Government Operations Committee on Feb. 29th, 2012

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I will make a brief comment that is intended for everyone.

I would never have thought that the review of the process for considering the estimates and supply could generate so much debate, tension and so many sparks, given that we are supposedly all here to try to find better ways of doing things. I find the turn this meeting has taken to be astonishing, but I suggest we move to a vote.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I'll let Brian Jean speak first, and then I'll let you wrap up as the final speaker, John. How's that?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It's not often that I agree with the NDP, but in this particular case I think he's right, and I'd like to thank Mr. Page. Five minutes with Mr. Page and his staff is something that most parliamentarians dream about asking for and having, and I would suggest that Mr. McCallum could use his five minutes in a better way than he has. We're working on a cooperative approach to try to find some real solutions to what Mr. Page has brought forward, and I find it offensive that he would do this at this time, when we're just three-quarters of the way through a meeting.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mr. McCallum, you were interrupted.

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

I find it somewhat amusing that Brian Jean, given the tone of this questioning of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, would offer this strong defence at this time. But I don't want to take any more of the time of our witnesses, so I'll just leave it at that.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

All right. Do we have the motion at the front of the table? Perhaps you could submit it to the clerk, John, so that we know what we're voting on.

I'll just read the motion, and we'll put it to a vote:

That the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, as part of the study of the Estimates Process, report the following to the House: That the committee is deeply concerned by the decision of the Treasury Board to delay the reports on Plans and Priorities until the week of May 7 and to withhold any information about the Strategic and Operating Review from those documents.

(Motion negatived)

Thank you, John. I think that concludes your time, too, in all fairness.

We still have Mr. Bernard Trottier. You have five minutes.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming in today.

We are trying, in the spirit of bipartisanship, or tripartisanship, to solve a problem that's been around for a long time. We had officials from Treasury Board show us copies of main estimates from the 1880s, and they don't look a whole lot different from what we see today. I brought a copy of the 2012-13 main estimates, which probably doesn't bear any real resemblance to what will really get spent, because there's a budget coming up that will change what the actual expenditures will be.

We've talked about timing with respect to the budget vis-à-vis the estimates. I'm intrigued by what you said about Australia and New Zealand, with regard to coming up with a budget and estimates at the same time. As someone with a business background, I can tell you that this is how you would try to run a business.

Is there a problem with budget secrecy? It's a long-standing tradition that we don't divulge the budget ahead of time, so that no one gains from it, economically or otherwise. Is there a problem in Canada? I know New Zealand is a much smaller country, and perhaps they're able to keep the more detailed planning process of estimates more confined. What barriers would there be in Canada to doing that, having budgets and estimates coming at the same time?

Maybe you could tell us whether this is something we could do, as opposed to having a fall budget or a time lag between a budget and main estimates.

[Kevin Page]

I think it is possible. One option would be to present a budget earlier. That would take the secrecy on budget issues right off the table. The budget decisions would be made. Secrecy seems to be of most concern with taxation matters, which could have an impact on the marketplace and financial decisions. If you had a budget that was three or four months in advance, I think it would eliminate that possibility.

We don't often have many decisions through a budget process that would create a market-mover situation. Is it also an option to just table totally consistent documents? I think so. Can you quarantine decisions about taxation issues? It's probably possible. Having worked in those central agencies, I think it is possible.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I want to build on something the other members talked about. This isn't the first time this problem has been studied. It was the same committee in 2003 that said, and I quote:

Each year, some 87 departments and other government organizations provide parliamentary committees with separate spending estimates and related reports, and many of these receive no formal attention in committee meetings. And when meetings occur, they are typically dominated by partisan exchanges with ministers that shed minimal light on the estimates. Consideration of the supplementary estimates, which allow departments to obtain additional funding at specified intervals during the year, has been even less satisfactory. With only a few exceptions, committees regularly fail to examine them at all.

Let's have no illusions here. This is a partisan place and people have their partisan underwear on everywhere they go. Is there some way we can improve that situation by restricting our focus to estimates and removing some of that partisanship? Maybe looking at some of these other parliaments could give us some ideas that we could explore in this study.

[Kevin Page]

To add a little colour commentary, I would say that it's not only at the political level that there's been a lack of use of these documents. As someone who worked 27 years as a public servant, I can tell you that those documents weren't often used as planning tools, even within the departments. So that's a fundamental problem that needs to be fixed.

Can we make those documents better so that they're more aligned to the votes that parliamentarians are going to have to make? Absolutely. What's stopping us? Actually, I don't think there is anything stopping us. I think if you folks around this table said, “This is the way we want our information: we want it on a program activity basis, we want performance information, and before we vote, we want decision-support information when we're looking at new legislation”, you would get what you asked for. We can change the system. I think all you need to do is tell us that, and we can deliver the goods.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

I think I have a couple of minutes still...?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

No. Actually, you have very little time, but you can have one last question, Bernard.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay. I'll ask a real quick question.

You mentioned “program activity basis”, and that's kind of what I see in here right now. Is that the level you're talking about? Or are you talking about something more detailed or less detailed than what we currently have in the estimates when you say that things should be done on a program activity basis?

[Kevin Page]

Here's what I'm saying. We have program activity information—the Chart of Accounts—and the Public Accounts provide program activity information.

I think as parliamentarians you can look at it department by department. Is that the level you want? Or do you want to go a level deeper, a level lower in terms of more granularity, or a level higher?

I think the key issue, again, is that you want that to be a control gate. You want to hold the government to account, effectively, and as well hold bureaucrats to account, to some degree, based on that. I think it's for you to decide on the level.

The level we have now in these documents is relatively aggregated. I think it would be relatively easy to move quickly to a control gate basis without it being too overwhelming, so to speak.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Page.

Thank you, Bernard.

That complete two full rounds, but we do have about five minutes left.

Denis Blanchette had a question or two, and Mike has a couple of questions. Could we maybe have two or three minutes each? Then we'll thank Mr. Page at five o'clock.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When you answered my colleague's questions about open government, you hinted that, in terms of budgeting, perhaps a more consistent frame of reference is needed for the various departments and organizations. Your comments gave me the impression that things are not being done in exactly the same way in each department and agency and that the lack of consistency would make it difficult to post the data on the web.

Could you give us some more examples of that?

[Kevin Page]

That major difference between the financial planning in the budget and the frame of reference each department uses is really a serious problem. The Parliamentary Budget Office asked the people at Treasury Board if, with the expenditure documents, it was possible for us to have information on budget planning and estimates that would be consistent. We were told that it was not possible because those are confidential cabinet documents.

In my opinion, it is very important to you that the two documents be exactly the same. You have to get the frames of reference for each department, not just for one year, but for five years and that they have to be consistent with the financial planning in the budget. That information does not currently exist and I do not believe that it has ever existed.

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

Thank you very much.

Do you feel that our current system, with all the various supplementary estimates, is still practical, or do you think that it should be reformed and overhauled?

[Kevin Page]

In my opinion, it is like our conversation on “deeming”. The lack of consistency between the main estimates and the budget is a symptom. If we could make things more consistent overall, we would not need the supplementary estimates (A), (B), (C), and so on.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That's three minutes, Denis. Thank you very much.

Mike, would you like to take a minute or two?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes, just one minute, and Jason or Sahir might want to answer the question.

I want you to give me, if you can—if you can't do it, that's fine—an example for us so we understand the difference between what we have now and what a program-style review would be.

In the mains right now—which our NDP friends brought forward at question period—is the reduction in the department of food inspection. It's a sunset. It was approved, it had so many years, and that program is now sunsetted, so that money is removed from the mains.

It may be added back through a budget process, but because the budget process and the mains are at different times, it's great fodder for them. In actual fact, it may be just because the law that was set out—the program—only had a certain line date and has to be renewed, and it can only be renewed through the budget process. How would that be different and how would that look in what you're suggesting in terms of what happens in Australia or New Zealand?

[Jason Jacques]

I think the first major difference would be if the budget is actually coinciding with the main estimates, you wouldn't necessarily see those sunset issues. If a program is being renewed within the budget, it would necessarily show up within the appropriation bill. You wouldn't necessarily have this potentially misleading indication that somehow there's money being taken out of a department or from a program, because it's actually ongoing. It's simply a timing issue in terms of how it's actually presented.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You have shown me the Australian example. What would it look like in the Australian books?

[Jason Jacques]

We could find specific documentation.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Could you do an example for us—not today—and provide it back? Take something like that out of the mains and show us what it would actually look like. I would be appreciative. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.