Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to speak on the motion by the hon. member for St. Albert on the implementation of the recommendations of the business of supply report, made by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the last parliament.
The subcommittee's report was first presented to the House in 1997 and then re-tabled following the 1997 election in the last parliament in 1998.
I share the report's emphasis on the fundamental role of parliament in the business of supply. Indeed, Marleau and Montpetit quote from the report in their book on the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , on page 697. They say:
If committees are going to do a better job of examining the Estimates, they need more opportunities to influence expenditure, more authority, and better information. Once improvements have been made, committees should be able to bring new attitudes and approaches to their study of the Estimates.
This is why the government has been working with the procedure committee on a project to improve reporting to parliament. That project has led to a series of improvements to the provision of financial information to parliament and to the timeliness of getting this information to parliamentarians.
The government has also worked with parliament to adjust the estimates documents so that more timely information on departmental spending is provided for study by committees.
In addition, the report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, which was tabled in June and adopted earlier this fall by the House, contained further improvements to the estimates process.
Under our new rules, the House will have a greater role in the review of estimates and in debating the government's spending plans on the floor of the House. In particular, two sets of estimates per year will be considered by the whole House. This will strengthen the consideration and scrutiny by parliamentarians of public spending. It will also reinforce the importance of parliament in the supply process. Of course, it will give all members of the House an opportunity to participate in this debate and to demonstrate to their constituents their interest in ensuring effective scrutiny of public expenditures.
It seems to me that the modernization committee's changes, which were supported by all parties earlier this year, build on the procedure committee report from the last parliament, and, indeed, go further than the procedure committee report in important respects.
I would not want to support any initiative that had the effect, even the unintended effect, of undoing the work of the modernization committee.
As other members have noted, the subcommittee recommended the creation of a new estimates committee to examine estimates issues. I have long believed that our current committee system has the strength and flexibility to handle a broad range of issues, and that each committee builds up a level of expertise on subjects that enables the committee to scrutinize expenditures.
I can tell hon. members that in my experience as chair of the defence committee over the last 10 months or so that has most certainly been the case. At the defence committee we have taken a leadership role in that respect.
It seems to me that the establishment of yet another committee would put a burden on the members of the House, while undermining the work and effectiveness of our current committees. This would have the unintended effect of reducing the effectiveness of the work of the House on the business of supply.
I am also sure that the subcommittee's suggestion that committees be empowered to increase or reallocate funds was made in the interest of providing members with a role in the scrutiny of public spending. However, the Constitution Act, 1867, is clear that there must be a royal recommendation for any vote, bill or resolution containing financial provisions.
Giving standing committees this power would raise constitutional problems because, as all members know, only the government may introduce or recommend the appropriation of public money.
I share what is I believe the view of all members, that improving reporting to parliament, review and accountability, deserves our attention and effort, and that there is more to be done in this area.
I am proud that when the government was first elected in 1993 it took early action to improve reporting on the business of supply.
The improved reporting to parliament project was initiated by the government in consultation with parliamentarians in 1994. Since then standing committees were enabled to examine and report on future fiscal year departmental plans and priorities as part of the main estimates process.
Departments now produce performance reports in the fall, detailing how well they have fulfilled their mandate during the year.
These reports allow parliamentary committees to evaluate subsequent departmental estimates on the basis of immediate past performance. After the 1997 election, the government took further action in long term legislative planning among House leaders. This has provided all parties with more predictability on government legislation, including the estimates documents.
In the past several years there has also been more use of new information technologies, specialized reports for standing committees and streamlined reporting. All this helps to ensure that the best information goes to parliamentarians and committees for their work on public expenditure scrutiny. Of course there is always more that can be done, so I am very pleased that the President of the Treasury Board has committed to continue her work with the procedure committee on improved reporting to parliament.
To conclude I want to say that I share the member's view that parliament has a crucial role in the business of supply and I applaud the work the member and others on the procedure committee have done to strengthen the financial reporting to parliament. I am also pleased that the President of the Treasury Board will continue her work with parliament in this area.
It seems to me that today's motion may have been overtaken by the work of the modernization committee and its adoption could inadvertently undermine the work of the modernization committee, which was supported by all parties earlier this fall.
As I indicated, there seems to be both constitutional and operational problems with some of the recommendations in the report of the subcommittee. While I agree with some of the principles behind today's motion, I believe the motion would actually reduce the effectiveness of parliament's work on the business of supply. That is why I will not be supporting this motion.