Government Operations Committee on Oct. 30th, 2012

[Bill Matthews]

The Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated that he's pursuing a more comprehensive legal opinion on this matter. I'll leave it to the lawyers to work out what his mandate entitles him to. He intends to take the government to court, so I'm really not sure what else I can add at this stage.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Our third recommendation was that the timing of the main estimates should coincide with the reports on plans and priorities. The government response seemed to be that they are already able to make those dates coincide, so everything's fine. That wasn't our point. Our point was they should be required to be on the same day. We saw this last year. There was a big gap in time. The Standing Orders say:

When main estimates are referred to a standing committee, the committee shall also be empowered to consider and report upon the expenditure plans and priorities....

It seems much more efficient if the committee has both the reports on plans and priorities and the main estimates at the same time, so that they can cross-reference the two documents. I'm a little uncertain about why the government did not like that recommendation.

[Bill Matthews]

I don't think it was that the government didn't like it.

Last year was a bit of an anomaly. Sally mentioned earlier that if we were to move to a new vote structure, it would increase the potential to shorten and eventually eliminate the gap between RPPs and main estimates. Main estimates are capital operating grants and contributions, and then you have the same folks and departments turning around and doing RPPs, which are on a program basis. If you make them so that they support each other, there is potential to shorten that gap and eventually eliminate it. I wouldn't say that the government didn't like that idea.

Did you want to add something?

[Sally Thornton]

Yes, if I could.

Our point here was that the recommendation was directed to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and there is no date, so that can be dictated. What we would like to do, should there be that decision, is come and explain some of the implications. We'll just need some time to ramp up and ensure better alignment for that. However, it was directed to the standing committee.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

You're saying this may be feasible.

[Sally Thornton]

Yes. Probably it could not be done by next March 1, but we could build in a process thereafter.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, John.

I understand that there are no further questions from my colleagues with the Conservative Party, but the NDP would like one more round. Perhaps it could be a truncated round so that we can go in camera and do some committee business.

Denis Blanchette, you have the last questions.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Thornton, if I am not mistaken, in answer to a question asked earlier, you said that the people who prepare the estimates are also those who prepare the reports on plans and priorities. Yet we know that the gap between when those two documents are being submitted is increasing more and more. I take issue with that, especially since the same people prepare the information.

Is it a technical matter? Is it a question of coordination between departments? Is it a question of coordination between the Department of Finance and you? Where is the problem?

[Sally Thornton]

Essentially, it's the same people in respective organizations. We're talking about the 135 CFOs and deputy chief financial officers in each appropriated department. They're responsible both for the departmental input to the main estimates and also largely for the development of their departmental reports on plans and priorities, as appropriate.

There's no disconnect in what they do. What happens, though, is the response or the driver for main estimates is your vote structure, which is along the lines of types of expenditure. Their initial focus is on the preparation for main estimates, which has to be auditable. It has to be hard, cold, absolutely accurate. At that point, they look at their departmental expenditures and present them for approval by types of expenditure: operating, capital, grants and contributions, those types. Then they have to turn around in very quick order and tell that story in a report on plans and priorities, which is structured more along the lines of the program activities and the architecture to which you'd like to move. We've got the same story being told in two completely differently ways.

The initial thrust and focus is always on the main estimates, because that is where we are auditable. If we make a mistake there, we have to come back to Parliament. We don't want to be blowing votes. We've got direction through the Financial Administration Act.

The greater the alignment between what is in the main estimates.... If we move the main estimates to a vote structure that is along a program activity model, then we'd be telling the story the same way at different levels of granularity.

What would come forward in your later main estimates is that your vote would be structured along the strategic outcome, which would be a roll-up from your program activities. There would be a greater alignment and less need for the story to be told in two completely discrete ways. That should shorten the time significantly.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I think that concludes the questions from our committee members.

We thank the witnesses very much for being here to help us today.

Let me point out something that the clerk just confided in me. He said in a note that he is very proud of this committee and that it's quite rare that a committee report actually triggers such concrete steps by government in such short order. While we may be frustrated on some of the points still, or some of the recommendations, we do have concrete measures under way, and we do have a fairly quick response, which I suppose speaks not only to the quality of the study that we undertook but also the recognition by the government that there's still room for improvement in the accountability and transparency regarding the estimates process.

Thank you very much to the witnesses from the Treasury Board and the Department of Finance. We're going to suspend the meeting and reconvene in camera in just one moment.

Thank you very much.

[Proceedings continue in camera]