Government Operations Committee on Oct. 26th, 2016

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

This is the 52nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

The first item on our agenda is a continuation of our discussion on the estimates process which Minister Brison briefed us on, on Monday of this week. As we discussed on Monday, the question raised primarily by the government is, what process needs to be followed if a standing order is to be changed? I assured the government and all committee members that I would give you a briefing, rather than bring somebody in from procedure and House affairs, as I was the parliamentary secretary to that committee for nine years and intimately involved in standing order changes.

A few things could be done.

Number one, the procedure and House affairs committee, which I'll refer to as PROC from here on in, is responsible for the Standing Orders. Primarily, they're under their jurisdiction. If any standing orders were to be changed, the change should come as a result of a report tabled in Parliament by PROC.

We can do a couple of different things. This committee could instruct me as chair to write to PROC saying that we wish them to deal with this, and if we have agreement on any changes to a standing order, we could put that in the instructions to PROC. They would then table it in Parliament. If the government sought unanimous consent and received it, the Clerk would be instructed to change the standing order immediately. If there was no unanimous consent, then the government would have to put a motion on the order paper to adopt the report from PROC. That would come back to the House for a three-hour debate and then a vote. If passed, the Clerk would change the standing order.

However, this committee could, to begin with, as an option, refer the entire question of changing the Standing Orders based on the minister's presentation to PROC, and they would deal with the entire situation: debate it, discuss it, probably invite the minister in, and deal with it at that level.

My only point, and I reiterate this and I said this at our last meeting, is it has been the custom that when any changes to the Standing Orders take place, unanimous consent has been sought, and on almost all occasions has been granted. Once again, I will refer to the last time we had any meaningful debate on changes to the Standing Orders.

I chaired an all-party committee on standing order changes, and frankly it was a suggestion that I made and was endorsed and accepted by all recognized parties that any changes we would recommend would have to be approved unanimously by all parties. There were a number of examples, which I don't have to give today, but I will if you ask, where various parties would bring a proposed change to our meeting on these proposed changes. The NDP, I recall, at one time had proposed one or two changes to the Standing Orders. One of the three parties said they didn't agree, end of discussion. Conversely, the Liberals on one or two occasions brought forward a standing order they would like to see changed, and one of the other two parties said they didn't agree, end of discussion.

I recall from our side, the government side at that time, I know I had been spoken to by—and I'm going to give you a specific example here because I want you to understand how I approach this, and I think it was the right approach. A number of our members suggested we make a change to the standing order that now talks about standing five members. We all know if there's a voice vote, and there are yeas and nays, someone has to stand five to force a recorded vote. I know this is public, and I'm going to have to choose my words carefully because I'm going over factual information. On a few occasions, the independents voted to stand five to block a unanimous adoption of a motion or an initiative by the government.

Some members asked—there were only seven of them—why we didn't change the Standing Orders to make it 10 rather than five, because back in the 1970s and 1980s when there were only 230 or 240 members, that's when you stood five. Now, because there are 300-and-some members, it would be easily defensible to say that we want to change the limit from five to 10 because there are more members. I wouldn't take that to the committee because I said, in my estimation, that looks as if the government is trying to use the Standing Orders for its own political gain.

That's simply not what the Standing Orders are all about. They are supposed to benefit all parliamentarians. They are our rules, our guidebook, and they are there for a reason. So they shouldn't be played with by any government, whether by a majority situation or not, to try to benefit politically. So, literally, I just refused to bring that to the table.

That committee worked very well. There wasn't a whole bunch of changes to the Standing Orders and, frankly, that's probably a good thing. But there were a few that we all agreed on, mainly housekeeping and housecleaning types of issues, and it worked very well.

I raise that here because Minister Brison is talking about a change to the Standing Orders. I'm not sure what the government's view on that is, but I can just tell you, historically, that's how things have worked here. There has to be unanimity.

It doesn't have to be that way. Clearly, if this committee or PROC wanted to bring this issue forward, even if there wasn't unanimity, the government, if it could force a vote, could almost force PROC to table a report in Parliament and it could enact changes that way. I just caution you that it's maybe a very slippery slope and you might want to consider before going down that road.

In any event, that's the procedure. That's what could happen.

Again, to recap, you could either refer the entire issue to PROC, let the minister deal with PROC directly, and it could go from there, or this committee could decide we want to discuss the issue and ultimately make a decision. If the decision was to refer this to PROC, then I would write the letter and it would deal with it. But that's the cleanest way.

Go ahead, Madam Ratansi.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

We had the minister before us. We had some discussions on Monday...I'm trying to figure what was the last meeting we had. I understood from people's acknowledgement that they found that if we aligned the two dates, it would be better, would be more transparent and would help us, as parliamentarians, understand if they give us enough time to study it.

Would it be advisable if we, as members of this committee, were to ask you, as the chair, to write to PROC? Do they have to study it, or do we move a motion here saying that we would like the chair of this committee to send a letter to PROC to amend or change the Standing Orders? What's the right way to do it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Well, as I've said, it's really up to the will of the committee how members wish to proceed. If this committee wants me to write to PROC referring this whole issue to it, I can certainly do that. If this committee wants to discuss the change and the relative benefits, if there are any, of such a change, this committee can do that.

With respect to your initial comments, my understanding—and we can ask for commentary from the rest of the committee—is that everyone on the committee thought that the better alignment was a good idea. There were, however, questions about changing the date in the Standing Orders to May 1. Mr. McCauley raised a couple of concerns, and I think there may be others. I think everyone is on the same page as to what the minister wants to do as an end result; it's just how to get there, and whether changing the date to May 1 is the proper way to do it or not.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

What were the dates that were being suggested? If May 1 is the budget or if there is a fixed budget and the fixed budget is probably May 1—I'm just speculating—then what would help the committee, because we would like to see unanimous consent. It's beneficial to all of us. We do not want the majority to rule, but we would like unanimous consent. I'd like to hear views as to what it is that would stop you from giving unanimous consent. I have no idea.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Yes, and we don't have the regular seven-minute, five-minute kind of rotation. We just have a speakers list, so everyone who wants to speak to that just raises their hand and I'll put them on the speakers list.

Mr. McCauley is first.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

To start with, on the referral—I mean I have nothing against our friends at PROC—I think this committee was going to study the estimates. It seems almost counterproductive to pass it off to them. Concerning the dates, as I brought up a couple of days ago with the minister—it wasn't Mr. Pagan, but the other person with him—our concerns are a cut in the time to study the estimates.

Right now we have three months to call ministers and study the estimates. If we go to May 1, that gives us 30 days. We're not sitting one week in May so it only gives us, effectively, 15 days to interrogate ministers, for lack of a better word—I mean bring ministers in, invite them. They are not always available, so that cuts down the time. As I mentioned before, we lose out on our ability to decide which two ministries or departments we're going to call for our committee of the whole, as well. To me, reducing the amount of time defeats the whole purpose of why we're here, which is to oversee spending, taxation, etc. Anything that reduces the amount of time is counterintuitive to what we're trying to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

Erin, did you have anything to say? I don't know if I saw your hand or not.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

No, sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Okay.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

To address the issues, number one, it is my understanding that the estimates process—I don't know where you got it from—and review will be ours. PROC only deals with changing the Standing Orders.

Number one, at the moment—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Referring to the decision on changing the Standing Orders.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Well, that's procedure and House affairs, and that's normal, I think.

My only concern is that, at the moment, the estimates make no sense when the budget comes. If we think that we are making some decisions, we're really not, because we are making decisions based on figures that don't make any sense, yet we assume that we know what we are talking about. The budget is where the actual expenditure comes, so if the main estimates and the budgets were to align, then we would have some reasonable way of seeing real expenditure, and then question the ministers accordingly.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

We believe in the alignment.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Yes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

We've all said we believe in the importance of aligning it 100%. We do not believe that reducing the scrutiny is a good answer.

As we suggested a couple of days ago, setting a fixed budget date in February would be preferable. It would allow enough time between the budget and the current estimates date. It's March 1. We could move it to March 31, as suggested by the OGGO report, which would allow us proper time, but reducing the amount of scrutiny and oversight is not the answer. We do not wish to get to a point where we only have 15 sitting days to scrutinize everything.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Is it making sense to any of you?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

If you want to weigh in, just raise your hand so we can put you on the speakers list.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I raised my hand a few minutes ago.

This proposal gives rise to a political context that marks a key turning point, one we cannot take lightly. As my colleague said, that is the view of Her Majesty's official opposition at this time.

The desire to align the main estimates and the government's budget is indeed commendable. We are noticing, however, that the approach has some flaws. For that reason, we have serious concerns, not about the intentions behind the proposal, which are entirely commendable, but about its potential consequences.

One of the cornerstones of our parliamentary system, rooted in the Westminster tradition and going back a thousand years, going back, in fact, to 1215 and the Magna Carta treaty—

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Did you say 1915?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

No, the Magna Carta dates back to 1215. Our system goes back to 1867, even before that, because united Canada had parliaments. It's important to hold the government accountable not just for election promises, but also for budget appropriation votes, which represent tens of thousands of dollars in spending.

Remember that every political party has the potential to wind up in the opposition at some point or another. We know that well, and it will probably happen to you in three years' time, if not later—heaven only knows. You should not consider what we are telling you today strictly through the government lens, but also through the lens of every parliamentary participant.

There is a reason Australia brought in the reform. Its supplementary estimates are now released the same day as the budget. That prevents a waste of two very important months by all parliamentarians, including elected members of the government party who are not in cabinet. I would point out that they, too, have a mandate to protect ministerial responsibility and to hold the government accountable for its actions and decisions, particularly in budget matters, the focus of our discussion today.

By moving forward with such a major reform of our parliamentary system, which is rooted in the Westminster tradition, in other words, by allowing the supplementary estimates to be tabled on May 1, we would lose nearly two months that could have been spent conducting studies and holding ministers to account before our committees and the committee of the whole in the House of Commons, as well as during question period. With this reform, we would lose two months that could have been used to study and scrutinize the numbers, time that even ministers could have used to prepare their responses.

I was taken aback when the minister was here and told the committee that he wanted to push the date to May 1, because, in our context, it requires adjustments and a certain degree of flexibility over two or three years in order to eventually table the budget and estimates on the same day. I asked him what would be wrong with including a provision in the legislation stipulating that, in three years' time, the two documents would be tabled on the same day. He couldn't answer me. Even without such a provision, however, Australia managed, in its first year, to present both documents on the same day, without the need for adjustments or flexibility.

I'll stop there so as not to bore you, but I would like to carry on with this discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Whalen, we have you next.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to welcome Mr. Clarke to this discussion on the estimates. This is only the second meeting on it, but it looks like he is trying to read up and get well apprised of the issues. Clearly, he understands, first of all, that when we get the documents as they are currently coming to us before March 1, they don't contain any new budgetary measures, so we are not scrutinizing what's important, which is exactly the reason Treasury Board has asked us to do a study into these things.

I appreciate there are a lot of nuances here. When we talk about May 1, we are actually talking about that as a last possible date. Under the current rules and structure, this really is the time it happens, and the reason is that people wait to get all the various feed-ins—not from the budgetary process but from departmental processes—in order to say, “This is what we would spend next year if no changes were made”, and all departments feed into that. We are talking about realigning the process so that people really get an opportunity to vet what is worth vetting.

The document Mr. Clarke is concerned about having the opportunity to vet, as we've seen in many of the presentations, will be called the interim supply bill, and it will come with all the same information of what we will spend—not for the whole year but for the next three months—should there be no budget. You'll have the same opportunity to re-scrutinize budget spending based on the previous year's budget, which in some years will align closely, but it will be more transparent to people as to what is actually being discussed.

When we look at something that's called main estimates, it should really be the main estimates of the budget for that year. What we have now is not.

Just to bring it full circle, Mr. Clarke, I believe that, rather than asking ourselves to pull on this string of all the various changes to the Standing Orders that might make sense to make it work, we can say that what we think is more appropriate, what the department officials have told us is more appropriate, is that we change this date to May 1. It will allow them, next year, to provide the necessary documents for us to pilot this project, and then over time they can gradually bring it back earlier in the calendar. Who knows, they may be able to table it earlier in the calendar in the coming year.

At the same time, you will still get the exact same information you want to receive, but instead of it being called main estimates, it will be called interim supply. There will be the same opportunity you are looking for to scrutinize government spending on the basis of the current budget plans that the government has in place. The government has been able to implement many of the changes it promised to make during the election campaign. It will already be something where you'll have an opportunity to say, “Yes, this is what you did last year. This is what it looks like for three months.” We won't lose that opportunity, but if we don't make these changes now—if we don't put ourselves, now, in a position where Parliament is better able to hold the government to account—it will only get more and more difficult to make these changes as our government gets older.

We all realize there is political pressure on people over time to have these discussions. Right now is the time, early in a mandate, to make changes to hold the government to account, when everyone's interests are aligned in doing that, so I would ask you to seriously consider allowing us to unanimously propose that PROC consider the exact mechanism, the exact date on which these things could happen. They may decide to put in some measures to provide the protections Mr. Clarke is looking for to particularize interim supply. That is not open to us. We are not masters of PROC. We are not masters of the Standing Orders, but we do know the estimates, and we do understand—we've heard lots of testimony—the problems with the estimates.

This is a very simple and quick way to allow us not to miss the runway, to land something important, a fundamental change in our system that will really help governance in Canada. I ask you to reconsider your position on this, and hopefully we can move this forward in a meaningful way, as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Just for clarification for my own sake, Mr. Whalen, are you suggesting that we endorse the May 1 change and then refer it to PROC with that endorsement?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

What I would ask is that maybe the committee instruct the chair to write a letter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that endorses an amendment to Standing Order 81(4), changing the deadline by which the main estimates are referred to standing committees from “on or before March 1” to “on or before May 1”, and request that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs provide a report to the House of Commons, which recommends amendment to the Standing Orders, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), in order to enable the realignment of the budget and main estimates so that the main estimates of a given year may more appropriately reflect that year's budget.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Okay, thank you. Thanks for the clarification.

Monsieur Drouin.