SBUD Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on the Estimates Process of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 26, 2003

»

1740

The Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.))

Ms. Maria Barrados (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

»

1745

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

»

1750

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Maria Barrados

»

1755

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Maria Barrados

¼

1800

Mr. John Mayne (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Ms. Maria Barrados

¼

1805

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

¼

1810

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Maria Barrados

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

¼

1815

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Maria Barrados

The Chair

Ms. Maria Barrados

The Chair

Ms. Maria Barrados

The Chair

Mr. John Mayne

The Chair

---

CANADA

Subcommittee on the Estimates Process of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 003

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 26, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

»  (1740)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)): I'm going to call the meeting to order. Pursuant to the motion of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates adopted November 26, 2002, we're continuing our study to enquire into matters relating to the review of the process for considering the estimates and supply. With us are Maria Barrados and John Mayne, from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, and we look forward to hearing what they have to say.

    I want to indicate in advance that the bells for a vote will be going off at 6:15, which gives us just over 30 minutes to hear some testimony and ask some questions. We take a pretty informal approach in terms of how we look at things in this particular committee. We're all working cooperatively, in the best interests of Parliament, to ensure that we look at the estimates process in a much more effective manner.

    Please go ahead.

    Ms. Maria Barrados (Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you very much for inviting us to appear before your committee, Mr. Chairman. I have a short opening statement that I would like to give. Members should have copies of it.

[Translation]

    First, as you are aware, the Main Estimates are divided into three parts.

    Part I provides an overview of the government's spending for the new fiscal year and describes the relationship of the Estimates to the government's Expenditure Plan (as set out in the Budget).

    Part II directly supports the Appropriation Act by identifying the spending authorities (votes) and providing a detailed listing of the budgetary and statutory expenditures for all departments and agencies.

    Part III of the Estimates is split into two documents, Departmental Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPPs) and Performance Reports (DPRs).

[English]

Reports on plans and priorities provide information on the plans and priorities of departments and agencies and on how resources entrusted to them will contribute to the achievement of their strategic outcomes. The departmental performance reports provide information on the results that programs have delivered over several years, and on whether or not progress is being made in attaining performance targets, including strategic outcomes. Standing committees can use the planning and performance information in these two documents, the RPPs and the DPRs, to examine the overall direction of public policy, assess the use of resources to achieve results, and suggest where priorities should be adjusted or where resources should be reallocated.

    A number of powers are available to standing committees, and often they are not fully used. They can call departmental and agency officials to appear before the committees. Committees can question officials on technical, administrative issues related to the estimates. Rigorous questioning of officials in a public forum can also make a difference. Committees can issue reports on the estimates and matters related to the management and operation of departments and agencies. While committees cannot issue substantive reports on the estimates themselves, they can include substantive comments in committee reports on DPRs and RPPs. And committees can also suggest the reduction or rejection of a vote. This is a rarely used power, but it can have a symbolic impact.

    In order to make their review of the estimates more effective, standing committees can do the following: have committee members carefully examine the estimates and the RPPs and DPRs to identify areas of interest or concern; develop a set of priority areas for questioning—possibly in a planning meeting—before the review of the estimates and the appearance of witnesses; have researchers prepare technical, administrative questions that are forwarded by the chair to departmental officials before their appearance in front of the committee; select a specific program or business line of interest to committee members for careful scrutiny; use the independent information and expertise available from other organizations, such as industry groups, interested parties, and the Office of the Auditor General, to support the committee's work; engage other stakeholders in the discussion of the estimates and RPPs and DPRs; encourage departments and agencies to provide information in the RPPs and DPRs in a way that meets the committee's needs; and tie the high-level information provided in the estimates documents to more detailed information usually available through electronic links. The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates could set an example for other committees on how to examine the estimates and the RPPs and the DPRs.

[Translation]

    We have prepared a handout with possible questions that committees could use to question officials from departments and agencies. We have identified five areas that committees may want to pursue. Committees can ask questions about government policy and direction, what has been accomplished with the tax dollars and authorities provided by Parliament, better ways of delivering results, how the program is being delivered, and the usefulness of Estimates documents.

[English]

    There are several ways in which the Office of the Auditor General can help parliamentary committees review spending plans, past performance, and other management issues. Office staff can describe the results of audits to committees or committee staff if they are still relevant. The office endeavours to monitor committee interests and concerns, and plans its work to provide information that is timely and relevant. The Auditor General and other senior representatives of the office are available to appear as witnesses. The office reports on the quality, fairness and reliability of selected departmental performance reports. And the office can help parliamentarians by offering briefings to parliamentary committees on subject matters of interest, including the functioning of government, the information available to members, and approaches for scrutinizing the estimates documents.

    We have examined estimates practices in other jurisdictions and are following them with interest. In 1997, we noted that legislators in other jurisdictions in Canada and abroad were using performance information because they had recognized the need to find ways to make the review of this information more meaningful.

    I would like to remind the committee that we are revising and reissuing a document we originally released in 1998, Parliamentary Committee Review of the Revised Estimates Documents. We are hoping to have this document ready to give to parliamentarians by the end of March. Much of the information I have discussed today is contained in this document. And, Mr. Chairman, I have also asked to distribute a more detailed list of questions that give a flavour for the kinds of things members may want to ask when looking at estimates documents.

    That ends my opening comments. We'd be happy to answer any questions.

»  (1745)  

    The Chair: Okay.

    Paul Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for coming.

    I'm looking at the suggested questions and the overall process of Parliament perhaps asserting its audit or oversight function. I just came from the public accounts committee earlier this afternoon. An interesting dynamic happens at public accounts. In retrospect, the Auditor General comes in and sits where you're sitting, and the particular department in question, as related to the Auditor General's report, sits right beside her. We can then get a back-and-forth going. That's retrospective at public accounts, and after the fact.

    I'm wondering if it would be possible to have a somewhat similar dynamic arranged in the prospective, forward-looking estimates process. I don't think it could be the Auditor General who would be sitting there. However, maybe it could be some comptrollership person or someone who could be doing some kind of back-and-forth, providing some kind of audit in terms of what is to be done or how it is being done now, with departmental people then justifying what has been called into question.

    That's an interesting dynamic and it seems to work at public accounts, but it's always in hindsight. We want to look at how we can sharpen the pointy end of the missile and redirect where we're going into the future. Perhaps you might be able to comment on that.

    I'll just leave it at that, but I'll have a supplementary question.

»  (1750)  

    Ms. Maria Barrados: Mr. Chairman, it has been our experience that this idea works very well at public accounts, when the auditor is presenting the auditor's report and you then have the officials from the ministries—for some recently, it was even a minister—talking about what is being done in the department.

    It would be quite possible for other committees, in reviewing anything, to call witnesses who would suit their purposes in terms of providing the information they are looking for to help them with the challenge. I've been at other standing committees, before which we were not the only people at the table. The only thing I would caution you about from our experience is that sometimes if this end of the table is too big, if you have too many people, you actually lose effectiveness.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: This is the document that landed on my desk today, parts I and II, The Government Expenditure Plan and Main Estimates, for 2003–04, and I have to try to make some sense of it. Even though it's thick like a phone book, items in here are still of a very general nature. To look specifically at a case example, that being the gun registry problem, I was looking at the Department of Justice in the main estimates. I really couldn't find such a big item delineated in the estimates for 2003–04. Of course, along came the supplementary estimates, ending this March, and some $77 million—I think that's what it is—is identified as a gun registry request.

    One of the other things I suppose we need to look at is the fact that the shape of these documents has been amended since I've come here, but maybe that isn't the be all and the end all. Maybe we need to look at better documents, more complete supplemental addenda, or something that can somehow provide transparency, as we've talked about. If it's very difficult for me to understand, then I don't think the average person on the street can understand it either.

    So maybe you can comment on this type of animal as well, in terms of being able to really allow people to understand how their money is being spent on their behalf.

    Ms. Maria Barrados: I think it's very important for committees to get sufficient knowledge of the policies and programs that are in a department so that they know what is going on with something before the Auditor General comes in and tables the report. Really, what the committees should be trying to do is identify the gun registry issues before the AG actually reports. That requires a fair bit of scrutiny and attention on the part of the committees in terms of looking at the policies, looking at the moneys, and looking at the expenditures. I think that's an important thing to try to achieve.

    On the issue of better documents, from everything we've seen, we hear members saying they want them to be shorter, briefer, and more concise. They don't want a lot of material. On the other hand, members want specific details that explain something they're interested in. So I think what's required is a combination. You want the shorter, briefer, more succinct, higher overview documents. At the same time, what you should be getting are linkages to a lot more detail. That should work. There should be a good dynamic with that.

»  (1755)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: In that budget document, perhaps it could show the web page location specifically so that I can just look up all those appendices. That would be helpful.

    I will end it there and let my colleague carry on.

    The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Welcome, Ms. Barrados and Mr. Mayne. We need your help because we are responsible, I believe, for discharging a particular responsibility, but we neither have the right tools nor the time to do it. That is a terrible indictment, but we have forces within this profession such that people turn over in committees. The consistency or continuity is so infrequent that the expectations placed on people simply are not achievable. That hypothesis may not be true in all cases, though, because I know the public accounts committee seems to do a pretty good job, because it has some continuity. Justice seems to do a pretty good job too, except on the gun registry. But 50% of our responsibility is not being discharged, quite frankly, and I'm not sure how we retrench and refocus.

    At the beginning, I suggested that we need your help. It's one thing for a member of Parliament to throw out the challenge, but what we need is others from the outside saying that we have too many standing committees and subcommittees, we have people running around all over the place, we have no continuity, we have no expertise being targeted, we have people rolling over on committees too frequently, we have a document that everybody describes as a telephone book. This has been going on for years.

    I guess I'm reaching out. I'm asking whether we should try to do our jobs or continue to fine-tune whatever we have right now in an attempt to discharge that responsibility, or whether we should in fact go back and say what the responsibilities are: that we need to be oriented on this material, we need to be trained, we need to have the opportunity to do it, and we want those who have interests in certain areas to have an opportunity to become the continuity so that we have at least an outside shot at being successful in achieving our responsibilities.

    Ms. Maria Barrados: You make a number of very interesting and important points, but I don't really feel I'm in a position to tell members of Parliament how to organize their committees. On some of the other points that you've raised, I'd just like to add some brief comments, and then I'll ask John Mayne if he has something else he would like to add.

    The telephone book covers the whole estimates.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: In both official languages.

    Ms. Maria Barrados: Yes, and the individual documents for the department are becoming more focused and more concise. Having them in two parts has been an improvement, I think. There is a lot more logic to them now in terms of having plans and then having performance reports on the plans.

    We have been looking at those, and we are pushing very hard to improve those. We are doing a number of audits, and we keep going back to them to try to improve the quality of those reports. But it's extremely important for members and committees to take an interest in these documents, because as we push on the departments, if they don't feel there's an interest on the Hill, then why are they doing this? It's just going through the exercises.

    So I believe you make very important points about the importance of this work, and also that it's important to spend some time providing orientation. I think your main committee and this subcommittee can play a very valuable role vis-à-vis other committees. You can call in the agencies you are responsible for and set an example for others in terms of how you scrutinize these performance reports and the RPPs. I would just ask you to start doing that. Start calling them. Show an interest in them. Ask the questions and follow up with officials. In a particular policy area, if a stakeholder group might have something interesting to say, talk to those people and have some ideas about what it's important to ask of the officials from the department. I think that would help make the process start to work.

    John, did you have anything to add?

¼  (1800)  

    Mr. John Mayne (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada):

    I'm not going to add too much more.

    While you point to the telephone book, there are the part IIIs. Even there, our suggestion would be that a particular standing committee or this committee would even want to look at some particular program area. The more you can get down to something you can get your hands on—as Ms. Barrados said, maybe you can get some interest groups in to talk about a particular program area—the more you can push the department on what they're trying to accomplish, what they have accomplished, and where they're going. My experience is that gets a reaction in the department. People will try to react to that, and if you focus....

    The “telephone book” is a big document. It's hard to do anything with it. You want to get down to departments and, within departments, to particular business lines or particular aspects that a committee would be interested in, and then pursue those. I think it will have a very salutary effect on departments.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I just have one last question, then, because I'm sure Mr. Lanctôt would like to have an opportunity to ask a question or two.

    My background is as a chartered accountant. When I looked at a large corporation, I didn't look at its general ledger as the document with all of the transactions. For large insurance companies, etc., that ledger would fill a room. My audit technique involved sampling, it involved variance analysis, and it involved trends, trend line analysis, etc. That was almost helping me to identify the material changes either from the prior year or from the pattern that existed. It helped me to identify what had changed. I wanted to know what had happened and why some things had happened better than expected or worse than expected, almost like the assessment, the post-mortem.

    What are we budgeting for now? Where do I look in this book or in some other book that says to me what we were going to do last year, except now we're dropping some of this and we're adding some of this, and here are the costs associated with those things and here's what we expect to achieve? Wouldn't it be delicious and lovely for a member of Parliament to find that document that said, hey, take last year, drop off this stuff and drop off all the statutory programs that are there with no changes? You'd drop a lot of the dollar value, and you could really focus the work. But it means establishing almost an audit approach to putting that focus in to identify the areas in which there are material changes and changes for which there should be reasons.

    Those reasons should be offered as part of the raison d'être, the rationale for why something went from here to here, and they should be available either in the estimates or when the public accounts committee hears the aftermath assessment: We thought this was going to happen, here's what did happen, and here are the reasons. I would have thought those should be offered, rather than members of Parliament having to make the enquiries, because the process and the time that we're given do not permit us, quite frankly, to ever explore them at the level that really is essential to do a good job.

    The Chair: We'll get a quick comment, and then we'll go to Monsieur Lanctôt.

    Ms. Maria Barrados: In auditor-speak, the key underlying all of this is knowledge of the business. To make some of the judgments Mr. Szabo was talking about, you need that knowledge of the business, and I understand that's a challenge.

    You have two sets of documents. The RPPs, the reports on plans and priorities, should be setting out what the plans are going forward, what the changes are, and what is expected. The departments aren't good at being concrete about those things. They want to keep things loose. So there has to be some pressure put on being clear about where you're going in those documents.

    And then you have the performance reports, which are supposed to be telling you what they actually achieved. Of course, we spend time reading these very carefully, and we're looking at what the planning documents say and at what the document that was supposed to be reporting results actually says. The fits aren't as good as they should be, but the structure is such that the fits should be there.

    I can appreciate Mr. Szabo's frustration in terms of time, because you do have to have a careful reading of those. I would hope, though, that you have sufficient staff who can do that for you in order to highlight where there is a poor match between what they said they were going to do and what they actually accomplished. When you look at plans, I hope you ask the questions about whether you can ever determine whether they've reached that goal or not, and about how you can be sure they have satisfied what they're trying to do. If that information is not there, I think those are the kinds of questions that should be asked.

    Particularly, you have central agencies that are your area. There are a lot of things and bits of knowledge that members have that they would bring to the table on management and government operations.

¼  (1805)  

    The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Pardon me for smiling, but this is the first time I have attended this sub-committee. I believe I would have hoped you would be here the first time.

    I'm even more frustrated than Mr. Szabo because a lot of sub-committees are being formed; it's raining sub-committees. There should be fewer, and they should perhaps be given more time to do their work. We're already short of time and we're only striking sub-committees. We've gotten to the point where we strike more sub-committees than real committees.

    I'll give you an example. You say we could do things and that our employees could conduct research and work on one point in particular. In the United States, a representative of the people has 40 employees. We have trouble getting three or four, with the salaries we can pay them. And the representatives of the people shouldn't be asked to do things they would really like to do--don't worry about that--but that they don't even have the time to do. That's for sure.

    I see what's in this and I tell you it's pleasant, that it's true, but it seems to me that the first thing a sub-committee dealing with finance and a budget would have done is to ask the Auditor General what should be done. This is the first time I've been here, but I see that we're still wondering what we do in this committee.

    I would say that, when the sub-committee was struck, it was asked to consider the firearms question. I believe we could have examined that issue, the budget issue, right away and seen what could be done, even if it meant calling you or calling someone else, but each of us would obviously have had trouble doing that job.

    I'm pleased that you're here because the document I just read in a short space of time provides an idea of how it's possible to work on an issue. The people here around this table could work on very specific issues rather than work from one Monday to the next on a sub-committee. Ultimately, they could do that as part of a large committee. The organization is poor; I can tell you that. I realize that and I said it at the outset.

    And yet the Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is a good committee. You have to take the right direction; that's what we're doing. It takes time, but you have to do it. We have to stop thinking that, when we strike a sub-committee, we have to get to the bottom of things. In my opinion, the more sub-committees you create, the less you get to the bottom of things because everyone must sit on I don't know how many sub-committees. You have to realize that, at some point. Stop striking them.

    Come to the Government Operations Committee, and if your purpose is to study the budget, let's finally decide to say that that's what's important. Don't worry, I'm going to work on this issue if necessary. But if we have three or four sub-committees and have to be replaced by a colleague because we have to sit on another committee, that makes no sense. I want to do my work as a parliamentarian properly, and each of my colleagues on each of the political parties wants to do their own work. I know that's not your problem, but I appreciate having a document such as this one because it simply and exactly represents what must be done if we want to talk about budgets, but there are things we have to ask. Is the program a success or isn't it? Where's the money?

    We have all that, but it's not easy to read; a lot of details are missing; I've already looked at it. I'm not an accountant and it's quite difficult to follow. You have to find it. It's true that this is when you have intervene, but that's the same for you. You see me virtually everywhere, on all kinds of committees, and I see you almost everywhere as well. If we start continually asking you to come and testify before our committees, you're going to have a problem too.

    What I mean is that I appreciate having something simple such as this. I'm sure the sub-committee also appreciates the fact that it's simple, but there are things that have to be done, and I believe they're quite easy to do. There are places where the budget isn't examined at all. The Public Accounts Committee is already considering these matters.

    I was in the House today and I spoke with my colleagues. We met the privacy commissioner three times in three different committees. He came to tell us the same thing three times. I was obliged to question the same person on the same issue, or virtually the same issue, because I was on the Transport Committee and on another committee and so on.

    I think it's very important we take this into account.

¼  (1810)  

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, just so we're clear, I understand what you're describing in terms of how entities are structured and the challenge that we all face. What we're trying to accomplish in this subcommittee—and the reason why we have the Auditor General in front of us—is to describe for other committees the process with which to engage a review of the estimates. We're actually going to do that at the front end of our study, and then we're going to decide the program on which to perhaps actually test-run a process, so that we can then report to committees.

    While I think you've described the frustration we all feel in terms of the committee structure and how committees operate, we're trying to operate as efficiently and as effectively as possible. If you have a direct question for the witnesses on how they can assist committees in the process of reviewing the estimates, I think it would be very much appreciated.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I think they'll be able to make comments because what I'm talking about is already provided for in that. They're making recommendations, whereas what I'm telling you isn't at all out of context; it's written in this document: specific programs, organizing, taking more time, having...

[English]

    The Chair: I don't suggest you're off-topic, I just wondered whether or not you had a question.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That's exactly it, but if my time is up, I'm going to ask her for an opinion on what I've said. Do you agree? I've just asked the question.

    Ms. Maria Barrados: It's true that the time question is a major challenge for all members. Do they have time to do all the things they have to do? Choices obviously have to be made. Perhaps we could improve coordination, but it's not my role to comment on the operation of parliamentary committees. Here we've suggested question that can be put to departmental representatives to ensure they realize their responsibilities.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Do I have a little time left, Mr. Chairman?

¼  (1815)  

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you.

    I agree with what you say, and yet, no later than early in the week or just before last weekend, we saw that questions were put directly to the Minister and Deputy Minister in the Public Accounts Committee concerning firearms, and we were told that everything was fine, that the figures were correct and so on.

    We'll have to go even further, but we don't have the information. You tell us that we can take something very specific, that we need your help, but the auditor was present and she didn't have the figures either, she didn't understand where they were either or why Deputy Minister Rosenberg had said there was no problem, that he himself did not even know that it was considered as a--I don't know the exact term--government priority. Imagine the scene: the auditor is there, she isn't any more familiar with the figures, the Minister and Deputy Minister are there as well, and we have a problem obtaining the figures. What do you advise us to do at that point?

    Ms. Maria Barrados: It's very important to put questions to everyone. There are no doubt problems in government regarding systems and the ability to obtain information. That happens in many departments, and I think it's important to ask those questions all the time. I hope we'll see improvements.

[English]

    The Chair: In the interest of time, and because I know the bells are going to be going in a moment, I just have a comment and a very quick question.

    In New Zealand, their auditor general actually examines the estimates of each department and affords the findings to the appropriate committee. Is there a role in that for your office? Should we, as a committee, be considering that as an additional mandate for our Auditor General in assisting us in the review of the estimates?

    In reaction to some of the comments and in the document you have before us, you have described generally how you would deal with the estimates. As an office, though, if you actually had to devise a plan and a process to review the estimates, could you give the committee an idea of what that plan would be if we actually started from scratch? All of your comments are meant to enhance the existing system, but if the system didn't exist, what process would you actually be suggesting?

    Ms. Maria Barrados: First, Mr. Chairman, we are not looking for an additional role or an expansion of our role. If your committee or Parliament wanted us to do more, there would have to be discussions about resources and things we would have to stop doing. We are suggesting that where we do our work fits in with the interests of the committee and that we can be of assistance to the committee. Certainly in central agencies, we have a lot of work in many different areas, but we are not looking for something like what they do in New Zealand, where their Office of the Controller and Auditor-General is actually preparing notes for—

    The Chair: But does it work effectively in New Zealand? I understand that you're not looking for additional work, but we're talking about the effectiveness of the process. Would you say that the process in New Zealand works more effectively as a result of their auditor general being involved in the process?

    Ms. Maria Barrados: Some time ago, I did speak to some people in New Zealand. They were satisfied with the process, but there were people in their Office of the Controller and Auditor-General who were uniquely dedicated to providing that kind of support.

    The other part of your question was how you would start from scratch in reviewing the documents. In fact, we have been doing that. We have been looking at the documents to see whether or not they have the kind of information in them that we think is important. We are doing that on a regular basis. We did it on a pilot basis last year, and we're going to be looking at a set of documents from the security area this May. We will be doing assessments of how good these documents are. The other thing we will do is look at the quality of information in the documents.

    On the suggestion that we start from scratch again, I wouldn't advocate that. I think we've made progress on the structure of the documents. I don't think the content of them is good enough yet, but I think we have made some progress in terms of the kinds of documents we're getting.

    The Chair: Is there anything further, Mr. Mayne?

    Mr. John Mayne: All of the committee members have raised issues on the reform of estimates and committee procedures, and I think I've heard witnesses speak on those. We tend not to get into the area of telling committees how to operate, but I think that's at the heart of a lot of the issues and problems and frustrations, in that the improved documents can only go so far in trying to ameliorate the problems you've identified.

    The Chair: I'd like to thank the witnesses and my colleagues. This is an abbreviated meeting, given the bells for the upcoming vote. I will perhaps suggest to the witnesses that we may call you before the committee again if we feel you can continue to contribute to our study.

    On that note, the meeting is adjourned.