Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak in this debate on the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
The House is being asked to adopt this report, which reads as follows:
That the Committee present a report to the House expressing its dismay and frustration at the lack of time allowed for the study of the Supplementary Estimates (B). Therefore this Committee recommends that the supplementary estimates be referred to the Committee at least 21 sitting days before the required reporting date.
I want to briefly mention the events that led to this report.
The supplementary estimates (B), 2004-05, were tabled in the House on February 25, 2005, and immediately referred to the appropriate standing committees.
March 21 was the last day of the supply period in question and over three weeks after the supplementary estimates were tabled. However, since the House calendar had allotted two weeks for members to work in their ridings and since the committees had to report back to the House by March 10, the committees had only four sitting days in which to consider the supplementary estimates.
On March 8, 2005, the Standing Committee on GovernmentOperations and Estimates considered the supplementary estimates (B) for the Privy Council, the Treasury Board Secretariat, Public Works and Government Services Canada and the Senate. At that meeting, the committee concluded that it lacked the time to properly study the supplementary estimates. Consequently, it passed a motion calling for the supplementary estimates to be tabled at least 21 sitting days before the required reporting date. This was later confirmed at the March 22 meeting.
I would like to emphasize at the outset that the government fully supports improvements to the estimates process to enhance parliamentary scrutiny of government spending. For example, as part of the government's efforts to enhance accountability, the 2005 budget reiterated the government's commitments for improved reporting to Parliament and committed the government to consulting parliamentarians further on this matter. In particular, the budget stated:
--the government will consult with parliamentarians in the coming months to develop a blueprint for improved parliamentary reporting. The blueprint will include the estimates as well as many other reports...Through these consultations, the government will determine how best to provide parliamentarians with more timely and accessible information on program spending and results.
The government continues to welcome proposals to enhance the manner in which the estimates are handled in the House of Commons and notes that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates began examining the estimates process in the fall of 2004. The government looks forward to the results of this broader review.
Let me now turn to some of the implications of the report of the government operations committee presently before the House. This report does not raise concerns with the tabling of the supplementary estimates in the fall, as there is ample House time in the fall calendar for committees to review these supplementary estimates.
However, this report would pose a real challenge with the final supplementary estimates in the February-March period. As I noted earlier, committees had four sitting days to review the 2004-5 supplementary estimates (B) this past winter. This is completely consistent with past practice.
For example, in 2004 committees had 10 sitting days to review supplementary estimates (B). In 2003 committees had six sitting days. In each of 2000, 2001 and 2002 committees had only five sitting days. In 1999 committees had only four sitting days and in 1998 committees had only three sitting days to review these supplementary estimates.
If the government had been obliged to table supplementary estimates (B) 21 sitting days in advance, using the 2005 House calendar as an example, the supplementary estimates would have had to have been tabled by February 2. It would have been impractical for the government to present the supplementary estimates this far in advance for a number of reasons.
I would like to outline briefly for the House these reasons. The production of the supplementary estimates is a very time consuming process involving submissions from all the departments, an extensive review process by the Treasury Board Secretariat, approval by the Treasury Board itself, and then the production of these supplementary estimates.
Currently, this process starts in late November-early December in departments with submissions to the Treasury Board Secretariat being made in the first weeks of January in order to have the supplementary estimates ready to be tabled in late February.
Advancing this process to begin even earlier in order to meet an earlier tabling date would not be practical for either departments or for Parliament, given all the current constraints around the business of supply and the nature of the parliamentary calendar.
We also need to keep in mind the purpose of the final supplementary estimates in order to provide funding for unforeseen circumstances and emergencies. Advancing the estimates process any earlier would not be advisable as it would increase the chance that items would be missed which would undermine the very purpose of the final supplementary estimates.
The government's practice has been to table the supplementary estimates at least three weeks before the final supply day, so parliamentarians have sufficient time to examine these supplementary estimates. However, I would like to stress that the government itself does not control the House calendar. In its wisdom, the House has decided that it should have two constituency weeks, that is weeks where members can work in their constituencies in the month of March. The calendar is established by the Speaker following the procedures set out in the Standing Orders and consultations with members of the House.
The House calendar is itself not within the jurisdiction of the government. Should members of Parliament insist on having a full 21 sitting days to review the supplementary estimates each winter then we might have to decide not to have two constituency work weeks in the month of March. This might be the only practical way to ensure the 21 sitting day proposal can in fact be respected.
In conclusion, I would point out that the committee adopted this report shortly after reviewing the supplementary estimates (B) this past year. The committee did not conduct any research into the precise nature of the preparation of these estimates or the time delay required nor did it have any consultations specifically on this matter with the Treasury Board Secretariat or other experts.
I would also point out that this is a very complex question and in our view requires further examination. That is why I note with considerable enthusiasm that the government operations committee has been, as I mentioned earlier, examining the broader issues relating to the estimates process.
I would suggest that the committee examine this specific matter, the need for 21 sitting days before the final supply period, in the context of this broader review. Then the government and all members of the House would be better apprised and better able to make the decisions necessary to contemplate this kind of change.