Government Operations Committee on May 13th, 2008

[Kevin Page]

Yes, we will work together collaboratively.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Great. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Angus, we'll be ending with you.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you very much.

This has been very interesting. Certainly there's a role you're going to play, and I think a very important role, at the macro level. We're looking at long-term forecasts, and we're estimating financial prudence in good times and in difficult times. But as members of Parliament, much of our work is really at the micro level. It's about the utilization of programs, the efficiency of those programs, and whether there's uptake on those programs. One of the things that's really struck me since moving into federal politics is this consistent pattern I'm seeing in departments of money being allocated and then simply not spent.

When I was at the provincial level, involved with arts programming, when we had a pot of money every penny was spent. And if there was, for some reason, a program that couldn't take that money, there was always someone further down the list who would be moved up.

Last year, Indian and Northern Affairs sent back $109 million from their capital budget. That's $109 million that wasn't spent on schools in my region, where we have no schools. It wasn't spent on housing. There's no possible argument that could be made that there wasn't a need for this.

I found a much smaller example in terms of the museum program. Desperate communities wanted museums, and there's a little bit of funding all across Canada. Yet we've found that year after year, about 25% of that money is just returned to Treasury Board. And that's never really made public. I just can't understand how money is allocated.

There's obviously a planning process that recognizes this amount of need and that there will be a lot more uptake. Yet the money is simply shipped back year after year. It's like an elaborate shell game.

Do you see a role in your department at that micro level of saying, “Listen, we're allocating funds and not spending them, so we either have to come clean with the public or we have to reallocate those funds”?

[Kevin Page]

I think the question of lapses in budgets and budgetary authority is actually a big issue. Could the role of the parliamentary budget officer actually bring transparency to some of the issues that underlie the budgetary lapse? I think, just as background, in terms of numbers that underscore basically the point you're making, there's been a fairly dramatic increase overall across government in the size of those lapses across departments. It's gone roughly from 3% of budgetary authority to something in the neighbourhood of 6% over the last six, seven, or eight years.

As well, over that time we've seen a fairly dramatic increase in spending overall. While spending remains relatively low in terms of historical patterns relative to GDP, there have been significant increases in budgets, particularly one-year-out kinds of budgets, in the past while. I think departments have difficulty getting appropriate authority, through Treasury Board, to spend that money in the first year. As a result, a lot of this money ends up lapsing, as you've noted.

I think it could almost be a piece of ongoing analytical research. After the public accounts are released, we could prepare an analytical report by the parliamentary budget officer that would explain the lapses and the lapse experiences across different departments and agencies. It could be a kind of ongoing regular report that would put you in a better position to actually start putting pressure on some departments to get at some of the reasons for what's going on, be it INAC or other departments.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I think that would be an excellent use of your role, because it then allows us to make sure that federal spending is accountable and that it's accountable to the people it's supposed to reach.

I want to follow up on that, because at that micro level it would play a huge role, I think, in giving people confidence in federal spending.

As I said, you have the macro role, yet clearly, opposition members will be looking to you to play other roles as well. My colleague wanted to know if you'd be willing to denounce federal interventions in provincial jurisdictions. We're looking to the Congressional Budget Office in the United States, which plays a role in almost setting up alternative forecasts and budgets. There will certainly be requests from members asking you to start to play that role.

What terms of engagement are laid out? How do you make the decision about what is appropriate and what isn't appropriate for you? Who makes that decision, and how is that done?

[Kevin Page]

This is a big business-model-type decision that we're grappling with right now. How do we set priorities? How do we work with the Library of Parliament? How do we work with the Auditor General as well, so that we make the best use of available resources?

Having spoken a few times with the Auditor General, I'm very interested in the way she establishes, in a very public way, her work plans for the next five years. Just from going around the table here, a lot of good ideas have been brought forward that could be priorities. But those priorities will take up available resources that have been established for the parliamentary budget officer role.

We will work with parliamentarians over the next number of months in terms of how this business model could work, the priorities we're hearing about. This is the fourth committee I've been at. We will actually put together a work plan.

One option is actually making the work plan public so that you know, for example, with the issue you just reported, Mr. Angus, that not long after the release of the public accounts for the following fiscal year we will prepare a report on lapses, as ongoing product that you can look forward to. If we put out those kinds of products, that kind of transparency--again, it's a model that the Auditor General uses--that will allow you to understand where we're putting our resources.

I think we have a mandate that has been well defined. We're now in the act of Parliament. We're working within the economic and fiscal analysis, the estimates and costing. You could say that you could probably drive a truck through any one of those agenda items.

I think if we could work toward some kind of public work plan--this is what we're doing analytically--then you'll have a good sense of thins. And that work plan will evolve as your priorities change.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm certainly pleased to hear that, because it's a massive undertaking. Federal spending covers off so much area. There will be so many requests, and you have a limited budget.

As my colleague said, if you could come back down the road and update us on a work plan, I think we would actually have a sense that there's direction and accountability at the end of the day. I think we would all feel that this is the culmination of what we were looking for in your office.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Thank you very much for coming before us. As you can see, there's going to be a lot of work for you coming up. I wish you well. We will probably be asking you all kinds of questions. We're going forward on a study on procurement, and we'd certainly like to have your input. If there are experts on procurement you can think of, we'd be very grateful.

Speaking of procurement, I want to make sure our committee members realize we want names for experts or people to come before the committee on our study on procurement. If we could have those names today--tomorrow at the latest--that would be great.

Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

The problem we have, Madam Chair, is that many of these individuals and companies are currently before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Since many of the decisions will be rendered in June, these people may be feeling insecure, on the one hand, about coming here and, on the other hand, they may be saying that they could win their case at the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. So they want to wait. I am not sure what we should do. Perhaps we could discuss the matter later on, once our guests have left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I'd also like to remind you that the Auditor General is coming before our committee on Thursday morning.

Thank you very much, Mr. Page.

We can take a minute, members, before we come back and discuss the challenges Madame Bourgeois is bringing forward on people we're trying to get before the committee.

[Proceedings continue in camera]