Senator Marshall: Yes.

[Translation]

Senator Marshall: To be honest with you, I don’t see Committee of the Whole addressing any of the issues or concerns that I’ve raised or expressed.

Hon. Elizabeth Marshall: Honourable senators, I will be very brief, but I wanted to highlight some of the issues that I raised yesterday — just to make them clear — of the challenges that we faced when we were reviewing Supplementary Estimates (B), which supports Bill C-6, the supply bill. As I mentioned yesterday, the Supplementary Estimates (B) document is a very difficult document to read, especially if you want to look at the relationship to the budget and the public accounts. We go from the Main Estimates to the budget to the Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) and (C). Then after the fiscal year, we look at the public accounts and try to match it all up.

We are just trying to trace the money from one document to the next, and we’re often relating information in each of these documents even to another fiscal year. Therefore, it would be very helpful if Treasury Board would undertake an initiative to make the estimates document easier to review and understand, especially as it relates to the budget and the public accounts. They started a project about three or four years ago, and then they stopped. However, it was a worthwhile project, so I think they should initiate that project again.

Yesterday, Senator Gagné mentioned the chart that was included in Supplementary Estimates (B). Treasury Board should really try to improve that chart, because it looks like there is some information missing. If the information there isn’t logical, then certain parts of the Supplementary Estimates (B) document is suspect. Treasury Board really needs to go back and take a look at that reconciliation.

Also, I think the Treasury Board Secretariat should consider — if they are not going to initiate a project or even if they do — speaking with parliamentarians who use the estimates documents to obtain their views as to what’s helpful and what they have problems with. I can think of a couple of suggestions that would be very easy to implement and would be very helpful to parliamentarians when they do their review of the supplementary estimates.

The second issue that we had a problem with was the public accounts. The government didn’t release the public accounts for last year until yesterday, so we waited almost nine months for the public accounts. We didn’t have the benefit of that document when we reviewed Supplementary Estimates (B) and Bill C-6. The tabling of the document was really late. I think that was the latest time the document has been tabled since, I think, 1994. The government needs to do something to speed up the tabling of the public accounts.

The other document we were waiting for was the Departmental Results Reports. We didn’t have the benefit of those reports when we reviewed Supplementary Estimates (B). Also, last year Minister Duclos sent us those reports around — I think — December 7. This year, we have to wait until January 30 to receive them.

The government needs to look at all those documents and make sure they get them out on a timely basis. These are accountability documents, and they should be tabled in a timely manner so parliamentarians can do their jobs.

The final issue that we had problems with was that the time to review the Supplementary Estimates (B) was too short. We had a short sitting of three or four weeks, but the process to review the Supplementary Estimates (B) document was too rushed. We had to rush our witnesses to get follow-up information to us. Some information we haven’t received yet. The process we used this year is what I call “how not to review Supplementary Estimates (B) and the appropriation bill.”

Senator Dupuis asked a question about my speech yesterday, and I don’t know if she wants to ask about it today. I was able to obtain what I think is the question, and I want to talk about it briefly. This was regarding a comment I made about there being no standing parliamentary review mechanism in place for statutory expenditures. She wanted to know what I would suggest.

The best response I can give Senator Dupuis is I haven’t reached a definitive recommendation yet, but I do have a few suggestions. This was an issue that the Parliamentary Budget Officer had identified in his report on Supplementary Estimates (B), and I briefly discussed it with him. I’m still thinking about it, but I think that in the interim we should look at the mandate of the Finance Committee to consider whether we should include a review of statutory expenditures, or maybe the Senate could give the Finance Committee an order of reference to study statutory expenditures. That would be an option.

When I spoke about statutory expenditures, I was speaking about them in relation to each supplementary supply bill, but the issue is broader than that. Some of these statutory expenditures are approved by statutes that were passed decades ago. I think the legislation around Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement are dated. I think it would be worthwhile if those expenditures were looked at in the context of the old legislation.

The Canada Child Benefit is a more recent benefit, but there have been changes even to that benefit over the past number of years. That is a payment under the Income Tax Act. So we would benefit from going back and looking at the legislation and seeing if those programs now fit with society as a whole.

With regard to looking at the statutory expenditures, I don’t know what’s in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. I wouldn’t dare tread on the Standing Orders of the other place, but that is also an area that we could look at and discuss with our colleagues in the other place.

[Translation]

Senator Marshall: I sometimes find the Committee of the Whole beneficial, but I find it is not a replacement for the work that’s done by individual committees. I don’t know if that answers your question.

When we’re in the Finance Committee, we can drill down and ask the officials to provide additional information. When you’re in Committee of the Whole — I shouldn’t say it’s a one-night stand — that’s your chance. If you don’t get what you’re looking for, you’re out of luck. When you’re in a standing Senate committee, you have the opportunity to ask several questions and ask for additional information.

[Translation]