SIRP Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON IMPROVED FINANCIAL REPORTING TO PARLIAMENT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

SOUS-COMITÉ SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES RAPPORTS FINANCIERS AU PARLEMENT DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 16, 2000

• 0942

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)): Good morning. This is the first meeting of the Subcommittee on Improved Financial Reporting to Parliament of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, pursuant to the order of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs dated Thursday, May 4.

This morning we'd like to deal with initially three routine motions. Because of the timeframe to report back to the committee by June 12, we will obviously have to be somewhat flexible with regard to receiving testimony.

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Is that a specific direction, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Yes, it is.

Has the order been circulated to the members?

The Clerk of the Committee: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. Specifically, the order is “That the Sub-committee conclude its work and report thereon to this Committee no later than Monday, June 12, 2000.”

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Who set the deadline that members of the committee had to finish their work and prepare their report by June 12 at the latest? Was it the minister?

The Chair: It was the committee.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It was the committee?

The Chair: Yes, the committee instructed the sub-committee to prepare its report for June 12 at the latest.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: In regard to receiving witnesses, we are seven, and a quorum would therefore be four, but having spoken to the members, I gather it would be acceptable to have a quorum of at least three members where at least one was a member of the opposition. Therefore I'd entertain a motion that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member from the opposition.

Mr. John Williams: So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The second resolution is that the subcommittee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament as needed to assist the subcommittee in its work, at the discretion of the chair. Is there a mover for that?

Mr. Sauvageau: So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

• 0945

The Chair: The final routine motion for the time being is that, at the discretion of the chair, reasonable travelling expenses, as per the regulation established by the Board of Internal Economy, be paid, if necessary, to witnesses invited to appear before the subcommittee, and that for such payment of expenses a limit of one representative per organization be established.

That is moved by Monsieur Godin. Is there discussion on that?

Mr. John Williams: Mr. Sauvageau wants to go to Washington, Mr. Chair. We are in favour.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Moi aussi.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The second item of our business is with regard to the schedule of meetings. Being mindful of the timeframe in which we have been asked to conduct our work, I consulted with Mr. Williams, the chair of the public accounts committee, as to the scope and the nature of witnesses that would be required. I was advised that certainly the Treasury Board, the Auditor General, and the Clerk of the House of Commons, Monsieur Marleau, would be part of our witness group.

In anticipation of the committee's concurrence, we have made the contacts to ensure availability. Based on the availability of those parties, meetings have been scheduled for today for Treasury Board officials and for tomorrow at 3:30 for the Auditor General officials and the Clerk of the House, Monsieur Marleau. Notice has been given of those meetings and the witnesses will appear. However, since we have not discussed it, this of course is subject to the concurrence of the committee. Is there any discussion on our plan for this week?

Mr. John Williams: I have a point I was going to raise, Mr. Chair. We discussed informally yesterday that due to the timeframe we have to operate in, we may want to just read in or adopt testimony from other committees as basically being testimony before this committee. We could use that evidence in the formulation of our reports.

The Chair: Thank you. I know the work on this particular area of consideration was pursuant to a motion passed by the House back in 1995 and that there is quite a substantial body of work, including round tables and hearings, the Williams-Catterall report, etc., which I'm sure will be drawn on—

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Catterall-Williams.

The Chair: The Catterall-Williams report, je m'excuse. I believe the committee will have all the reference documents provided by our clerk, Monsieur Patrice Martin.

Also, a request for other witnesses has been circulated to you, but before we deal with that, in anticipation—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The ministers are appearing before the environment committee tomorrow on such short notice. I don't want to miss that meeting. Is there some flexibility in tomorrow's meeting?

The Chair: As you know, the availability of rooms and people is really the issue. I've asked the clerk. What do you advise?

The Clerk: For tomorrow, it's only in the afternoon that we can meet.

The Chair: We have the caucus meetings.

The Clerk: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Is there a possibility on Thursday?

The Clerk: I haven't booked a room.

The Chair: No. In terms of availability, that was our one opportunity to have Mr. Marleau.

It's certainly understood that members are going to have conflicts and we're going to have to work the best we can around those. I think for the time being, with the bookings and invitations that have been made, we will have to proceed with Wednesday's meeting.

In anticipation of additional witnesses, which the committee has been asked to make suggestions about as we move through the process, rooms have been booked for the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the week following our break. That's May 29, 30, and 31. Those rooms are available. The purpose of those meetings has not yet been established and I think it's up to the committee to determine the extent to which we have witnesses.

• 0950

However, based on my discussions with Mr. Williams and my review of the documents from previous work and considering the calendarization of our work, it would be my intent to help the committee move to a first draft of the report by the end of that week or our last meeting of that week, with a response from committee members to that draft, hopefully a second draft, and possibly the final report to be approved on or about Tuesday, June 6. That would leave sufficient time for the formal translation, printing, and reporting to the main committee by June 12. That timeline was established between the clerk and myself, based on his experience of the needs of the administration of the committee.

That is generally the thinking. There is not a written work plan, because I did want to consult with members. I think the members are well aware of the order of reference and the timeframe, and that would allow us to conclude that work, certainly subject to the extent of the work that the committee feels is necessary to discharge our order of reference.

Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams: I hate to advise you, Mr. Chairman, but I don't expect to be here the week after the break, so we'll have to try to fit that into the schedule as well.

The Chair: C'est dommage. I understand. We have been asked to undertake a particular work plan, which—

Mr. John Williams: If worst comes to worst, I guess.... That's June 12. We'll do what we can. We'll see.

The Chair: Certainly we are going to make every attempt to provide blues to the permanent members of the committee, if necessary, to keep them keep apprised when they're unable to make it due to conflicts. We certainly would encourage and welcome substitute members for your presence, to ensure that your concerns are represented at the committee and to witnesses.

Is there further discussion on a concept of a work plan? No? Merci.

At this time, are there any other witnesses that members would recommend that we consider, in view of the fact that it would be courteous to give them as much advance notice as possible and find out availability? If not at this time, I can simply indicate that it has been suggested to me that possibly a witness representing the interests of the Senate be considered by the committee. I'm not sure if there's some concurrence or suggestion that this might be appropriate.

All right, we'll leave that for now.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It would depend on who that might be.

The Chair: I'm in the committee's hands. We did have substantial representation of Senate interests in previous proceedings.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, there was Senator Stewart, who's no longer there.

The Chair: That's right.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Do we know who the current chair of the finance committee is?

The Chair: The current chair of finance in the Senate? Sorry, no.

Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Leo Kolber?

The Chair: Leo Kolber, possibly.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: That would be good.

The Chair: Should we consult with him to see whether or not there is...?

Certainly we can incorporate by reference the prior work, as Mr. Williams has suggested. However, out of courtesy to the Senate, because of their involvement in the process of the estimates and procedure in the House, we'll certainly approach the chair of the Senate finance committee with regard to appearing before us.

Are there any other witnesses that we wish to consider at this time? We'll certainly continue to be open for additional witnesses as the work moves through.

That concludes the routine proceedings. Therefore I would like to welcome Nola Juraitis, who is the director of accountability for collective results in the planning, performance, and reporting sector of the comptrollership branch, Treasury Board Secretariat, and Mr. Donald Lenihan, who is with the Centre for Collaborative Government. He's the director, and he is engaged to consult to the Treasury Board.

Welcome, both of you. I appreciate your appearing before us this morning. I know you are well aware of the mandate, the order of reference from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I welcome you.

Mr. Lenihan, I understand that you will be commencing the discussion on the matter before the committee at this time.

• 0955

[Translation]

Mr. Donald G. Lenihan (director, Centre for Collaborative Government): Thank you sir. I am very happy to be here today and would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to make this presentation.

Before speaking in-depth about the different sections, I will give you an overview of my presentation. First, I will talk about the goals of the proposals. Second, I will say a few words about the origin of the proposals and the role I play in the process. Third, it might be useful if I speak about the ideas that underlie the proposals. They are theoretical notions. Fourth, I will tell you how improving reports will help members of parliament better accomplish their duties as parliamentarians. Finally, I will talk about the four themes on which the proposals are based.

[English]

So to begin, let me say something about the speaking notes I have in front of me. There is a document I'll pass out as soon as I'm finished; in fact there will be two documents, in French and English of course.

The small document I'll pass out at the end of this proposal is really what I'm using for the speaking notes today. It's a kind of overview, if you like, of the work that has been done on this over the last few years actually, where it's arrived at, and some comments on the proposals themselves. It's an introductory document.

There's a larger document that will be provided to you by the end of the week from the clerk, which the Centre for Collaborative Government has prepared in consultation with a number of organizations and through the processes that were under way, which has a detailed commentary on the various proposals that are to be discussed and considered.

With that said, let me begin.

First of all, to say something about the objectives of the proposals, we could say they're intended to achieve three things. First, they're intended to improve horizontal reporting, and by horizontal reporting all I really mean is those sorts of issues, outcomes, or ideas that cut across a number of different departments where, when we're reporting from one department, we wonder what the connection is with other departments. Secondly, we want to try to simplify the way departments present information when they're reporting. And thirdly, the goal is we hope these proposals will lead to changes in the estimates process that will result in more meaningful involvement of parliamentarians in standing committees.

What about the origin of the proposals? This particular committee I take to be the result of a fairly long and...I wouldn't say complex set of processes, but a number of things that have happened over a couple of years. Certainly a good place to start or where it may have started would be with the Catterall-Williams report, which I guess you're all familiar with. Secondly, there have been a number of round-tables and other events, which some of you were involved in, where issues were discussed with a group of people—parliamentarians, public servants, and people from various public interest organizations—looking at the question of how ultimately reporting could be improved in order to make it more effective and useful to parliamentarians and help them in their role as parliamentarians.

I should say something about my role here. I'm now with the Centre for Collaborative Government, but over the last couple of years, in fact the last five years, I was with the Institute of Public Administration of Canada. In that role we worked with a number of organizations and with the Treasury Board to bring together parliamentarians and to discuss some of the ideas that now have been ultimately generated into proposals. You'll receive a couple of reports from these processes, and as a result of my work there, I was asked by the Treasury Board to develop the document you'll be receiving, which is the briefing document with the proposals in it. Again, I'd underline this is the result of a lot of different consultation processes and a lot of discussion.

If I could summarize what we heard over the last few years from parliamentarians—and you'll find this in the opening pages of the overview document—there are probably five or six points we heard repeatedly that parliamentarians want. One is they want easy access to user-friendly planning and performance information. They want balanced reporting, and when I say balanced reporting, that means they want reports that tell them the bad news as well as the good news. We heard this a number of times.

• 1000

I've already touched on this one: they want reporting that tells them something more about the horizontal nature of government activity. As it stands now, reporting tends to be more, as we say, silo-oriented. You get reports from the point of view of a single department rather than a number of departments.

Finally, they want a broader context for the discussions. A lot of the reporting that happens right now seems to occur in a very small space, and you wonder what the bigger picture really was behind the decisions that were made and the outcomes that resulted.

That's what we were trying to achieve in these.

Let me move to the third point about the ideas behind this. I would move a little bit apart from the text itself, although this is in the text, and speak from my own experience over the last five years. Working with IPAC, we've talked with governments federal, provincial, and municipal across the country and indeed around the world about changes under way. My experience in those discussions is that many of the proposals articulated by parliamentarians and others here reflect a couple of changes that are under way just about everywhere and are consistent with those.

If I had to summarize what those two things are, I would say one is a major shift. If we move to twenty or thirty years in the future and look back at governments, and indeed this government today, and ask what sorts of changes were under way, I think one of the things we'll find is that governments have moved and begun to focus increasingly on results, as opposed to, for want of a better word, process. A second thing—perhaps less important now, perhaps more important in the future—is a bigger concern with so-called societal indicators and outcomes.

Let me just say a little bit about both of those. I hope it won't be long and complicated, but they're extremely important. I presume all of you have at least some acquaintance with these.

When I say focusing on results, what I mean is—and I'm going to speak now from the point of view of a manager—if you were a program manager or a manager inside a department and you wanted people to improve their programs from the way they have been practising public administration over the past five, ten, or twenty years, what would you do? One of the things we heard again and again and again, certainly from the private sector in the 1980s and later from people in the 1990s, was that government is too focused on process; it needs to focus more on results.

The way governments have gone about that is they've asked people to focus in their programs to try to identify what they're doing in that program: “Tell us what the objectives of the program are. What are you actually trying to achieve?” That's step one—set your results, identify what they are.

Secondly, give us some idea of how you're actually going to measure or assess or evaluate whether you achieve those results or not. This is the whole idea of performance indicators and measures. Ultimately if you have a better idea of what your results are and some way of assessing whether your programs or your policies are actually achieving those results, that should help you determine whether you're doing a good job or not.

And finally, we should report on the quality and effectiveness of the programs, policies, and services in terms of their ability to achieve those results. A lot of what the proposals in this package are about is adjusting to and reflecting the movement to results in the way governments report. I personally think that's very good news. It gives us a much better idea of whether or not ultimately the programs and policies we have are effective and what they're trying to achieve.

Having said that—and this moves us to the question of societal indicators—there is still the question of what I call the bigger picture. Suppose it is true that you are a manager and you identify the outcomes or the objectives you want your program to achieve. There's a whole bunch of programs and policies out there across government. Even if it's true that we become very effective at achieving the programs and policies we achieve, how do we know ultimately these things are contributing to the larger picture of what government wants to do or what it wants to achieve, or perhaps even what the community at large wants to achieve?

The idea of societal outcomes or indicators is like a second level, if I can say—a higher level, a much broader level—of outcomes that reflects the bigger picture of what we as a government or a community or a society want to achieve. I personally think, and I would suggest to you, the wonderful thing or the good thing about societal indicators and moving towards a recognition of them in reporting is that this moves us closer to the natural language of public policy debate.

If you look at societal outcomes, they're things such as a healthier population, safer communities, sustainable development, quality education, a vibrant culture, and more productive research and development. When people debate public policy, these are the things they actually talk about. I would assume when you go back to your ridings, or indeed in the House of Commons when you debate the value of policies and programs, those are the things you have in mind.

• 1005

The importance then of societal indicators is that as we begin to identify them and as we begin to set them up as a backdrop against which we assess, evaluate, and discuss the more specific objectives, policies, and programs, they begin to link these back more practically and more effectively to the things we really care about as a society and as a community.

Again, my view is that the proposals in here really are moving in the direction of beginning to reflect this change in public administration, and I think it's a change for the better. It provides us with a more detailed assessment of what's going on and a better and more complete picture of the effectiveness of our policies and programs.

Let me move now to a more practical—

The Chair: Mr. Lenihan, you've given us a good starting point here by laying out the general concerns of parliamentarians that have underpinned why we're doing this. The first key area you've dealt with is the need for us to start focusing on results and to also start using societal indicators or some indicators of progress or results. I wonder if we might just pause there for a moment to see if the committee members have a comfort level of where we're going so far, because we're now going to go into a deeper level.

Is there any discussion or are there questions of Mr. Lenihan with regard to the foundation he's just laid?

Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams: I'd just say, Mr. Chair, if we're going to report back by June 12.... Societal indicators are something I presume the government is looking at and is going to bring forward. I was wondering if it's actually within the purview of Parliament to.... Well, we can certainly tell the government we agree with the concept of indicators and ask why they haven't brought them in so far. So perhaps it may be irrelevant to the discussion. So yes, that's okay.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Tony Ianno: It's funny to hear yourself, isn't it?

Mr. John Williams: You have to think through things, you see. Take things slow in the morning, Tony. It's the first day of the week for me.

The Chair: In the material I've read, there is the example of needle exchange and its impact on the incidence of contracting AIDS or HIV. That's a simple example of a societal indicator. If we support needle exchange programs or other primary prevention measures, how is it translating? That's primarily the concept of a societal indicator.

As you can imagine, on a specific program it's one thing. How do you do it for a department though? That's certainly an area.... How do we grasp this? Maybe you want to give us some indication. Certainly we can do a project. Can we do a program?

Mr. Donald Lenihan: Sorry; could you just repeat the last part?

The Chair: Can we do a whole program that's multifaceted and maybe has complex objectives?

Mr. Donald Lenihan: When you ask if we can do a whole program, do you mean can we track them?

The way I imagine societal indicators working is they're like a background. Let's imagine this. To go back to the example of the clean needle program, if you're working for the City of Vancouver and they decide they're going to set up the clean needle program, what you don't want to do is say something like, “This program is about a healthier community”—not immediately. It seems to me that's too big of an objective to really know how successfully you contribute to that. What you want is a much more precise program objective, and that's going to be, as you said, something like a lowering of the HIV rate or maybe even a lowering of crime in the streets, something like that.

But then there's the interesting question. If you have the backdrop, what you really want to be able to say is, “The reason we have this clean needle program is not just so that we have a lower HIV rate, although we care about that. It contributes to the larger question of whether or not ultimately this produces a healthier community.” That's a hard thing to track, and sometimes the best we can do is make a reasoned argument, but that's not an unhelpful thing.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I am new here and would like to ensure that I understand. You are telling us that if the government commits itself to reducing poverty among Canadian children, it should quantify its objectives and establish a timeframe. For example, if there are 1 million poor children now, the government would have to say that this number would be reduced to 750 000 in five years, and to 500 000 in seven. In other words, you would like us to set a target number and a timeframe for government commitments or programs.

[English]

Mr. Donald Lenihan: This is an interesting question, and there are two ways to go about this.

• 1010

A lot will depend on what the government actually commits itself to. For governments to identify societal outcomes as a backdrop against which to discuss the results they have committed themselves to, namely the program objectives, is one thing. And my sense is that the current stage of the federal government in Canada, as I understand it, is the position is that when they identify societal outcomes right now, they're not saying we're going to set targets for societal outcomes; they're saying we're going to set targets or performance indicators for more specific results identified with programs. The other provides a context and a backdrop.

Having said that, there's a contrast here. If you go, for example, to Alberta, they are more inclined to want to argue they can make a connection directly between this program and that societal outcome. I think it's a fascinating debate, but it's a very complicated question as to how you track the connection between a program and a larger societal outcome. My short view—and I hope nobody will object to my interjecting my view here—is that we'll get better at this as time goes on. We're probably not very good at it yet.

The Chair: Any further questions or comments?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I'm confused. I think we interrupted a witness in the middle of his presentation, didn't we?

The Chair: Yes, we sure did.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can we let him continue and finish?

The Chair: In a discussion with Mr. Lenihan in advance we thought that there were three separate sections to it, and to facilitate the drafting of a report I thought we could chunk his section so that all of the comments and commentary with regard to each of the principal parts, like societal indicators, could be had at the time when the presentation was made on that issue and the members had their comments.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay.

The Chair: So there's a little bit of latitude being exercised by the chair. You're quite right.

Please proceed, Mr. Lenihan.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, we can follow it, but I wonder if we could have Mr. Lenihan's presentation distributed to us as well. I don't think it has been yet.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: Sure. I was actually going to do it afterwards, but it may be better before.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It would just help me to make notes as you speak.

The Chair: The clerk will help you there, Mr. Lenihan. With regard to the societal indicators, I think there's a reasonable foundation for that concept. I think it's very important for us. So we'll proceed, Mr. Lenihan, to your next segment.

Mr. Williams, did you want to say something?

Mr. John Williams: Yes, I was going to say, on societal indicators, that I happen to endorse the concept. There's no question that every action has a reaction. I'm not going to say equal and opposite, because that's more of a scientific formula, but there's no question that a government program causes a reaction, and therefore if we can measure that reaction we get into a program with the intention and the hope and the desire, presumably, that it's going to have a positive impact on the society in the area where the program is going to make its impact. So I think we should certainly encourage the development and the evolution of benchmarking systems, and we should be open and candid in our assessment of what we find the results to be.

At the same time, Mr. Chair, we could also look at ensuring that the program contains information that may not always be complimentary. I think of New Zealand, for example, where they have in their estimates a line for the cost of capturing prison escapees. They say “We're not perfect; we expect that one or two will get out every year. It's going to cost us some money to get them back.” So there it is, right in the estimates, x number of dollars to recapture escapees. They're being honest and truthful. They're being up front with their information.

I can just imagine if anybody ever discovered that kind of line in the estimates of the Government of Canada—there would be an uproar. But the point we have to make is that government, like business, is not perfect, and they have to recognize that they sometimes make mistakes and sometimes taxpayers have to pick up the tab. It's just life, Mr. Chair.

So benchmarks are something that I think have to be promoted, and I think Alberta has led the way in Canada. And it also focuses on outcomes rather than process, as you say, Mr. Lenihan. Therefore I think that the time has come that we urge the Government of Canada to get into benchmarking. And it is not that different, of course, from the program evaluation in my private member's bill—and I think you were basically paraphrasing the first step of my private member's bill—which is built into the Catterall-Williams report. In it, first of all, we ask what is this program designed to do, because many times in these programs their whole focus is not really too well articulated.

• 1015

So first you say what we're trying to do. And then you can then ask the question, how well is this program doing what it designed to do? And then you continue on from there.

The Chair: I understand that there is a possibility of a vote being called sometime during routine proceedings. I believe it's a half-hour bell. It can be anytime now. It will be a half-hour bell, at which time the members will have to leave.

The room here has been booked through to one o'clock to allow us sufficient time to do whatever work. So we intend to reconvene after the vote, if that's acceptable to the members.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I can't, Mr. Chair. The procedure and House affairs committee is meeting.

The Chair: We do have a routine motion to allow us to continue to meet, but we'll—

Mr. John Williams: We're exempt.

The Chair: Understood.

Mr. John Williams: Was it three including one? That's what it is. I do think slowly this morning, Marlene.

The Chair: You may comment on Mr. Williams' comments or you may proceed. Whether you have anything to add to what he might have said, it's up to you.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: We can take this up, obviously. I'm certainly very much in agreement with much of this. And to get into a discussion of the finer points would probably just lead us away from what's the business of the committee. But certainly at some other time I'd like to take this up. So perhaps I'll just move on.

In my next section I did want to say something from a practical point of view. That is, if I were a parliamentarian, why would I support this and how would it help me in my job? Working through this, over the last couple of years, in one form or another, it seems to me that there are at least three ways in which this should make a very significant difference to the business of being a member of Parliament. Let me list them and then say something about each one.

First of all, I think the role of a parliamentarian is to contribute to the development of public policies and laws, in the different roles they have as committee members. Secondly, their job is to provide an account of government activity to their constituents. And last, but certainly not least importantly, their job is to represent their constituents to Parliament.

So there's a kind of two-way relationship there. I don't mean to be lecturing you. You will know this much better than I. But you must speak for your constituents and you must also explain government to your constituents. And then when you're here you must actually contribute to the development of public policy.

How can this help? First of all, let me say something about how I think it will contribute to more effective committee work, and ultimately, I hope, more effective committees.

One way of classifying this is to say that to be better informed surely can't hurt. And I think there are at least a few ways in which this will make parliamentarians potentially much better informed.

First of all, accurate, relevant information is crucial. Lengthy, difficult documents—I'm sure you know in spades—are nothing but a problem. Part of the task here is not only to make the information accurate and relevant, but very accessible. That's just a good commonsensical thing to do, I think.

Secondly, the way we are imagining these moving, they will provide a better statement of departments' strategic thinking, their policy framework, and their action plan—a better context in which to understand what various reports are about, what various initiatives are about. They will provide more complete information, if you like.

Finally—and I think this has already been said to some extent—it will provide a more integrated and a more complete picture of departmental planning and performance.

So the first thing is it will provide better information and more accessible information. Secondly, I do think that, in terms of committee business, this kind of reporting provides an opportunity for new ways, essentially, for the committee to engage, ultimately, departments. And I think that potentially—again, I'm not saying it's about to revolutionize committee business—it certainly could provide some of the tools for improving and strengthening the committee process.

First of all, what if ministers came and presented proposed results commitments to committees and asked them to review those? It would be an opportunity to have a look at the results commitments and begin to talk about what matters to parliamentarians, whether it's at the level of programs or even discussing the larger level of the so-called societal indicators that are the backdrop. And that's to begin to initiate an interesting policy exchange and discussion between the committee and the department.

Secondly, there's no reason in my mind—there may be other reasons—that the minister couldn't ask the committee to play a significant role in terms of providing feedback to the department through exactly this kind of dialogue and exchange. And that seems like a very important role and a natural role for the committee to play.

• 1020

Finally, it would give members a much better context in which to situate more specific legislative initiatives—a broader context to understand why or how a department arrived at that particular piece of legislation, and the trade-offs and so on that were necessary.

Again, if you have a much better, complete and integrated picture of how the department thinks, what its big plan is, and what its strategic objectives are, you have a better idea of what it thinks its priorities are and how it's made its trade-offs and so on. Even more importantly, if you've been a part of that process, by essentially providing feedback in discussion on the results that are being set, it should involve the committee more directly in the process.

Secondly, on the question of the role of providing constituents with an informed account of government activity, it just seems to me that this is, for want of a better word, a no-brainer. If you understand better what is going on in government, what the departments are doing, and have a sort of integrated picture of their planning and priorities, you're in a much better position, either critically or supportively, to explain to your constituents what government is actually doing—or at least what government claims it's doing—as opposed to having things appear like isolated initiatives that come out of who-knows-where.

Finally, of course, on representing constituents to Parliament, there is potentially a huge opportunity here for members of Parliament. If committees are engaged more directly in reviewing results commitments and discussing societal indicators and other things, there's no reason why they can't carry that discussion back down to the constituency level. They can have forums and consultations within their constituencies to find out what their constituents are interested in.

If it turns out that, say, societal indicators are the context in which we discuss and describe policies and programs—the natural language of policy—why not go back to constituents to ask them what they think are the big things their government should be doing? Do they want safer streets? Do they want cleaner air? Do they want a healthier population? What sorts of trade-offs are they prepared to make at that level? I think that is the language constituents speak and that's the language they care about.

This is a natural pause point because from here I'd like to move to a brief discussion of each of the four themes that essentially contain the proposals.

The Chair: Okay. At this point you've laid out basically the arguments we're aware of that good information allows us to do a better job. I wonder if the committee members have any comments or questions for Mr. Lenihan on the issue of how this will help parliamentarians. Have we hit the target squarely, or are there other aspects of this we should be aware of for reporting purposes?

Mrs. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Don, this is no secret to you, but I think you are talking about not just better information, but how committees and parliamentarians are engaged with the bureaucracy around formulating the future. Have you come to any conclusions? Do you have any thoughts on how you rationalize the tremendous demands on members' time, to give them some incentive to focus on the broader, more long-term picture? How does the way in which information is provided to them allow them to do that?

Mr. Donald Lenihan: Yes, those are some of the questions. I don't want to be naive here, but let me give what I think is the best scenario and the best answer to that.

First, if committees are to be more engaged in the policy process, I think they need better tools, and these proposals are part of the better tools.

Second, I believe most parliamentarians genuinely care about the bigger picture and—I hate to use this term over and over again—the societal indicators. I'm not saying they don't care about programs and policies, but they care about how those things will achieve the things they came into politics for.

Third, very briefly, I think the real payoff here and the real interest is that people care about that. If that language can be brought back down to the community level and can be seen to be working in government and manifested in the way government talks, acts and reports, it may help to re-engage people in what they think is important business. That surely should matter to you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Monsieur Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): These are very nice principles, but the reality in the ridings is altogether different. For example, lets take the Transitional Job Fund, which is, in itself, a worthwhile program. But when there are no competent administrators to manage it and do follow-ups in the field, people in different regions cannot benefit from this nice program implemented by Ottawa. The same thing happens every time the government establishes a program: it is launched in a region without having the necessary human resources assigned to do follow- ups.

• 1025

I could also take the example of the excessive amount of social insurance numbers that have been given out. If the government hired sixty or a hundred employees, it could resolve the problems and do a follow-up. We can develop all the measures we want, but they will be useless unless the government is willing to invest the funds needed to hire employees and do follow-ups. We could write the nicest document and pat ourselves on the back on June 12, but it will not resolve anything. In my opinion, this is the source of the problem.

[English]

Mr. Donald Lenihan: I'd like to say lots, but it probably isn't my place. Let me put this in context.

I guess we sort of need to remember what these are intended to achieve. Many of the points you've raised are probably, at the very least, good points for debate.

Mr. Yvon Godin: They look good on paper.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: The most you can expect from some changes like these—and it's a very reasonable amount—is better reporting. That may lead to a better discussion of the issues you're thinking about. It's not just measuring.

If the government says, for example, “Here's what we're trying to achieve with this program and here's how we're going to know if we achieve it”, then you'll be in a much better position if they don't to say, “Why didn't you achieve it?” Maybe it's because the resources aren't there on the ground. Maybe it's because it's a bad program.

In other words, this won't solve that problem. But if it's done properly and if the government's reporting on failures along with successes, as an opposition member it would put you in a better position to essentially hold the government to account and try to identify the shortcomings in the program or the policy, with evidence the government's providing you in the reports. It should make government more accountable, transparent, and ultimately—one hopes—more responsive.

[Translation]

The Chair: Monsieur Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I do not want to rain on anyone's parade, but I would like to say that I completely agree with my friend Yvon. Everything that you said is very, very nice in theory, but in practice, we could never apply it. I will give you three examples and then I would like to hear your point of view.

You say that the government should set social indicators which, apparently, is a new buzz word that we will use for the next two or three years before finding another. However, we established social indicators during the summits in Rio and Kyoto. We set social indicators when we signed the International Convention on Children's Rights in New York. These are three examples that come to mind. Could you tell me what would have been different if we had applied the principles you listed in your improvement project?

I have difficulty understanding your theory, which is why I am asking you to apply it by using a practical example. Lets play imaginary politics. Suppose that we implemented your proposals last year. What would have occurred when HRDC presented its report? If HRDC had adhered to your principles, what additional information could parliamentarians have obtained?

[English]

Mr. Donald Lenihan: You said there were three. I sort of got two, but maybe I've lumped a couple of them together. Let me start with the fact that there were government-set standards in other cases, and there surely have been for some time, and they made no difference.

There isn't a short answer to this. I want to be a realist, but at the same time I want to be a little bit of an optimist about this. First of all, I don't speak for the federal government and don't want to; I speak for an independent organization. This comes out of five years of travelling across the country, talking to federal, provincial and municipal governments about what they're doing, what makes it better and what makes it worse. My own view is that changing government takes a long time. It won't happen tomorrow and it happens incrementally. There are lots of different things to change.

One of the things you can change is how it reports. If you improve the pressure on governments to report, and ultimately to define more clearly what they're doing, that won't suddenly solve all the problems. There will still be a lot of inertia within the bureaucracy and elsewhere.

Lots of people have an interest in not reporting clearly. I'm not defending them here. I'm not here to defend them. My view is they should report as clearly as possible. I just want to say that each little step in that direction is a step forward, rather than a step back. The more you can essentially demand that governments tell you clearly what they're doing and how they're judging themselves, and hold their feet to the fire, the better off we are. We have made progress over the last 20 or 30 years, with ups and downs and different governments, in that way.

I'm not speaking for any government in particular. Look around the world and you'll find the best governments are the most transparent and accountable ones. Sometimes they move a little forward and sometimes they move a little back. But governments can get better, and the culture and the practice can get deeper. You move one step at a time.

• 1030

I think the job of the bureaucracy, if politicians commit them to those kinds of reporting practices, is to begin to deliver on them, and the job of politicians is to hold them to account and make bloody sure they keep doing it. They will try to hide their mistakes. They don't want to get caught. Nobody wants to get caught.

If you don't ask them, if you don't force them to put the tools there to start doing it, to start the process and start committing themselves to it, if we just throw up our hands and say it's not going to work—and it's not going to change the world tomorrow—what will happen is they'll take that as a free-for-all, and say fine, then we don't have to report.

I don't think every person inside the government—and I mean the bureaucracy—is malicious, but everybody wants to protect their own interests. I think you have to hold them to account, move one step at a time, and move the process along. Let's not expect tremendous results tomorrow.

The second thing is, what would have happened if these standards had been in place with respect to HRDC? I don't know. And I'm not begging off that question—I'm not an expert on HRDC. I've read about it in the papers, as have you, and I suspect, if you want my honest opinion—and I'm not damning or praising anybody here—there would have been a huge incentive for people not to want to report on that stuff, just like there's a huge incentive for other people to want to get it on the table.

All I would say is that the more governments are held to account and the more we demand of them a clear standard, the more likely we are to actually get to the truth one step at a time. That, in my view, is a good thing. That's progress.

The Chair: Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lenihan, you've been focusing on the committees being more productive. We seem to have got ourselves into a bit of a culture problem whereby committees are by and large expected to deliver what the government wants. In my opinion, that's because the bulk of the work of the committees, perhaps apart from the public accounts committee, is to review and report on legislation that is the end result of the government's internal deliberations, and they produce legislation for the House.

In order to change—it would be nice—I think I hear you saying we should involve committees at a much earlier stage in the development of policy opinions, prior to legislation being tabled in the House, where the government would be open and far more receptive to a variety of ideas. I think we should try to move in that kind of direction. I can understand the motivation—and I won't bother getting into it—for committees tending to defend the government and legislation.

If we're going to change the culture, it is to involve the committees where reputations are not at stake. If the government were to ask committees to analyse the performance indicators you were talking about, ask where they should go from here, say they welcome the committees' opinions—which may or may not result in legislation at a later date—then the government would be receptive to the opinion of Parliament. I think if we can involve committees at that much earlier stage, we would find that parliamentarians would appreciate their participation in committees and be able to be much more productive.

If I may just put in another plug for my private member's bill, Mr. Chair—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, you may not.

Mr. John Williams: Recall that we talked about the program evaluations being referred to committees for their opinion to be reported to the House in a report, which of course may or may not result in legislation.

While I have the floor, I'd like to ask Ms. Juraitis a question, since it's the first time I've had the Treasury Board before me in a committee on this particular issue.

The government's response to the Catterall-Williams report was, euphemistically speaking, terribly disappointing for me, because they basically nixed every recommendation that was in there. Would you like to comment on why it was completely and absolutely nixed?

Mr. Tony Ianno: Stick with the meeting.

Mr. John Williams: No, no. This is quite appropriate.

Mr. Tony Ianno: You can ask the question in the House.

Mr. John Williams: It's very appropriate, Mr. Chair, because we're talking about committees. We're talking about performance indicators. These things were completely incorporated in that report, and here we are, the parliamentarians, doing the whole work all over again.

Mr. Tony Ianno: You notice that Marlene left on this note.

Mr. John Williams: It would be quite frustrating, Mr. Chair, if we were to find that after going through all this work and rushing to come up with a report by June 12, it were nixed by the government again. So I would like to hear Ms. Juraitis' opinion, if I may.

• 1035

The Chair: The 52 recommendations incorporated in that report were circulated to the members of this committee, in addition to the government's response, so it indeed is relevant to the committee, based on the context in which we're assessing this. Our experience in the past is relevant. And keep in mind that Treasury Board is available to come back before us as this evolves, so let's not consider this to be the final. So maybe at this time, as a preliminary, Ms. Juraitis would like to make some comment.

Ms. Nola Juraitis (Director, Accountability for Collective Results, Planning, Performance and Reporting Sector, Comptrollership Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat): First of all, you say my name like a disease: Juraitis. So it's very, very easy.

I think, Mr. Williams, that was an overstatement, because the government's response was in the spirit of the direction of the Catterall-Williams report. We couldn't deal with a lot of the 52 recommendations, so basically we were supportive of the direction of the report. That is again expressed in the 1999 publication Managing for Results, and there's a lot of support for improving reporting to Parliament. So I don't understand your comment.

Mr. John Williams: I can elaborate, but perhaps I should wait until we have some other witnesses, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

If there is no further discussion on this segment of Mr. Lenihan's intervention here, his testimony, maybe we'll proceed now with the overview of the proposals.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: Thank you very much.

I'll try to make this fairly brief. It starts on page 5 of the document we handed out. We can say that what happened in developing these proposals is that there seemed to be four natural themes, if you like, under which they were clustered. Again, this came out out of a whole lot of discussion over a long period of time. Maybe the best thing is just to take these one at a time.

First of all, the binder, it says here, contains 13 proposals to improve reporting to Parliament that are grouped into three themes. The first is a focus on ways to better tailor information for Parliament. I guess the idea there was that what we've heard over and over again—and I've already alluded to this—is that parliamentarians find that a lot of the ways the information is reported or provided don't suit their needs. It's hard to get at, complicated, dispersed over a wide area, and so on. So the idea was to try to figure out how to make it more accessible and more usable to parliamentarians. There are I think six proposals on that one.

The second theme is streamlining and consolidating information for Parliament. In some ways these are the ones that I think are the most obvious and that seem to me to be things I can't imagine why we wouldn't want to do. There are four proposals here, and they essentially aim at making information a lot more accessible and consolidated. We can look at them individually as we go through later on.

The third theme is perhaps the most interesting one, from my point of view, and I've already alluded to this as well. It is that a number of these proposals are intended in some way to strengthen the parliamentary review process. Perhaps I'll just read through this paragraph rather than elaborating, and then we can look at it when we come to the proposals. It says here that parliamentarians expressed a desire to see the estimates process encourage greater collaboration and partnership between parliamentarians and public servants.

Indeed, Tony, I think here we have to credit you with the term “partnership”, which you came up with one memorable day. I think the idea expressed nicely what a lot of us felt in many of the discussions, which is that what really is needed is a new kind of partnership between parliamentarians on the one hand and the public service on the other. And there was the question of how we actually realize such a partnership. These are in some way measures that are a tentative step in that direction.

One proposal seeks to formalize processes to ensure continuous improvements in reporting to Parliament. Another two proposals address strengthening the role of standing committees in reviewing departmental planning and performance reporting. Again, I've alluded to that in terms of suggestions about how these reporting changes might allow committees to be engaged by departments or engage departments.

The last theme, theme four, is improving information on government expenditure plans and the use of funds in relation to plans. Ultimately, this is intended to strengthen reporting on the financial aspects. I must confess that perhaps this is the one I'm least qualified to speak on, and there will be presentations, I understand, later on from Treasury Board and perhaps the Auditor General's office that will touch on these and explain in a little more detail some of the finer points with respect to them. I'm not an expert in government financing.

For a moment I'm inclined to pause there. I would suggest we can move in the direction the committee feels is appropriate from here. We could look individually at the proposals, or we could discuss the themes in a more general way. It's open to your suggestions.

• 1040

The Chair: That's certainly the overview. We have basically the four silos under which these are grouped. I think, maybe as break points, let's deal with the specific proposals under theme one now, then possibly we can find out whether any of the preamble for this segment has an impact on those in terms of understanding. Maybe you'd proceed with theme one proposals.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: Okay. Let me make one little qualification here. I mentioned that there's a binder document, a much longer document that you will receive by the end of the week, of which this is the front-end piece. You'll notice that on page 7 here, on which we have six little paragraphs, we haven't actually stated the proposal, but I do have it and I can read it to you if you like. It will be in the longer binder piece along with a more detailed analysis of that particular proposal. The only reason there's a delay is because it has taken us some time to get the translation completed. Unfortunately, we're a few days behind on that, but that should be done very, very shortly.

I guess the way to come at this is to look at each one of these individually and we can talk about them one at a time. I will read the proposal as it's actually written. I appreciate it's a little hard to get it when I just read it off the top, but it will give you some idea of the content when we consider the discussion on page 7.

So here's proposal one under the theme “Tailoring Information for Parliament.” It's that department's report on performance in a way that, one, provides evidence on results in relation to previous commitments to results; two, explains how government activities and decisions have contributed to the reported results; three, notes areas of underachievement and lessons learned.

Thus, what we've described here in the gloss on page 7 is to say that we're looking for a kind of higher level of reporting on results achieved for Canadians. Departments would report on plans and performance on the basis of key results in government priorities rather than organizational structures.

Number two—again I'll briefly read the proposal. This has to do with cost information expectations that—

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Lenihan. Could you do that in reverse? Start with the—

Mr. Donald Lenihan: Oh, with the gloss?

The Chair: With the executive or the high level and then we can translate it into detail.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: Oh, okay.

Number two is performance evidence on results rather than processes. Efforts would be made to demonstrate the role that government played in contributing to the reported results. Underachievements and lessons learned would also be included.

Should I read the proposal, or is that getting too detailed? I can do so if you like.

The Chair: The detailed proposal in fact reflects the spirit, so as long as you're comfortable that the point is made—

Mr. Donald Lenihan: I think it is.

The Chair: In terms of tailoring information for Parliament, the basic message is that performance evidence should be on results rather than processes. That's the substantive point we're making.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: Right.

Number three is development of government-wide standards for reporting costs in order to link costs to results and to related activities in other departments. Costs would be reported on the basis of business lines that focus on results. The standards would clarify how to report on costs that span several years, as well as how to factor in related activities in other departments—that's the horizontal dimension.

Number four: reporting would cover a three-year planning period. That's to give a larger horizon. For each business line, departments would start with the big picture, setting long-term goals over a three-year period with short-term and medium-term indicators for the next annual report. The long-term portion would, where appropriate, use societal indicators both as context and trend information.

By the way, I think it's worth noting here that while we talked about context, the trend information is also a hugely important part of societal indicators. They not only give us a context in which to discuss policies and programs, but insofar as reporting tracks—the trends—it gives us a clearer idea of the way the society is actually going, whether we are really moving toward those big outcomes that we care about and we've defined as our vision of the society.

Number five: increased reporting on collective results—again, the horizontal dimension—increased reporting on collective results, initiatives that involve more than one department or jurisdiction. Also, over time a series of linkages could be developed between business lines and broader societal trends, identifying as a minimum what role the federal government played, or contribution analyses.

Finally, more context information using societal indicators to frame departmental planning and progress in a broader Canadian setting.

• 1045

The Chair: I think it's a good summary. There's an example, I think a very good example, of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: that we don't just have the department, but there's an integration and impacts in a much broader sense.

On theme one, Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Although I do not know if my question relates to the first theme, I would like to ask you if the Financial Information Strategy is included among the six points that the Treasury Board and the Auditor General would like to implement in all the departments by April 2001. Is there a link between these points and the points your presented here?

[English]

Mr. Donald Lenihan: Begging your indulgence, I would like to leave that for theme four, which is on the financial reporting, and take it up at that time. The people from Treasury Board.... This is not to dodge the question. I could take a stab at it, but I'm not as informed on that as I'd like to be, and I'd prefer you to address that question to them. They'll probably give you a much more complete answer of what the connection is on that particular part.

The Chair: During theme four we'll complete theme one.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams: It seems that Mr. Lenihan is talking about the estimates and goals and objectives and reporting on results achieved. Of course we have the plans and priorities, forward-looking documents, and we have the performance documents that come out in the fall basically talking about what has been achieved, and we have the constitutional requirement that we have to vote on, the business of supply. You haven't seemed to have touched on that requirement, that the information on the business of supply that we vote on each and every year has to be extracted and presented to us in a format we can vote on.

I haven't given this a lot of detailed thought, but I don't know if that information could be presented to us on a program-by-program basis rather than in the current standard format. I would like to hear what the Auditor General has to say, and perhaps the Treasury Board witnesses too.

On the higher level of reporting, it is not just an overview for Canadians that we have to concern ourselves about. We have to concern ourselves about detailed, specific information for academics and others who are extremely interested in a particular program. So we have what I call the conundrum of wanting all the information that is required—which means we're buried in paper—or an overview, which is fine and keeps the amount of paper down, but it doesn't give us enough information to ask detailed questions of the people who are delivering the services.

I haven't really resolved that conundrum in my mind, but now that we're into this electronic age—and I know the Treasury Board is moving quite rapidly in this area to try to provide electronic information—I think we have to encourage that as much as we can, Mr. Chair. While parliamentarians need to have the overview in order to vote supply, there must be some mechanism, likely through the Internet, that gives anybody who wants to burrow down into the detailed cost analysis of any particular program access to that information.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: I'll say briefly that I'm wondering if that may not be covered under themes two and one, which is the idea of essentially a website. It seems to me you're moving in the right direction, at least as far as I'm concerned. If we want to streamline a lot of reporting processes and make it on the one hand more accessible—and I don't want to say less detailed—let's get the detail in the right place. Maybe another way of saying this is that the high level of detail that a few people might want could be made accessible in other ways in other places—ideally, a website or something.

Mr. John Williams: Yes, that's my point. As parliamentarians, we have to look at the big picture. But there are parliamentarians, academics, and others who are specifically involved and interested in a particular program. Members are not going to find that in the estimates presented to Parliament for approval every year, because we already have a stack of documents more than a foot thick that is basically and barely an overview.

If you were to have detailed reporting.... Not reporting, as reporting is in the fall; estimates and projections are in the spring. So if you are going to have detailed projections, the stack of documents would be ten feet high, and who is going to plow through that? They're not.

• 1050

This is the conundrum we have. We have to recognize that parliamentarians need the overview in order to vote supply. Committees may want specific information about a specific program, including performance indicators expected to be achieved, and so on and so forth. We have to have that information available to us in both ways. But I don't think we want it all in one document, because it would become completely unmanageable.

The Chair: I should indicate that Mr. Lenihan is going to be in attendance at subsequent meetings and available to us. Certainly we're going to have an opportunity to follow up some of these things, so that once we get the full report, once we hear the rest of the testimony and some of the input from the Auditor General and the clerk, some of these questions will become a little more focused.

My intent is that we'll continue to work through the other three themes, at least to get them on the table, but all of this information is subject to further discussion with Treasury Board and certainly Mr. Lenihan as well.

Mrs. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: You talked about reporting on underachievements. Isn't it at least as important to report on overachievements, where we've exceeded what we expected?

A voice: Does that happen?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Sure. I think it happens quite often. The Auditor General's reporting on best practices, for instance, I think is extremely important, because we tend to look at the problems, and not at where we did really well so we can duplicate it. I think that's at least as important.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: I couldn't agree more. I guess as a guy whose background is in public administration and the study of public administration, certainly for someone like me, best practices are hugely important, as are mistakes. It's usually easy to find the best practices, but without them we don't move ahead. I think that's really true.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: As a final point, and I guess this is putting my bias on the table, Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask Mr. Lenihan a question: What business is the government in? I ask it because I don't like that jargon—

Mr. Donald Lenihan: What's that?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: —of business lines. We aren't in business.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: I guess this is another one of those things we could discuss over drinks sometime. All I say is that business here is like business planning. Personally—and I've done lots of work in business planning across the country—how did we get stuck with this term “business planning”? I actually think Alberta probably brought it in first, and maybe that's how we got it.

Mr. John Williams: Everything happens first in Alberta.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: All I can say is that the jargon may be just jargon, and I think we shouldn't lose a lot of sleep over it.

The Chair: Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams: Again, you're talking about the three-year planning period, and when I'm looking at your theme I have confusion between reporting past performance and the estimates that are future-oriented.

What I've been trying to encourage is that the plans and priorities that are presented to us in the spring contain the estimates on which we vote within a context of three years looking forward, and that the performance documents that are presented in the fall also cover a three-year historical period in the same format and presentation style as the plans and priorities. In essence, we would have six years: three years of actual historical results and three years of projection. So when we are analysing the estimates, the business of supply, we see it in a fairly reasonably long context. We could then see where the department has come from and where it intends to go with its individual programs. I think that has to be encouraged and continued.

The Chair: Thank you for the commentary.

If there are no further initial comments on theme one, let us proceed to theme two.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: Okay. Theme two, on page eight of your document, is the one streamlining and consolidating information for Parliament. Again, I'll just read through. I'll skip reading the proposal for now, unless somebody wants to hear it.

I should mention as background, as the chair has already indicated, in the longer document what we have done in theme one—and I never mentioned this—is to use Indian and Northern Affairs Canada as an example and sort of said that given what INAC has been doing over the last five years as a pilot project in this kind of reporting, and what would happen if these things were implemented or the extent to which they have been implemented. It does give you a little bit of an idea of what sort of actual differences these reporting practices would make. Theme two is streamlining and consolidating information for Parliament.

• 1055

First, making the pilot estimates, performance, and planning information site on the Internet a formal part of the estimates process would ensure user-friendly electronic access to all reports and relevant background information associated with the estimates. This central repository would also facilitate more advanced searches on horizontal issues that cross multiple departments. In a nutshell then, making a website an integral part of where the estimates information is available.... And one assumes that the more powerful and the better search engines and other things are, the easier it will be to pull together the kind of information John Williams and others might like to have.

Two, departments currently have many other reporting requirements in addition to the estimates. The second proposal addresses the consolidation of reporting. Departments could use their department performance reports and reports on planning and priorities to provide or reference the information needed for other reporting requirements, thereby reducing the paper burden on parliamentarians.

The third proposal would respond directly to the concern voiced by parliamentarians during the round-tables that the sheer volume of materials in the estimates—and we did hear this over and over again—is overwhelming. Executive summaries would be required for longer department performance reports and reports on planning and priorities. Again, this seems to me a no-brainer. I don't know why anybody would object to an executive summary; it just helps us get a figure and an introduction to what we're doing. Those who want to go beyond the executive summary are free to do so.

Finally, similar to the second proposal, the fourth proposal also seeks to consolidate reporting by requiring that, where appropriate, smaller agencies report on plans on a cyclical basis, again giving us a bit more of the bigger picture for smaller agencies in the three-year planning process.

Mr. John Williams: What do you mean by “small agencies on a cyclical basis”? What's small and what's cyclical?

Mr. Donald Lenihan: I knew you were going to ask that question.

Ms. Nola Juraitis: It's a matter for debate.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: Okay. There.

The Chair: I'm sorry; could you repeat that?

Mr. Donald Lenihan: I said I knew John was going to ask that question, and Nola said it's a matter for debate.

The bottom line is I'm not in a position here to define the criteria. That's a decision that will have to be made: what counts as small and what doesn't, and who's going to make that decision? At the risk of sounding as if I'm side-stepping the issue, if I were to try to resolve that issue, I'd probably be here forever. We didn't actually hear the answer to that question in our round-tables and stuff.

It's rather a way of saying that's part of the discussion that presumably departments and committees might have: what counts as a small agency and what sort of reporting requirement or burden do we want to place on this agency as opposed to that agency or that part of the department?

The Chair: Presumably we can seek a consensus on that.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: One only hopes.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Williams: If they're so small and irrelevant that they don't have to report on an annual basis, Mr. Chair, they should be rolled into a department and given some subordinate role rather than a separate agency. But I'm not prepared at this point in time to think small and irrelevant means they only report every several years.

The Chair: That's a good point. Materiality obviously is very important here, in that we don't want Parliament to not be productive. If you consolidate or summarily deal with immaterial items, that still leaves a population of other items to deal with. On a relative basis, some of those still must be small.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: You can have a really good discussion on this one, but the point has been tabled with us, and when we see the proposal, your point is, let's not fall into the trap of being given more work to do on matters that are not in fact, in the big scheme of things, relevant to the work of Parliament.

Mr. John Williams: Yes. May I continue, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Please.

Mr. John Williams: Talking about department performance reports and so on, I'm basically putting the Treasury Board on notice that I've found it quite self-serving so far, and I've been trying to improve the objectivity of their reporting and will continue to press in that direction.

The Chair: Good.

Seeing no indication of wanting to pursue this further at this time, let's move on to theme three.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: Okay. Theme three, my personal favourite, I dare say—it's close to my heart—is strengthening parliamentary review processes. Again, I want to underline and just say something about the background, maybe because it's my personal favourite.

• 1100

I tried to organize some of these processes or round-tables where these issues were discussed, and we went looking for parliamentarians who might want to talk about this stuff and did find a few, happily. Mainly we found out very quickly what they really cared about—and again, I don't mean to lecture you on your business, but I'm just telling you what we heard—was that they wanted to see this stuff strengthen the role of committees and the role of parliamentarians and the opportunity to engage departments and other things. So we tried to reflect that in thinking through this, both in the other reports in the past and finally in these proposals here.

Having said that, one is continuing improvements of estimates reporting practices through experimentation with pilot projects and a provision for regular review of initiatives related to improved reporting to Parliament, with a potential for recommendations on further changes. One of the things reflected in here that is really important in the spirit of these proposals is this is meant as an evolution. It's not as if we suddenly have a bunch of proposals and they're going to completely reorganize the way reporting happens and change government. It's a step. It's a step that will have further steps, and there's growth here and continuation. It's one step in a process.

Second is strengthening the role of standing committees in the estimates reporting process by encouraging departments to engage their respective standing committees in reviewing their key results commitments. This may not sound like a whole lot on paper, but I actually think there's a lot of meat here, and I think this would be a very significant and interesting exercise.

Three is encouraging standing committees to review reports on plans and priorities and the departmental performance reports, and possibly involving the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in tracking these reviews. Again, it doesn't look like too much on paper, but there's a lot of meat in that potentially, and again I think it would be a very interesting exercise and an engaging one.

I'll stop there.

The Chair: Questions? Comments? Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams: I don't think we're really going to get serious involvement by the committees in the estimates process until they feel it is a worthwhile exercise. As you know, the last time the estimates were reduced by even as much as a nickel was 1972, in the last minority Parliament we had. Somebody had a beef against the president of CBC and knocked $1,000 off his salary, and I think we knocked $19,000 off some subsidy to CN Rail, for a total of $20,000, Mr. Chair. Since that time, we have voted on perhaps $1 trillion worth of supply, all for $20,000 of reduction. That's the only thing we found, including $1,000 off the salary of the president of the CBC.

Until the committees think there is some real objectivity in the analysis of these reports, plans, and priorities, so that if something does stand out like a sore thumb, it would be, “Wait a minute; this should be reduced”, they're not going to pick up and be excited about the estimates.

You will know, Mr. Chair, the normal process of motions in the House is reversed regarding the estimates. When a normal motion is tabled and debated in the House, you can move an amendment to the motion, we vote on the amendment, and if the amendment passes, then we vote on the main motion as amended. It's fairly simple stuff. However, when it comes to the estimates, when a notice of motion to amend is tabled and put on the Order Paper, that notice causes the president of the Treasury Board to reinstate the full amount, and we vote on the full amount of the vote prior to voting on the amendment to reduce. So how can you vote in favour of the full amount and then vote to reduce on the amendment? The procedure is completely and totally reversed to ensure that you vote on the full amount.

Then of course the government invokes confidence, saying if we defeat a vote of maybe $50 million, all because somebody wants to eliminate $1,000 off the president of the CBC's salary, if it happens to be the CBC budget, for example.... First you vote on the entire amount going to the CBC, and you can't say no to that, because they are entitled to some money. We wouldn't cut them off entirely. If you defeat that entire motion, then what's the CBC going to do? Therefore how can you vote in favour of the main motion and then vote again in favour of the amendment too?

• 1105

So this process has to be looked at seriously, and I refer the committee back to recommendations in the Catterall-Williams report that made recommendations on that basis, which the government did not see fit to implement at the time that report was considered by the government.

I bring that issue back again and say we must give some credit to the committees. Remember, they all have a government majority, and this idea that the government has to bend the rules completely and turn them upside down in order to guarantee that the estimates pass untouched is an affront to accountability and democracy. Therein lies a serious problem, and we have to take a serious look at that. We are not going to get people looking at the plans and priorities, as much as Mr. Lenihan may like it, as much as I may like it, when they find it's just an exercise in futility. They're not going to do it; they're going to go on to other things.

So I'm all for looking at change, and I hope this committee will revisit that particular issue.

The Chair: I'm glad you raised the issue, because I was quite interested, although I wasn't able to attend the forum by the Parliamentary Centre on committee work. I think it might be useful to find out if there is either reporting or documentation on some of the discussion or points for consideration that were raised there, of which we may also want to apprise ourselves as we discuss this.

You're quite right that if there's no confidence in the productivity of the process, it doesn't matter how professional the process is; it still results in the same thing. We need to be over that hurdle.

Mr. John Williams: The whole theme of Mr. Lenihan's statement this morning is that results are more important than process. For a committee to spin its wheels thinking it's doing great work by talking to the bureaucrats and saying what about this and what about that, and should you do this, and can't we make that suggestion for improvement, it all comes down to a vote on the estimates. And if everything that's proposed is defeated by the process that's guaranteed to ensure that the committee recommendations are defeated, then parliamentarians throw up their hands and say “Why bother?” I think it has to change.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: I wonder if I could make two very brief comments, because I take to heart what Mr. Williams has to say.

First of all, I think he's absolutely right that we have to find a way to engage people, and the bottom line is that there probably need to be a lot of changes at a lot of different levels. These are meant to be only some of those, and that's an evolutionary process.

Let me just leave it at that. I think there are lots of different things that can be done to make it more relevant to people's work, and that's going to come on a lot of different fronts. That's all I can say.

[Translation]

The Chair: Monsieur Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Once again, I would not like to be negative, but this situation resembles the one which took place the other evening during the forum. The members of parliament who were sitting on the committees were extremely frustrated. I hope that a report will be written after the forum and that it mentions the frustration they expressed.

I could take the example of the Fisheries Committee*** that had made recommendations following its tour of the Atlantic region. The former chair of the committee, George Baker, did not even show up to represent his committee because, as we all know, he had resigned as chair. The members of parliament who sat on the committee even voted against the recommendations their own committee had made. What could be worse? How much freedom do members of parliament have when sitting on a committee? The only members of parliament who have any leeway are members of the opposition. It has occurred that committee members have made a decision and the next day the government arrives on the scene and overturns it by sheer weight of numbers. This is why I ask myself whether the committee's work will be useful. We have to count on the willingness of the government to respect a transparent, democratic and open process. Regardless, if the government always adopts the same position and hides things, other problems will inevitably occur.

[English]

The Chair: It's certainly a classic example and a very well-known example. There are examples to the contrary, as well, and maybe our role is to find out what it is that makes good committees good committees. Some have had chairs who inspire or are conciliators and mediators, and there is a common objective based on the mandate. But we can't get away from the partisanism.

• 1110

I think your point is well taken and certainly should be reflected in our report, because what Mr. Williams has raised and what you've kind of reinforced is that if there is no presumption that there is any possibility of productivity or objectivity, then the process is undermined at the first step.

Mr. Lenihan.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: As one final comment, for the record, Mr. Williams, when you say that I say that results are more important than process, I wouldn't want to be caught saying that at all. What I would say is that there has been a shift towards results.

Results and process are on a kind of continuum, and I'm not sure where on the continuum we were before. I think we've shifted, but process is tremendously important. Democracy is a process, after all, right?

There is a question about where we focus on results and where we focus on process. That's not the subject for me here today, but just for the record, I think it depends where we are and what we're talking about.

Mr. John Williams: I didn't want to say the process was irrelevant. I'm saying the process was the only thing that happened. There were no results, which in essence meant we spun our wheels and called it results. We've accomplished nothing.

We go through the process. We hear the witnesses. We put forward motions knowing full well that the whole exercise is totally and absolutely futile.

You said the last time was 1972. Was it coincidental that it happened to be a minority government? Who can say?

It brings to mind that perhaps we should think about asking Mr. Peter Dobell to come as a witness. Mr. Dobell has been a student of Parliament for 35 years, and I think he would perhaps have some wonderful insights to give to us as well.

The Chair: Is that acceptable to consider, to approach him?

It looks like we have consensus, so we will do that.

Obviously this subject is not finished. We'll be back to it. We should possibly move on to theme four at this time, to the extent that we can make some general comments, and then maybe we can proceed to wrap up this initial session.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: With respect to theme four, you'll notice in there we do have the theme of improving information on governmental expenditure plans and the use of funds in relation to plans. I would prefer to wait until we actually have the document in front of us and discuss the particular proposals at that time, if that's acceptable to the committee.

Ms. Nola Juraitis: With the right expertise.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: Yes. The simple answer is that some of these have technical implications to which I think I really am not very qualified to speak. In writing the report, we reflected what we heard and what we've discussed with others, but that's where I became less of a thinker and more of a rapporteur in the literal sense. I think it is important that it's presented from the people who can give it a little bit more expertise and answer the questions that are likely to be raised.

The Chair: Having said that, as you know, we're going to hear tomorrow from the Auditor General's office, as well as from the clerk. My understanding was that their appearance before us was in fact to provide commentary and opinions on the package of proposals, or at least the block as they were aware of them, including theme four.

Mr. Donald Lenihan: Nola may want to add to this, but what I would say is that the first of the three themes has to do with the move to accrual accounting, the second the accrual appropriations, and the third is streamlining votes in the estimates process.

Again, I would be hard-pressed to say a whole lot about accrual accounting, especially in front of someone like John Williams or yourself, Mr. Chairman, for fear that I'll only reveal my own ignorance. Perhaps Nola would like to take a stab at it.

• 1115

The Chair: That's understood. Certainly our other witnesses are prepared to discuss those aspects of our mandate. You will be subsequently available to the committee, in any event, so that we'll be able to receive further information from you to flush out any points and certainly to have a discussion on those. We'll reserve that until you're prepared to do the job properly.

Mr. Lenihan, have you now brought us to a point where we should have the big picture on the direction we're going?

Mr. Donald Lenihan: I hope so. If possible, I'd like to make just a brief concluding statement about this that reflects my own thinking over the course of this project.

If I were to conclude this, the question I'd be asking myself and have asked myself over and over again is why I would support these proposals. I do want to say that I really do take to heart the comments that have been made, particularly on this side of the table, that there are lots of things they can't be expected to address or to address immediately. Having said that, I think it's really important that we see this as part of a larger picture. They're introducing tools that will help us make Parliament and parliamentary debate better. They won't solve all the problems.

I would give you five reasons to support them, or five reasons I support them. I do think they reflect universal changes in the nature of government and in the way government is practised, and that's just required. We're failing to report on the way government actually works any more, and you have to get the reporting in line with the way the government works. I do think that's a move to results, business planning, and all sorts of stuff.

Secondly, I believe that in principle and in reality, all three of these proposals together will make or could make government much more accountable, certainly more transparent, and more accessible, at least at some level and maybe some great level. Those are really good reasons to support this, at least in my mind.

Finally, I don't think for a moment.... I'm not naive about the state of committees in the House of Commons. I'm not here to comment on it except to say that I'm a big fan of re-energized committees and committee business. These will not re-energize committees exclusively, but they could provide opportunities and tools that would help energize the committee process. I can't imagine why, on that basis alone, one would not want to support them. I do believe they're non-partisan. I believe they do reflect the changes in government and I believe they're for better government. This is me speaking, through and through.

The Chair: Very good.

Are there any final comments or questions for Mr. Lenihan or Ms. Juraitis at this time?

Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams: Yes. There are two points I'd like to make, Mr. Chair.

While we deliberate on these issues and table a report that's going to be read by the government, I would seriously hope that the government would see fit to implement it as far as possible. I must say I was disappointed in the response on the Catterall-Williams report and how little of that was really taken to heart.

While we've been talking more about the plans and priorities of the reports, there were also the performance reports. I mentioned briefly that they have been somewhat self-serving in my opinion and they really need to be much more objective. The Treasury Board, as a central manager of government, should be setting out some minimum standards of what would be expected in these performance documents.

For example, a couple of years ago, HRDC never even mentioned social insurance numbers in their entire document. In the same year, the Auditor General brought down a devastating report on the administration of social insurance numbers, which falls within the realm of the responsibility of HRDC. When you read the performance report, social insurance numbers weren't even mentioned once in the whole document. Here was a program being managed by a department that was having serious problems and they didn't even acknowledge that they had that within their realm of responsibility. I find that quite disconcerting when it comes to the accountability process. That's only an example.

The Chair: Sure.

There's no need to comment unless you have a burning need to do that.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: When I expressed my point of view earlier, I did not necessarily want to cast any doubt over what we are trying to do, nor what we hope to accomplish; but I was asking myself if we will truly succeed in solving the problems. I am in favour of transparency and hope that people will feel at ease.

• 1120

I do not always want to attack the Department of Human Resources Development, but I must admit that employees there are doing their work more conscientiously since the scandal exploded. It would have been better if things had been transparent from the beginning. Canadians must have confidence in their government. I would like to say that I am not opposed to the process we have started.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Godin.

I believe we have a good start for our mandate. We will attempt to arrange for the chairman of the Senate finance committee as well as Peter Dobell to appear as witnesses at this point. We'll seek their availability and check with you with regard to booking or firming up those dates.

We will also be circulating to you the full report from Mr. Lenihan with all of the detailed proposals and a little bit more of the commentary, which should help to fill in. We will also be seeking any report or commentary out of the Parliamentary Centre forum that was held on May 10, which is relevant to the issues raised and supported by Mr. Williams and Mr. Godin. I think we've moved this round quite well.

We have given notice of a meeting tomorrow at 3:30 in 536 Wellington, at which we'll receive the Auditor General's office and the Clerk of the House of Commons, Mr. Marleau.

Are there any further items that members would like to raise at this time?

Mr. John Williams: There's no presentation from the Treasury Board?

The Chair: This is under the umbrella of the Treasury Board. As I had indicated, Mr. Lenihan and Treasury Board are here basically throughout our proceedings to ensure that we do have the information. We will certainly respond to any specific requests with regard to witnesses or areas for testimony that the committee would suggest at any time.

Thank you for your participation. We are adjourned.