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.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
I understand my colleagues' concerns, but in life, it's all about timing. We are looking at making changes at the beginning of the mandate, rather than in the middle or at the end. It's always a good thing when the opposition questions and challenges the decisions and positions of the government party. It's good for all Canadians and the government alike because it allows for a certain degree of flexibility.
If the date is set in stone, we would have to see what you would propose. I think we need to work together. Unanimous agreement would be ideal. We want to meet the needs of both the government and the two opposition parties. We would have to see why a unanimous decision couldn't be reached in terms of the next budget, allowing us to move forward while remaining flexible on both sides.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Chair, I'm sorry that I missed the meeting on Monday, but I know that we have had these discussions in previous sessions, both here at OGGO and also in public accounts, how essential it is to be aligning the estimates with the budget. It's incredible to think how we've gone all this time without doing so.
It seems to me that's the essential message we want to be getting out to PROC.
Is there unanimous agreement?
If there's unanimity in that instruction, invitation, statement, or declaration we want to make, that's what needs to get to PROC. It's going to be PROC that will decide, ultimately, on the date. Certainly, we could suggest the date that was suggested to us. There seems to be a logic in the May 1 date.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
I'm just following through with what Madam Shanahan asked. I need to understand the process.
You said we cannot instruct, but we can invite. If there were a broader motion that said we invite PROC to study changing the standing order to enable the alignment of the budget and the estimates, and leave the dates out, would that help? What pressure would it put on PROC? I have no idea.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
I can't speak for PROC. I don't know the pressures.
Clearly, we as a committee can invite PROC to examine anything. It will be their determination whether or not they wish to take up our invitation. I suspect they probably would.
Yes, we could leave the date open-ended. We can, as a committee, do whatever we wish.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
If we have some concerns about timing and the ability for us to study, then perhaps we could have the minister back, or the department officials back, or just ask PROC if they would help us. It's a hurdle. We seem to be circling the wagons without knowing what we're doing.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
I would suspect that if there were a reference letter to PROC inviting them to examine the possibility of changing the Standing Orders, they would need to be briefed thoroughly by the minister and Treasury Board officials. Otherwise, how could they make an informed and intelligent decision?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
That's why I mentioned at the outset it could be this committee that examines it and invites PROC. We come up with a, hopefully, unanimous decision, and then invite PROC to deal with changing the date, if that is what this committee determines.
If, however, you just wish PROC to deal with the whole issue, they're going to have to get into a thorough examination, probably from square one. I'm not suggesting one is better than the other. I do know that, procedurally, it will almost undoubtedly have to be a report coming from procedure and House affairs to change any standing orders.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
We're not relinquishing our control. However, what would be the best way to get that understanding? Finally, it will go to PROC anyway to change the Standing Orders.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Correct. I don't think one way is better than another. Quite frankly, if you want to speed up the process, it could be something as simple as the minister speaking with the chair of PROC saying, “Look, if a letter comes over inviting you to examine this, I would encourage you to do so.” I just say that, from a protocol and procedural standpoint, they're the ones who have to deal with this.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
What would be appropriate? Would a motion saying we leave the dates open be acceptable and then let PROC study it?
We are all in agreement. We want that alignment. We have been voting on things that don't make sense. We've been voting on things that make a mockery out of us. If we want that alignment, what is it that we wish? I don't know what the hurdle is, but if somebody can explain how difficult it is for them to digest it, I might be able to understand it.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK
I hate to be a broken record on this, but my sense is that we don't have consensus on this issue of May 1. Ultimately, the decision on the standing order would have to be made by PROC. The sense I get from my colleague on PROC is that, if it were referred to them, they'd want to hear from the minister and go back through the whole study anyway, which I think is probably prudent and appropriate. It strikes me that the most our committee can really do on this is to refer to PROC this question of whether or not to change the standing order. Again, I'd be happy to make that motion. It seems to me the straightforward thing we can do today is just pass it over to PROC in a neutral way.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I just want to enlighten my colleagues on the other side.
Mr. Clarke raised a good point in terms of how much time it takes for other committees to look at the main estimates. The good thing about www.parl.gc.ca is that you get access to quick information like this.
Last year all committees took one meeting, two at the most, but the majority took one meeting. In Transport, for example, the main estimates were done March 1, and by March 9, they already had them in front of the committee. They had eight days to scrutinize them. During Mr. Harper's time, on March 20, 2013, the Canadian Heritage department was in front of the committee to do main estimates.
Again, I understand the concern, but if we look back at history, they've been pretty quick to look at those. I think May 1—and May 1, I hope, is not the goal; I would rather have it sooner—will leave plenty of time for all of the committees to scrutinize the main estimates.
Thanks.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you, Mr. Drouin, for your insight. It's much appreciated.
Not only are you looking at a single year, but you are also focusing on just standing committees and not committees of the whole. More importantly, you didn't mention Canadians. They may not be here in this room, but there are Canadians—and it may be hard to believe even if they aren't university professors or members of interest groups—who review the main estimates themselves. Some of them may very well want to send a letter or write an email to their MP to ask about what is going on. That, too, has to be taken into account.
Ms. Ratansi, it is true—and the chair, himself, mentioned it—that the main estimates are somewhat hard to make sense of given that they are examined prior to the budget. I understand the problem, but I'm having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around the argument that it doesn't work. We have been doing it this way for 150 years. Canada is an incredible country with the seventh largest economy in the world. The government does work fairly well, then. There's no need for urgency, no reason to panic. We are talking about a major reform.
Ms. Ratansi, you said we shouldn't be circling the wagon, but that may be what your minister is doing. That brings me to Mr. Whalen's comment that it might not be appropriate for this committee to study the process for considering the main estimates. In 2012, however, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates did, in fact, study the process for considering the estimates and supply. The committee addressed the alignment of the budget and the estimates in recommendation 6 of its report, which reads as follows:
That, to the extent possible, the budget items for a given year are reflected in the main estimates for that same year; and therefore that the government present its budget in the House of Commons no later than February 1 of each year; that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs pursue amendments to the Standing Orders, procedure and practice of the House of Commons in order to move the date on which the main estimates are presented to the House back to a later date in March; and that the Committee report to the House on its study by March 31, 2013.
Therefore, Ms. Ratansi, if you don't want us to keep circling the wagon, perhaps your minister should have taken into account that recommendation, which was issued by this very same committee, but with a different membership, in 2012. We aren't going in circles: concerns were raised and published four years ago, in 2012. Supposedly, we are drawing on Australia's model, but I can't see why we don't simply follow Australia's model. It has an identical parliamentary system to ours, and its government determined that the budget and main estimates should be presented on the same day. I don't feel that we are going in circles. Quite the contrary, actually—we are discussing an extremely important matter.
Thank you.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Mr. Chair, what I'm hearing from Mr. Weir, Mr. Clarke, and Mr. McCauley is that, notwithstanding a couple of other changes that we could have made that would still keep our recommendation to PROC specific, that would not be amenable to them. My own sense is that, if we can't get some type of a consensus at this table, I can't imagine it will be any better at PROC, who have not been focusing as intently on this time frame issue as we have.
Maybe we should continue our study on this to make sure that when we make a specific recommendation to PROC on what needs to be done, they take these other concerns that have been brought forward into account, and that all the committee members at least have a sense that we've done our due diligence.
It's unfortunate. I was hoping we could move forward on pillar one. Mr. Clarke is relating it to pillar two in terms of the changes. He has his concerns. All these concerns need to be addressed. I thought we had done so based on the testimony earlier in the week.
I caution that if we don't take advantage of these opportunities when they come, the appetite to make these changes will wane. I know it's something we all want to see happen, but in an appropriate way. If we can't get the motion forward in the slight ways I propose to change it, then I don't think we can do it. We're just not going to get a chance to do that before Christmas. It will mean that next year's estimates won't be in a form that...unless Minister Brison is able to do it himself in some other fashion.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you.
Before I go to our next speaker, Mr. Ayoub, I should clarify something about the Standing Orders. When I mentioned before that the Standing Orders are permanent, and if May 1, for example, was placed in the Standing Orders, that would be permanent, that is true. There is also an option to present and to approve provisional standing orders, which can be done for a limited period of time. There are also sessional orders, which can be done just for the length of one Parliament. These provisional standing orders could be done for a finite period of time: one year, two years, three years, after which they could be discharged, made permanent, or amended.
The reason I'm pointing that out is you have to be very careful with your choice of words if this was ever referred to PROC. If you're inviting to change a standing order, it would have to be described as you're inviting them to perhaps enact a provisional standing order and follow that with the reasons.
Anyway, Monsieur Ayoub, it's your turn, please.