Evidence of meeting #56 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 post.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Even in terms of the accrual versus cash accounting, having a more robust reconciliation, and learning from some other examples, including Ontario and Australia, and what they've gone through in terms of that....
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
In terms of the time to scrutinize the main estimates, for example, if we stay at the status quo or we move with your process, would we be given an opportunity to do the same robust review of either interim or supplementary estimates?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Over time I think you will see less reliance on supplementary estimates as the main estimates become more robust. There will still be supplementary estimates, and there will still be an opportunity to devote parliamentary time to scrutiny of them.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Will there be time for us to review these things? When we were in opposition, we were not given that much time. Not many people pay attention to it.
That's a very short question.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
A former clerk of the House, Robert Marleau, has recommended that committees devote more time to the estimates. On an ongoing basis, we think that would be a good objective. I think making the process more meaningful will lead to that, so we want to see that.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you.
Thank you, Minister, for being here. I do have a question and a half for you, at least an observation and a question that hasn't been asked, but I think it's very germane to this conversation.
I'm assuming, Minister, if you're talking about changing the Standing Orders, then you would be talking about an adoption of a provisional Standing Order and not a permanent Standing Order, because you can put a time limit on a provisional Standing Order, as I'm sure you're aware.
It has been the convention of the House that when Standing Orders are changed, they would all receive unanimous consent among all parties. Obviously, it's within the purview of this government that through just a simple vote you can change the Standing Orders as you will. Is it your intention, Minister, to seek unanimous consent if you try to proceed with a change to the provisional Standing Orders, and what would your timeline be?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
First of all, we intend on doing everything we can to engage Parliament to bring people together. We've all agreed in principle to changes that can strengthen the accountability of not just this government, but also future governments, to Parliament. We agree on that in principle. I'm confident that we can get people on the same page. That's what I'm hoping for, and that is reflected in the work we're doing here and on an ongoing basis.
As for the second question on the timeline, this has to be done. For this to be part of the budgetary and estimates process for the next cycle in 2017-18, we really need to do this in November and maybe early December for the 2017 budget, but at least before the House rises at Christmas.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
To that end, last February we did a briefing for members of Parliament. There were about 80 parliamentarians from the House and Senate. We have since met with this committee. We've done a technical briefing recently.
We have been very engaged with Parliament and parliamentarians in seeking direction and input. Today, as we said, there were six concerns raised over the last period, and we have addressed them. We're doing everything we can. I'm doing everything I can. Our officials are doing everything they can to demonstrate absolute good faith in what we're trying to achieve here.
We would expect, as parliamentarians, reciprocity on that, because we all agree on the objectives. As a minister representing the government, I also have to reflect the operational capacity of what we can do. I'm not going to commit us to doing something and fall short of it. I want us to get this right.
I want it to be absolutely clear that we're demonstrating good faith and that we want parliamentarians from all parties to do so as well. The committee process and the work your committee is doing, going right back to 2012, is important. This is an evergreening process. The changes we're proposing now will inform future changes and strengthen the budget and estimates process and, fundamentally, the accountability of governments to Parliament and to Canadians. This is important work.
Mr. Chair, you and I have been around awhile, and this is the kind of thing that as parliamentarians we can look back on and say that we participated in a fundamental change that strengthened parliamentary democracy in Canada. There aren't that many opportunities that we have as parliamentarians to be able to say that.
I hope this is something—a grand project, an important project—that we can all work on together across party lines, because that fundamental accountability of government to Parliament, and of Parliament and government to Canadians, is something that should be a grand project on which we can all agree and work to achieve.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you, Minister.
On those words, we will suspend.
Committee members, we are going next door across the hall, and that meeting will be in camera as we discuss the drafting of our CBC report.
We are suspended.