Government Operations Committee on Dec. 1st, 2016

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

So a wide range....

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

He is on a wide range.... My committee has a number of people, including the former Auditor General Sheila Fraser, etc.

Steve Sedgwick has spoken to all deputies, and he is basically giving us operational advice in terms of things that we haven't been doing, for example how to keep budget secrecy while being transparent internally.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

It sounds like he is doing quite a wide range....

Last time we all appeared together—I think it was a couple of weeks ago—I expressed, I'll be honest, apprehension about the manner in which we are going about achieving the desired outcome of clarity in the alignment. I specifically questioned whether we are putting the cart before the horse by moving the date, which of course will have consequences, prior to reforming the system.

Although, I have to stress again, we do support the alignment and anything that increases oversight and scrutiny, I just want to reiterate, for the record, my concerns that without requirements to table a budget by a specific date, there is no guarantee that the budget and the estimates are going to align. Estimates, of course, are paramount, so much so that we actually have Standing Orders about them and the role of the ultimate authority on government spending, which is why we are here.

Therefore, in pursuing the alignment, it seems rather inconsistent to choose to modify the variable that we say should not be changed. We want to move the estimates, but we still have the variable of the budget, which can change at any time.

Again, I just want to express my concern that we are attacking one thing when we could have a moving budget that could just throw the alignment out. I'm just questioning what obstacles to the alignment require the estimates to be moved, considering that the budget could be any time of the year.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

First of all, getting the sequence right is important.

If you look at the last period.... I have budget dates from 2006 to 2016: in 2007, March 19; in 2008, February 26; in 2009, January 27; in 2010, March.... There was an unusual one in 2015, April 21, but if you look at the custom, there is a range that is the practice. The range is quite standardized.

I get your point, totally. I believe that getting this sequence right.... May 1 will provide a better opportunity, over the next two budget cycles, to help ensure, first, that the estimates follow the budget, second, that the estimates are meaningful because they include the majority of budget items—and I ultimately want to see all of the budget items in there—and third, I think, Kelly, that after this provisional period we will see an operationalizing of this as part of the budget process, not just in Treasury Board and Finance but across the government, which will make it more obvious what potential other changes could occur in the future.

Again, I've been transparent in terms of my admiration for the Australian model. It takes time to get there, and we need some time to actually work this through the system.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

We all appreciate a lot of what the Australians have done, and again, I appreciate your thoughts and your desires on the estimates reform. We know that alignment change is needed, and we support the measures that are going to give effective oversight to improve scrutiny.

We've heard several experts at PBO and others voicing great concerns about your proposed changes, though, and something as important as estimates and spending—which, you could argue, is the very reason, under our Westminster system, that we exist.... These are important voices that we would like to be heard.

In light of such, I am going to put through a motion. I don't have it written in French, so I'll just read it. In light of the minister's comments and in light of the seriousness of this matter as it relates to Canadian democracy, I'd like to move:

That the Committee invite: The Parliamentary Budget Officer, Jean-Denis Fréchette; The former Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page; and Michael Wernick, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet to appear as witnesses in relation to the Committee's current study on Estimates Reform before making any recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

All right.

Mr. McCauley, this is a motion you've just made in both official languages.

For the benefit of the committee, from a procedural standpoint, normally motions require 48 hours' notice before they can be dealt with. The only exception is when a motion is made based on the material we are studying in committee. In this case I would find this to be in order, but I'm going to consult with my clerk just to make sure I'm making the right decision. I'm going to suspend for about 60 seconds.

My clerk has informed me that this motion is in order. I believe it's being distributed now—or has been distributed—in both officials languages. The process will be that we will have debate on the motion.

Mr. McCauley, you have made the motion. I invite you to speak to it, but I also invite others who wish to speak to put their hands up so we can identify them, and we'll have a speakers' list.

Go ahead, Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The importance of the PBO speaking, I think, is evident just from the well put together report that he's made. He's also put together quite a few criticisms—I wouldn't say serious criticisms but some criticisms—about moving forward.

The reason I want to have Mr. Wernick here is that the PBO states:

Before agreeing to the changes proposed by the Government, parliamentarians may wish revisit the core problem that undermines their financial scrutiny: the Government’s own internal administrative processes.

That's what you were referring to, I think, with the term “sclerotic”. I think we need to address and hear about that. Again, it's about putting the cart before the horse.

There are a couple of other quick quotes from the PBO that I just want to mention. He states it is “unlikely that delaying the release of the main estimates by eight weeks would provide full alignment with the budget.” Again, I think it's important that we hear from him specifically on that.

There are other points the PBO has made that relate to what's been said last month:

The Government asserts that Parliament does not play a meaningful role in financial scrutiny. PBO disagrees with this view. ...parliamentarians have performed a commendable job of asking pertinent questions in standing committee hearings, Question Period and Committee of the Whole.

I think what the PBO is saying is that, despite all the obstacles thrown up, parliamentarians, current and past parliamentarians, when in opposition, have done a very good job. I think what he is saying is let's not affect the Standing Orders, change the very reason that we exist, for an issue that doesn't exist as much in his eyes.

That's why I'd like to have the PBO here specifically, and Mr. Wernick, to address his comments asking what the point is of addressing this when we're not addressing the main problem, which is our own internal administrative processes. Then Mr. Page has dealt with us before and has commented on these changes. I only saw very briefly parts of Mr. Page's commentary on the proposed changes, and I think I agree with what he says. Yes, he wants to see it moved forward, but I think I recall that he had some very specific comments or criticisms that we need to hear as well before we make such drastic changes to our system and our Standing Orders.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

I have a speakers' list, just so committee members are aware: Mr. Clarke, Mr. McColeman, Madam Ratansi, Mr. Nater, and Mr. Blaikie, in that order.

Go ahead, Mr. Clarke.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

If the committee will allow me, I intend to expand somewhat on certain aspects. I want to take the time to talk about many of the concerns we have on this side of the room.

We feel relatively uneasy about this estimates reform. I have spoken about it to the minister a few times during our recent meetings. I'm a Conservative member, so I may be a little bit biased, but basically, as a member of Parliament, I think we need to take all the precautions necessary when we decide to embark on reform of this scope.

For the past two months, the government has been saying that this is a minimal bureaucratic reform designed to make it easier to examine supplementary estimates. However, it seems to me that this is a far-reaching reform that will probably completely change the way government is accountable to members of Parliament and, ultimately, to Canadians through the existing parliamentary processes.

I would like to review the most important parts of the report tabled by the Parliamentary Budget Officer on November 22. However, before I do that, I would like to reiterate what I said to the minister a month ago. We think that this reform contains two fundamental premises in the face of parliamentary democracy. One is about content and the other about form. Let me explain.

In my view, the first premise relating to parliamentary democratic accountability, that of content, is accountability for numbers. While is is extremely important, it is not ultimately what has enabled parliamentarians and MPs since 1867 to ensure that the government is held maximally accountable for its budgetary actions to voters, parliamentarians and officials, if only for appropriations.

This is my understanding of it. I may be wrong, and I sometimes even wonder whether I'm a little bit crazy, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report somewhat reinforced my madness. So I think we want to work on the government's accountability for these numbers and the content of the government's accountability.

Let's also consider the other premise—the format—which may sometimes be seen as less important than the content. But I find it very important and extremely worthwhile for all of us, for Canadians and for the work of MPs. It isn't accountability in terms of numbers, but in terms of the government.

Mr. Brison, I think it would have been wise to say right off the bat that this was a vast parliamentary reform. I also think it should be part of vast consultations with Canadians.

We may think that the best way for the government to be accountable is with numbers, but we think that, for the past 149 years—soon to be 150—it is rather the government's responsibility and accountability for the format.

I would like to quote a paragraph on page 13 of the report released on November 22 by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It seems to reinforce—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Madam Ratansi.

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

—the minister is here only for an hour, and this is basically a dilatory way of continuing.

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

No. This is a research, I'm sorry.

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

It is a point of order. You're not the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I will determine whether it's a point of order. I'll hear you out.

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

I'm raising a point of order saying that the minister is only here for one hour. We'd like to hear the minister so that we can make our judgments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

That is not a point of order.

Whether you appreciate it or not, under the Standing Orders and procedures of this committee, this member is allowed to speak. We have a motion before us. Whether he chooses to filibuster, and it certainly appears like he's going down that road, it's certainly within the rules. I understand your frustration, Ms. Ratansi.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

He's operating within the rules.

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

Fair enough. If that's what they want to do, then that's fine.

I'll raise another point of order, later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Clarke.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Ratansi, thank you for mentioning this.

I will, however, quote from page 13 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's document, which seems to confirm what I'm saying, that accountability should not be focused on numbers, but on the ostracizing of the government in our committee meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Clarke, excuse me.

Mr. Drouin, on a point of order.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I understand what my colleague is saying, but he isn't speaking to the current motion.

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

I'm getting to the matter of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.