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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC

Thank you.

Precisely to keep from going in circles and to make some headway, we would do well to identify exactly which points you want changed. My sense is that there is a desire to change something but that there may still be a desire to make further changes. It's not clear to me.

The timing is such that we need to make a decision, assuming a unanimous decision is what we want. We are talking about the date. If for no other reason, we make a decision and come to some conclusion, we can move forward on it or move on to something else. The objective is to make progress and to get a clear idea of what we are going to do as regards the committee, the government, and the minister.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Before we go to our next speaker, who will be Madam Ratansi, I should have mentioned at the outset of the meeting that I would like to have about 15 minutes at the end of this meeting to go in camera for committee business on the study of Canada Post, primarily to deal with a couple of issues we've talked about: the redacted reports, unredacted reports, that sort of thing.

Can we agree that at 5:15 we adjourn this meeting and go into committee business? I'm seeing some nods.

Madam Ratansi.

October 26th, 2016 / 4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

I just want to clarify something. Just because a system is working, or people have been lulled into this false sense of security that they have the ability to understand estimates and vote on them, does not mean that the system functions. When I say “functions”, as parliamentarians, we do not have clarity on things. If I were to vote on the main estimates without knowing what the budget is all about, I would definitely want the system aligned. I remember being the chair of OGGO, and we did have to get people to understand how the estimates function and then what the budget did.

To clarify what you were telling me, if the system is not broken, why are you fixing it? It has worked for so many years. We want engaged and educated members of Parliament so they can hold the government responsible, whether it's this government, the next government, whatever. That's the only reason we want this aligned. When people talk about timing, we haven't studied timing, as Mr. Drouin pointed out. We take one or two meetings to study it, and we get ministers before us, and we have managed that timing. If alignment comes, dates come in, it would help our process. That's all we're saying. The committee can work on whether it's April 1 or May 1, or we can have Minister Brison come forth, because only pillar one will change the Standing Orders, nothing else.

Thank you.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Mr. Clarke and then Mr. Weir.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

If our position was misunderstood, I apologize. I am going to try to bring clarity to it all right now.

On our side, we believe it is absolutely essential to align the budget and the main estimates, not to mention commendable. What we don't want, however, is to see the democratic accountability mechanisms provided for under the Westminster tradition diminished.

Mr. Ayoub, you asked what we wanted to change, but that's not the right question. What matters to us is what we don't want to see changed. As I just said, it is that three-month period, which is crucial. In Australia, it wasn't necessary to shorten it. It stayed the same.

Mr. Whalen, you talked about timing. In fact, we are talking about a window of opportunity, a much-loved concept in the political science world. I, myself have often used it in my work. A window of opportunity, yes, but you also talked about an appetite. I wonder what that appetite is and where it's coming from. I've never heard Canadians talk about this problem, which is clearly an internal one.

Even though the problem is internal, it still involves a very serious reform of our parliamentary democracy. It is just as important as electoral reform, if not more. To my mind, both issues are on the same level. If I recall correctly, electoral reform was part of the Liberal Party's election platform. Conversely, the reform we are talking about, a very significant change that would affect the mechanisms of the Westminster system, was not part of that platform.

Where, then, Mr. Whalen, is the appetite you speak of coming from?

Thank you.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Mr. Weir.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Ayoub made the point that we need some specific suggestions or alternatives to just having the May 1 deadline. I think one specific point that came from both opposition parties at our last meeting was the need to have some kind of set date or deadline, or range of dates, for the budget. Mr. Whalen, I think, was suggesting that, because we don't have consensus, we should just keep studying the estimates process. I'm fine with that as an outcome, but I would just reiterate that I think it would be possible for our committee to agree to refer this question about the standing order to PROC, as long as we did it in a neutral way, without recommending a specific change. That would result in PROC doing a study, which I think is how it would respond to the request anyway. I don't think that any lack of consensus by this committee needs to delay things. If we want to refer this question to PROC today, we can do that.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Mr. Whalen.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

Yes, Mr. Clarke, just in response to your question to me, the appetite comes from our commitments. I think we made 300-odd commitments during the election, and as we travel through this mandate, we find that only so many changes can be implemented at one time because there are opposition parties that want to make sure we do it in an appropriate fashion.

Particularly with the budget, because the budget cycle operates a couple of years in advance, really, in terms of the preparation, the timing, and the policy development, as we get closer to the next election from a budgetary cycle change standpoint, it's much closer than it appears. We need to get through a couple of cycles of a change in our processes to make sure that they work and they can be advanced forward. If we try to do these in the midst of an election, I would feel less comfortable about them.

That's my appetite, but it's not necessarily the appetite of Canadians. I can't speak for the appetite of Canadians on this point. It certainly wasn't something I heard about at the doors. This type of estimates reform is something that comes in this chamber. People don't talk about it to me on the street.

Mr. Weir, if we want to be involved in the process, PROC is perfectly able to make its own decisions based on a recommendation from the minister if he chooses to go before PROC to ask them to do their own study. When he was here earlier in the week, the minister asked us to do this. If we found that it would be worthwhile to make a specific recommendation about the timing that was capable of being achieved, based on the study we've done, we could make some type of an informed and specific suggestion to PROC so that they had some comfort that we weren't completely at odds with it, that we at least had some sense that this was achievable. It would ultimately achieve the long-term aims of having the alignment of the budgets in the estimates process.

Mr. McCauley and Mr. Clarke, my proposal on making sure that ministers would be held to account is that we could add a line saying that in respect of invitations to ministers before committees for review, that those rules apply to the interim supply. That way there would be no lost time on having ministers come before various committees in respect of the information that's already been received. Currently the main estimates are a pseudo interim supply bill with anything that the government might know the costing of before the budget is tabled. It's very haphazard. It's very difficult to follow. It ends up wasting parliamentarians' time in terms of the type of review they do. That's why we're engaged.

I proposed something specific that I thought would alleviate your concerns. I get the sense that it hasn't. If I'm wrong about that, I would love to hear it, in which case I'd be very happy to continue forward with a specific motion that we recommend that PROC, on some basis, choose May 1 as the date, and also at the same time make sure that ministers are available on interim supply from the current date, which I understand to be March 1.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Perhaps I could make some commentary since I don't see other names on the list.

Mr. McCauley, let me make a couple of observations first and then see if I can put a ring fence around this.

I'm hearing a couple of things. Obviously, we don't have unanimity on this issue, which is fine. We have a couple of options as I see it.

One, as has been suggested by a couple of our committee members, we can continue with this study, book a couple more meetings—should we find room for them, and I think we can make room for them—and bring in additional witnesses to speak to specific concerns that some members may have, to find out what might be the art of the possible. Obviously, the minister would have to come back with TB officials to answer some of the questions.

We could, as suggested by both Mr. Whalen and Mr. Weir, refer this right over to PROC and let them deal with. They would probably have to go back to square one and start the whole examination themselves.

I have a sense, and maybe I'm wrong, that we're not going to get any unanimity on this today. I'm not trying to short-circuit the discussion because I think it's valuable, but I think we're reaching a bit of an impasse and I'm looking at some way to resolve that impasse.

My suggestion, if I would have any, would be that we do either one of two things: continue with the study of this very issue, bringing in witnesses rather than just having a general conversation, or make a determination today that we want to punt this over to PROC and let them deal with it.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

Your last suggestion makes perfect sense to me. I believe that once we have our report before the analysts and the translators, there might be time to squeeze in some meetings on this and still get a recommendation before the end of November, as requested by the minister.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

I think the other thing is, frankly, not that I'm speaking on behalf of the minister, obviously, but my sense from him from what he testified to us is that I don't even think it's at the end of November. I think it would be closer to the middle of November. I think the minister just wants finality. Obviously, his wish would be to try to change the date so he has some time and move along as per his request, but if not, then I think he'd rather know that now. If there's going to be no movement forward, I think he'd like to know it quickly.

What is the will of the committee?

Mr. Clarke and Mr. McCauley, do you think referring this to PROC would be amenable to you, or do you want to continue the discussion here?

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

I think our preference is to continue the study here.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

All right, a study here. Do you want to speak to that, Mr. McCauley? I have you down on my list anyway.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

No, I was going to address a couple of other things.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Okay. We have Mr. McCauley suggesting that we continue the study here at this committee. Are you fine with that?

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Yes.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

I don't know if it would be served by continuing this discussion today unless you have something to add to the benefit of this discussion, Mr. McCauley.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Whalen always speaks very well, and brings some measured tone to the committee, and I appreciate that. You did mention that you thought all the issues were addressed, and I was chatting with the minister earlier, and it doesn't look like our concerns have been addressed, but I think by bringing him back to the committee, we can get finality on that.

I also want to stress that we do believe aligning the estimates with the budget is the best way forward. My colleague from the NDP does. I think it's a real disservice when we get continued messaging that it's not our intent. We are very much committed to aligning the budget with the estimates, and it does a disservice to this committee to hear a narrative spun that it's not our intent. I just wanted to make that very clear, and I look forward to continuing on with it.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

If I may suggest, then, we can do a couple of things. We could go in camera for committee business now, and the first point of business would be to find out how many witnesses we want and set some meetings aside about the estimates process. The second part of that in camera discussion would be on some of the points that I have on the Canada Post study. Are we all agreed?

4:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

We will suspend to go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]