Evidence of meeting #52 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was proc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I would raise the same concerns as my colleagues on the opposite side if from May 1 up to June this committee was busy doing the supplementary estimates (A) all the time, but we're not. Just go back to previous agendas, where we've had a lot of time to look at supplementary estimates (A), and including the main estimates, between May 1 until mid-June.
The other thing I want to mention is that—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Mr. Drouin, if I could interject just for your benefit, it is required that May 31 be the deadline. If the committees have not had a minister before them by May 31, it's deemed reported back. It's not mid-June; it's May 31.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Okay, so May 31. But, again, the fact still stands that if I go back I can probably count four or five meetings that we've spent on estimates the last time here. I would buy the argument if all we were doing was that, but I remember studying shared services plenty of times before we did the estimates. I understand that there might be some concerns here, but I think it's a legitimate proposal for you to send a letter. At the same time, we're sort of embarking on the same cycle as Ontario as well, which was introduced by Mike Harris previously, but anyway we won't mention that.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
How much time did we spend last time on estimates, Chair? Do you know how many meetings—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Okay.
There is something from an accounting perspective and I can't seem to understand what you guys are saying, and I need some clarification. If you clarify it for me, maybe it will help me.
I get the main estimates and I spend time on them. Then the budget comes along and everything that I voted for goes out the door, and I'm sitting there thinking, what on God's earth did you take me on a ride for? I have listened to it. I've done it. Then the supplementary estimates are the ones that have the whole budget. Where is the transparency? Where is the accountability? Who are you going to question? If we're all being non-partisan and logical, the question we need to ask ourselves about is.... Here are the figures; I voted on them, and they mean nothing, and so I've been taken for a ride. Why isn't there the alignment that would indicate, for example, what the government is really going to spend on infrastructure, or whatever, and then we can challenge the minister? At the moment we're challenging the minister with figures that don't make sense.
If somebody could help me, I'd be willing to listen. It's debits and credits.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Perhaps, but we have Mr. Weir first, and then Mr. McCauley and Mr. Clarke after him.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK
I certainly don't want to rush to any conclusions, but my reading of the room is that we do have a shared objective to align the estimates and the budget. On the other hand, I don't think we have consensus about the specific May 1 proposal. I think we recognize that the Standing Orders are properly the domain of PROC. My suggestion, which I'm happy to make as a motion, would be that we do refer to PROC this question of whether or not to amend the standing order—it could be by way of a letter—but in doing that, we don't necessarily endorse or reject the May 1 proposal.
As I say, I think we should refer the question to PROC in a neutral way. I guess the only difference between what I'm suggesting and what Nick suggested is I'm saying that we would not actually endorse the Brison proposal, we would just refer the question over to PROC.
I don't know if it's in order to move that as a motion, but I think that's what I'd like to do.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
You will be able to because it's dealing with the committee business before us, but my suggestion would be let's hear the speakers first.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
In response to the remarks made by Mr. Whalen and Ms. Ratansi, I would say that the current process is very positive.
I think that Canadian society has enjoyed a fine democracy since 1867 because the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party has always been in power. I'm aware of that fact, and I recognize it.
The Liberals, however, have a tendency to pursue any reform with great haste, which can sometimes be a very good thing. It has led to legislation that has improved our democracy.
The Conservatives are politically inclined to be more cautious and adopt a more gradual approach in their analysis of proposed reforms. That, too, has been extremely beneficial to Canada's democracy, preventing the adoption of certain reforms that would have hurt the political freedom not just of Canadians, but also of members.
Mr. Whalen, you said the purpose of the reform was to make sure members do a better job of holding the government to account by having access to figures that are more accurate than those provided for under the current process. You may be right, except that the change would shorten that accountability period, which Mr. McCauley and I believe is fundamental, as I'm sure you do. The proposed reform would shorten that absolutely crucial period.
All House of Commons committees have to scrutinize the main estimates. Ms. Ratansi said it would be useful to see how much time we had spent studying the main estimates last year, but we would need to start by knowing how much time all House of Commons committees had spent studying those estimates. If we are to proceed logically and rationally, we would need to determine how much time all House of Commons committees had spent studying the estimates since 1867. We can't consider only the amount of time spent last year before concluding that, at the end of the day, it had taken less time than previously thought.
There's something else I'd like to talk about, the third pillar, which deals with vote structure. Again, I was taken aback by the senior official's response when he appeared before the committee, and I say that with all due respect. He said that, right now, in Ontario and Quebec, the provincial government can transfer money from one program to another. That gives rise to transparency issues and opens the door to one program serving as a front for another.
To fix that problem, Ontario and Quebec capped the proportion of funding that a ministry can transfer from one program to another at 10%. I asked the official whether the proposed reform would establish a limit on the maximum amount of funding that could be transferred from one program to another. He said no. Therefore, the third pillar, vote structure, is another concern of ours.
Rather than continue talking, I will turn the floor over to you so you can respond to what I just said.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I just want to follow up.
Mr. Drouin, welcome back. We missed you on Canada Post. No one is laughing at that.
My colleague mentioned that it is not just us who have to review estimates, there are quite a few other committees. It's not just us who have to corral all the ministers over a 15-day period.
Ms. Ratansi, I'm sure it was not your intent, but it's almost as if you were implying that we were not in favour of aligning. Maybe I misunderstood you. We, and I think Mr. Weir as well, are fully in agreement that it is in the interests of all Canadians, and all governments now and future, that we do align the budget with the estimates. However, we still strongly believe that we must have enough time for the oversight and time to look at it. No one is arguing against aligning the budget.
There's a very simple issue immediately, which is, again, to move up the budget process to February. The Aussies, who we use as a role model on this issue, despite turning over the government many times over even a two-year period, have managed to do it 21 of the last 22 years, and I think something like 90 years before that they were able to do it at the same month year after year.
I realize it's extra work, but I have great faith in our Finance department and the other departments within our government that we can get it done at a previous time. We fully support aligning the budget with the estimates, short interim estimates and then the mains afterwards. Oversight, transparency, and the ability of this and future opposition parties to hold the government to account are not served, nor is the public served, by minimizing the amount of time that we have.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Mr. Chair, I hear Mr. McCauley's and Mr. Clarke's comments. I think they are valid in some ways, but they get into the weeds of something I was talking about before: what the purview of PROC is regarding trying to unravel the sweater with a single thread, and why our committee is not best situated to discuss the fine nuances. It also points to what Mr. Weir talked about—being a little more flexible in what we recommend that PROC actually do.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
To put a cap on this, we can't recommend or request PROC to do anything. We can invite them—
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
—or suggest, but we certainly can't make a recommendation to them.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
We're not trying to effect anything other than aligning the budget and the estimates process. The rules by which ministers are called before various committees to defend their departmental spending are currently based on the provision of the document currently called the main estimates, which is really what is going to turn into interim supply.
It would be open to PROC, understanding maybe from another line in our directional request to them, to make sure that they consider other aspects of the rules that don't limit the time for people to call ministers before them, by saying that we'll just trigger it based on the provision of interim supply, or we'll trigger it based on May 1, whether interim supply is tabled or not, or on whatever the appropriate rule is. Again, it's not our purview.
Concerning other transitional provisions that might be put in place, such as Mr. Weir's and also Messrs. McCauley and Clarke's concern that May 1 is too late, too far in the future, it might be okay for the next couple of years, because that's what the department has said is possible, and much of politics is the art of the possible, but we need to see a movement forward of that idea. I don't think even anyone on our side ultimately wants to see the main estimates only be delivered on May 1 of every year. We want to see government function. We want to have an opportunity to appropriately debate spending on all sides of the House.
Indeed, it was the commitment from Treasury Board that they would try to bring it forward. Maybe an agreement could be reached in PROC about what an appropriate pull forward would be. PROC might determine that it be May 1 for the next two years and April 1 after that. That might be something that PROC could reach unanimity on. But again, I'm only speculating.
I like Mr. Weir's idea that we say there be something among the orders such as “or such other changes as PROC sees fit”, to ensure that our members of Parliament have the opportunity to scrutinize and question ministers and see an ultimate advance in the time by which the main estimates and the budget are presented before the House.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you, Mr. Whalen.
My only commentary to that is that once you make a change to the Standing Orders, it's permanent. You wouldn't, in my view—I think I'm on pretty solid ground here—be able to put in a standing order which says that for the next two years it will be May 1, and subsequently, after that, it's either May 1 or it's not.
Frankly, I have no intention of impugning the intentions of the minister. I think he's pure in his intentions. He wants to do this well before May 1. I think the difficulty arising from it is what I hear from the opposition, that once it's May 1, future governments are not bound to anything this minister may want to do. If a future government wanted to delay it to May 1 for whatever reasons, they could do so.
These are some of the problems I think we're experiencing here.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Mr. Chair, I guess the real point I was trying to make is that we don't need to trigger the ability to call forward the ministers based on the tabling of interim supply. We can still recommend to PROC that they continue to make it based on interim supply and then have that opportunity. Thus we don't close the window over which—