Government Operations Committee on Feb. 27th, 2012

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

The defence committee, the finance committee and our committee have asked the Department of National Defence to tell us the specifications needed in the new fighter. We wanted to know why it chose the F-35. We have never been able to obtain those documents, although all three committees asked for them with one voice.

As we are discussing reports on plans and priorities, I would like to know if they imply any kind of requirement for transparency on the part of the government.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

A point of order.

I don't think my honourable colleague's question has anything to do with the study we are conducting at the moment. So our witness is not required to answer.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Can I answer Mr. Gourde?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

If I might rule on that, if there is a relevancy issue, perhaps the witness could limit his answer to the context of how a member of Parliament would find that information that Monsieur Giguère used as an example.

[David Macdonald]

This may not be as relevant to passing the main estimates, for instance, but I would certainly encourage departments taking major policy steps—such as buying the F-35—to provide updates on how much they think it's going to cost and how much it's going to cost over time. I know the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an officer of Parliament, has certainly weighed in on this issue, and I think it's important for government departments themselves to keep up with the current news on the F-35s and update their numbers, or not, but at least lay their methodology out for examination by parliamentarians and outside observers.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you. You're well over time.

In terms of avoiding future points of order on this subject, I think the context of this study is really to find ways that members of Parliament can better understand the spending process. Although we're not open for political potshots on specific issues, I'm giving it some latitude as long as we keep it fairly non-partisan. This has been very useful so far, and I appreciate the questions and the answers.

Next is Mr. Jacques Gourde, for the Conservatives. You have five minutes, please.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Macdonald, how long have you been taking an interest in the government's budgeting process?

[David Macdonald]

In the case of the federal government particularly, it has probably been the last five years or so.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

So you have gone to some trouble and done some study to try and understand the process. Can you give us an example of an aspect that you would like to improve? Can you suggest a way to improve the process to make it more transparent? An economist such as yourself likely grasps things more quickly. Could you provide us with your view on how Canadians can better understand the process? Give us an example.

[David Macdonald]

Let's take the example of the reports on plans and priorities. There is detail down to the program level, which I think is quite positive, but one of the major changes that could be done relatively rapidly is to show why these estimates are changing over time—why “budgeted” differs from “actual” in the RPPs. That alone would be a significant change in what the RPPs are and how they report to Parliament. That could start some sort of better understanding of how these estimates change over time.

For instance, let's say we're trying to figure out why Statistics Canada's FTE count went down or is planning to go down in the next two years. Some might argue that it's due to the budget cuts. In fact, if you dig down deep enough in these documents, I think you'll conclude that much of that cut is actually due to a decline in the number of people required to process the census, which is a planned expenditure and is planned to happen over time.

With better explanations of why these numbers are changing, we can become clearer on what's causing those changes, and hopefully parliamentarians can make better decisions on how that money is spent.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Do you think the date on which the federal government presents its budget—somewhere around the end of February to March 26—is a problem? Because the government has to incur expenses before the budget is presented and approved. Do you feel that there may be a better date in the year on which the budget could be presented, so the entire budgeting process and the way in which money is spent is simpler to understand?

[David Macdonald]

It would certainly be preferable if the introduction of the main estimates bills—and the RPPs, for that matter—included what had just been passed in the budget. It essentially all happens at exactly the same time, but nothing is connected to anything until halfway through the next year. It would be preferable if there were just a quarterly difference between when the budget is passed and when the actual implications of the budget in terms of the main estimates, the reports on plans and priorities, and the future-oriented financial reports all come out, which is around March. That would certainly make those bills much more relevant to the budget itself.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You have two minutes, if anybody on your side would like to use them up.

Bernard, did you have a—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Bernard is in the next round. I'll take the last two minutes.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Okay, Mike.

You have only a minute and a half now.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'm from the city council world, so the budgeting system was an eye-opener here. When I got here, there was an over-and-under report, which I was used to at city council, but the over-and-under here was $25 million, so it was a different set of numbers from what I was used to.

When you say that the planning documents skate by or whatever, is it that they're not standardized enough, or there isn't a set of specifics asked for, or they all look different to you, or...? What did you mean by that?

[David Macdonald]

Let me be more specific. I was referring to particular departments. I think there is a fair amount of standardization across the RPPs, for instance, and that's definitely a good thing.

I would point you to the 2011-12 Canadian International Development Agency RPP, which essentially does not make estimates going forward. While every other department in the federal government is required to make these estimates, CIDA has decided, despite the fact it administers $5 billion in expenditures in overseas development aid every year, that it doesn't need to do that. I think it should be a concern that they're—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Was that the one time, or had you looked at those documents in the past?

[David Macdonald]

It was the 2011 report, so I—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You have no idea what happened before that, then.

[David Macdonald]

I'm not sure what happened the year before.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

All right.

[David Macdonald]

I think this committee should require each of these departments to submit those reports on time and that they be full and complete. CIDA is an example of when that hasn't happened, and that's something that could be corrected.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That wraps up the time then for that round. Thank you very much.

Next, for the Liberals, we have Mr. John McCallum.