Government Operations Committee on April 2nd, 2009

[Alister Smith]

No, no.

Again, the funding provided through Treasury Board vote 35 or the Budget Implementation Act for a particular program then sets the chain of events in action. So under a particular program the department will determine who is eligible, how the funding would work for a particular project, whether there's cost sharing, the reporting, and all aspects of that. That happens at the departmental level. They will report back to you through their departmental performance reports and also their reports on priorities and planning. They will also be responsible for reporting to us in terms of our quarterly monitoring reports. There's a fair amount of information that will come back from the departments as they go through that chain of events.

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

I'm having a bit of trouble with this. Each time we ask you if there is a list of projects or programs funded under Vote 35, you talk about chapter 3 of the main estimates. Yet, chapter 3 says a lot of things that do not amount to much. Indeed, certain programs can be targeted, but I'd like to know if the departments... Vote 35 deals with a new program or a new program initiative. How can we make sure that it does not provide funding for a program that is already contained in the ordinary main estimates?

That's exactly why I'm asking you if you have access to the plans and priorities and documents provided by the departments so that a distinction can be drawn between the two.

[Alister Smith]

For existing programs, if they are the main focus, the programs of say HRSDC, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, or other large departments—

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

Yes.

[Alister Smith]

—they've already tabled their reports on plans and priorities for the current fiscal year 2009-10. So you will see a fair amount of information in their reports on existing programs and on the plans for those programs.

You could also refer back to how they did in the previous year by looking at their performance reports. We require departments to report on performance, so for existing programs, there is a fairly well-established procedure. In addition, there are evaluations and there are audits. So there's a fair amount of information available on existing programs.

The newer programs, of course, take longer to get into that reporting cycle, because they are just starting. What we are trying to do with the quarterly reporting is to in fact report on all budget initiatives, new and old.

I hope that addresses your question.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

We're making progress.

We'll go to Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a couple more questions.

Mr. Smith, I'm wondering if I could just ask you a little bit about the process between the time someone has the idea that a program should be funded and the time the money actually flows to a particular department. Treasury Board plays an important role in terms of the challenge function and a number of other scrutiny and accountability measures. I'm wondering if you could outline for this committee, just so we might more clearly understand, the type of scrutiny Treasury Board is responsible for, starting from conception to the allocation of funds to specific departments or agencies.

[Alister Smith]

This can also be a long story. I'll try not to make it too long, and my colleagues may want to also join in, because they're also involved in this part of the process.

We see things at Treasury Board after policy approval. We see something when it's essentially a business plan, a submission to the board for funding. Decisions have already been taken at cabinet or in the budget or both. We provide a series of due diligence tests before funding is provided to the department.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

So the memorandum to cabinet comes from a specific minister, or it is put together by that department. Once that is done, you come into play.

[Alister Smith]

That's correct.

[Tim Sargent]

Yes, we become involved once it has been approved by cabinet.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

So once the initiative has been solidified, you come in.

[Alister Smith]

That's right.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

You play an important role. I'd like you to just talk us through the steps in terms of the accountability measures and the challenge function and the different things you undertake. You might want to comment on whether any of this is going to change this $3-billion vote.

[Alister Smith]

Just to go back to something I might have said before, the items that are going for the $3-billion central vote are treated the same way as supplementary estimates A items, so the same due diligence is applied. We need the policy authority, established by Treasury Board ministers, for those items before they can be funded through the central vote or through supplementary estimates. We require Treasury Board ministers to make a decision on them.

We need to have a number of other due diligence requirements met. Those requirements don't stop with the funding. The departments also have to report. They're obliged to report to us. That's partly why we are able to capture this information in quarterly reports. They are subject to internal audit and evaluation. They're subject to scrutiny by the Auditor General afterwards. There are number of other required due diligence checks, if you wish, on funding for these initiatives.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

That assures us on the accountability side, because that's one of two things that I think we're hoping to accomplish as a committee. One is to ensure that there's accountability, and you've assured us that nothing is going to change in terms of your due diligence.

We're also concerned that in an effort to be diligent in this effort, things don't get held up indefinitely, so this money, the $3 billion, can flow.

Of course you have no control over the departments coming forward to cabinet with memorandums to cabinet requesting funds and the rest of it. I'm not sure--I may be moving into something that's a cabinet confidence--but what can you tell us in terms of the ability to get this $3 billion spent? Is there a sense that there are going to be huge holdups?

It's not all for new programs. Obviously that's what most of the focus is on. Am I right to understand that some of this $3 billion could be allocated for programs that currently do exist?

[Alister Smith]

As you suggested, I can't divulge cabinet confidences, so I can't tell you much about the decisions that are taken by Treasury Board ministers. My colleagues would probably say the same about cabinet committees. I think that's understood by the committee.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

It is.

[Alister Smith]

But to answer your latter question, yes, the Treasury Board vote 35 central fund can be used for new or existing top-ups as needed. It has that flexibility, and that's important in helping to ensure that money does flow quickly.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I appreciate that. I think that's maybe a misunderstanding by our committee. At one point I think there was an understanding that it could go only to new programs. So there was a concern that if these programs have to be conceptualized and then designed and all the rest of it, there might not be much benefit to allocating this funding right now. If it can go to existing programs, obviously the government doesn't have the burden of establishing all of the programs that are going to be utilizing these funds.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you.

These are very simple questions. I know members are focusing on both understanding and probing spending procedures. There also may be an appetite to probe the efficacy of the spending and the timing of the spending.

Going back to process, there have been a number of benchmarks of disclosure put forward. I suppose most colleagues would want to resist micromanaging and scrutinizing the process so much that we slow it down. You gentlemen all have other work that you want to be doing on behalf of Canadians.

The government has offered to Canadians a website that would provide disclosure. Who is looking after that?

[Tim Sargent]

The PCO, in the first instance, working with the Prime Minister's Office, is overseeing the establishment of the website.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

That's great.

[Tim Sargent]

Obviously we are working in close collaboration with departments, particularly the finance department and other departments.