Evidence of meeting #30 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was budget.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I had an opportunity to get the app, and I tried to get on that. I was just wondering how much that cost to develop.
4:15 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
It cost $30,000. We post all our contracts. The same questions should be put to the Treasury Board Secretariat, and I bet you it's—
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm not asking the Treasury Board Secretariat at this stage. I'm just asking you because I'm curious about it.
For requisitioning that $30,000, did you have to have it passed by Parliament?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Did you have to have it passed by Parliament, the $30,000? Who made that decision to spend it on the software?
4:15 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Well, what we have is a legislative mandate, and....
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
We have a legislative mandate, sir, to do independent economic analysis, to do analysis on the nation's finances, to make sure you have information. Without that database, you would not, as Mr. Wallace said, even get to track spending on a quarter-to-quarter basis. We like to give it to you on a monthly basis.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm not disagreeing, Mr. Page. You don't have to raise your voice. It's not necessary here. I'm just asking you if you had to get Parliament to vote on that. Who decided to approve it, and who decided to spend that money? That's what I'm asking.
Who decided? Was it yourself or one of your managers?
4:15 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
At that level of detail, sir, I make the decision.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Okay.
I think what the situation is here—and the situation was 100 years ago in our parliamentary tradition—is that we have to trust our bureaucrats. I don't disagree with you that we can make improvements upon the system, but I think ultimately we have to trust the people behind us and the people you represent and you yourself. We have to look for that input.
My position is this. There's no physical way that 308 members of Parliament who are tasked with $300,000 of budgetary money to analyze these documents can do so effectively, and, frankly, in my mind it would be ineffective to try to do so, unless you're going to times by 10 their budgets. That was my main issue in relation to that.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
No, it was simply rhetoric.
My other question is on the deemed issue. What would you suggest instead of having them deemed? We all know, based on tradition, why they were deemed, because we don't want more elections, and quite frankly, government has to continue to be run. What other solution would you suggest?
4:15 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
First, on the deemed rule, deemed to me is just that we throw up our hands and say we can't do this and it's simpler not to even try.
I provided some information in the discourse that's in front of you in terms of whether you really want to sign off on $260 billion per year with something like 90 hours. A lot of departments are not even looking at their estimates.
To me, deemed—it's a symptom. You have to go back and ask what the cost is.
I think what you're saying, sir, is that you feel overwhelmed. You're overwhelmed by a whole bunch of complicated documents, competing priorities, and an extremely small budget.
Maybe one of the issues, sir, is that we need to rebalance the budget so you have the resources you need to do your job. Yes, it's the power of the purse. I agree with Mr. Churchill: it is important. I think every year there should be people saying we need to look at it; we're not doing our jobs.
4:20 p.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
When we try to describe in our reports what's available to parliamentarians in the way of information, we try to ask for things already collected in the ordinary course of business. The idea is not to impose a new activity burden or a new cost burden on the government. We can show you all of the fiscal exercises undertaken by the government and the collective information.
Without creating a new cost burden, even from an analytical point of view on your side, if the information can be provided in a manner that looks at inputs, outputs, and outcomes at a program activity level without adding a big infrastructure, it'll likely be more meaningful. We've talked about synchronizing the budget and appropriation bills to make them more accessible to parliamentarians.
Some of the improvements could be quite significant without imposing burdens on legislative staff. We hope that the information is there, that the resource is there, and that we're seeing a glimpse of it through the government's quarterly financial report. You're starting to get more information from departments on a quarterly basis, which enables understanding. So there's a potential to build on that without creating an additional burden. We've spoken to CFOs and they tell us they're collecting that anyway. They're using their internal processes. It's not a huge cost burden to provide this to parliamentarians, and it will make stuff more understandable.
If you're looking at the coast guard, as Mr. Page said, on a program activity basis, it's not about operating vote, capital vote, accrual accounting or cash accounting—it's about saving lives, sovereignty patrols, and those kinds of things. Then you could have a better appreciation for the resources going in, the inputs, the activities they're undertaking, and the results they're getting.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Thank you, Mr. Jean.
Thank you, Mr. Khan.
You're well over time there, so now we're going to give Ève Péclet a chance.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Thank you very much.
I really have to congratulate you for your work. Certainly no one likes to be criticized, especially not members of the government. I fully understand that you may feel some friction. But I feel none at all. I am also very pleased to be able to ask you these questions today.
In your presentation, you mentioned that “departments and agencies have been instructed by the Treasury Board Secretariat not to provide Parliament with information on the government's spending and operating review in the upcoming departmental reports on plans and priorities.” Could you tell me how the government, specifically the Treasury Board Secretariat, justified that decision? Why was it decided and what effect will it have on the work of the members of Parliament who have to study government expenditures?
4:20 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
I really do not know the reason for the 180-degree turn in that decision. However, I can imagine that, in a major austerity program, it is difficult to coordinate an exercise like that in the budget and the reports on plans and priorities at the same time.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Could I ask you a quick technical question? When you mention non-financial performance information, what are you referring to?
4:20 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
There are financial data, like the program expenditures. But it is also important for parliamentarians to have access to information on the performance of a program. You want to know if a program works, if the goal of the program can be achieved. That is what is called performance information.
We want to know if the program is working.
So it is important for parliamentarians to have access to both kinds of information, that is, the financial information and the non-financial information about a program's value.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
You proposed that votes be introduced at the same time as bills, which would make them easy to follow and would prevent the government from incurring substantial cost overruns. You reported on Bill C-10 and indicated that there were going to be huge cost overruns; the provinces are going to pay some and the federal government is going to pay others. As well, with the plan to buy F-35 aircraft, the government is not even able to say exactly what is going on in the negotiations and how much it is all going to cost.
You had one proposal. Do you have others? How can we prevent cost overruns like that? How can we prevent taxpayers' money being spent because, let's say, the government refuses to do any planning before it introduces a bill?
4:25 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
In other countries, such as New Zealand, the law enables parliamentarians to access information of that kind proactively. The information exists. People should not have to wonder whether it is possible to get financial information and analysis.
I know that would be a major cultural shift for bureaucrats in Ottawa. The problem is not in preparing the analysis. In general, I feel that analysts do that already. The difficulty lies in sharing the analysis with all parliamentarians. As I said, the goal of our organization is to prepare studies and analyses in a truly transparent way with the resources we have.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Oh, that's great! I am very efficient compared to the government.
We also have to talk about time. I remember clearly sitting on this committee when we were supposed to study the supplementary estimates (B). We had scarcely a week to study all the supplementary estimates. We actually voted on them without having finished the study, because we ran out of time. It should have been postponed. We were kind of presented with a fait accompli.
I think the same thing will happen time and time again. We will be given supplementary estimates from a number of departments to study, and we will not have enough time.
What could we do to plan the studies better and to have enough time to conduct them? I am a new member; I was elected on May 2, 2011. I was floored to find out that we did not even have a week to study figures that had probably taken hours and hours to prepare—you mentioned 90 hours.
4:25 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
That is a good question. It is actually like students cramming the night before an exam. It is not a good strategy. We need to change the approach.
When the government introduces a bill, it must provide all the information on how it will work and the costs. In my opinion, approving the supplementary estimates (A), (B) or (C) should be the final stage. But it is impossible to do that in a week. If the information were available from the beginning of the process, it would be possible to move forward more quickly.