. It was the golden Camelot era of how Parliament used to work.

[John Williams]

Not Camelot, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Not quite Camelot.

[John Williams]

It was partisan then, too.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Ron Cannan.

You have five minutes, Ron.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Talking about the good old days, it's good to have Mr. Williams back.

Welcome to the committee, and thank you for sharing your wisdom and insight. It's like déjà vu, you look at 1998, 2003, and just go along. You take these reports, and you retire as an MP and travel around the world, rebrand them, and sell them to other countries.

I see you were in Australia, and I was looking through your report, and it mentions the document you produced on parliamentary accountability in Victoria in 2007. Our committee is going to have a former clerk of the Australian Senate by the name of Harry Evans before our committee next Wednesday, and we just wondered if there are any best practices by the Australian provincial or federal government that you think we should consider in this committee.

[John Williams]

I'm not an expert on the Australian system, but there is always the need and opportunity for review and evolution. Nobody, no particular Parliament, has it right. Our culture is different. Parliament is partisan, that is why we're here. We're here to debate, and hopefully come to an agreement, and the majority vote is deemed to be an agreement.

We can be vociferous in our opposition, but we come to an agreement without pulling out the guns, and that's a wonderful thing in this country. We don't have to worry about these kinds of things—the ways they resolve it in other countries. As long as we can do that, and do it with an intellectual commitment to serving our constituents.... The partisanship is when you don't have the intellectual support underpinning your debate, and that is why I think it's important for the committee to look at the program evaluation to ensure that you have substance by which you can debate.

Anybody can throw political barbs across the table, and one-liners abound, but they don't do anything. If you really want to make a contribution to the way this government, any government, manages the country, Parliament needs documentary analysis before it to make that informed opinion.

The government governs subject to the approval of Parliament. Parliament does not govern. It holds the government accountable for the way it governs in the Westminster model, and that is why you need to have the information with program X and program Y and ask whether it being done to serve the people well.

When you have that information and ask these questions, and you table your report and say that we as a Parliament report to the government that we feel that you should be changing your focus on this particular program, or that it's not being managed effectively, or that it can be done in a better way, I'm sure the government would welcome that.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you.

Coming back to the 1998 report, and it's 14 years later, and there's the experience you have, and having travelled.... One of the recommendations was for the standing committee to be able to reallocate funds during their consideration of the estimates. I was wondering, do you think that recommendation still holds true today?

[John Williams]

Absolutely, for two reasons.

First, Parliament has an opinion. Of course, you're here because you have an opinion. You're here because you represent the opinions of the citizens who elected you. There is no guarantee that the government is all knowing, and has everything right.

You're entitled to express your opinion. If you say, instead of spending all the money over there, why don't you put some of it over here, if that is your opinion and it's reasoned and rational, the government might listen to you.

At the same time, also, by knowing that you have this authority to move money, or to recommend that money be moved—not be spent here but spent there—it gives you the incentive to look at the information knowing that your contribution can count.

If you know that your contribution can't count, if you're just going to get batted away, then, as I say, sometimes if people have no responsibility they act irresponsibly. That feeds the partisanship. But if you have this authority and this capacity, there is no doubt in my mind that you will accept it, and deal with it professionally, and make a contribution to the country.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You have 30 seconds or so, Ron.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I have a question to just follow up on what my wise colleague, Mr. Braid, asked Mr. Marleau regarding a special appropriations committee. Maybe you could elaborate your thoughts on having a designated committee.

[John Williams]

The appropriations committee and the estimates committee are not that significantly different. You'll see in the 52 recommendations that we talked about the longevity, and improving the longevity, of the estimates committee, trying to build internal expertise among the MPs who sit on the committee. That was not in the same detail as Mr. Marleau gave, but was referenced in these committee recommendations. I fully support the professionalism of committee members by staying on the one committee for a number of years.

I was on the public accounts committee for 15 years, and I enjoyed every minute of it. I think that developing a capacity to understand and make a contribution will only happen if you stick with a committee for some time.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That's it, Ron. Thank you very much.

For the Liberals, we have John McCallum. You have five minutes, John.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you. Welcome back, Mr. Williams.

I like your section where you talk about evaluating the various programs in a cyclical way. Who would do the evaluations? If the people who run the programs evaluate their own programs, then you might get rather positive fluff—I think that was your expression—coming back at you.