Evidence of meeting #30 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was budget.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Kevin Page  Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Sahir Khan  Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Jason Jacques  Director, Budget, Estimates and Reporting, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

4 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Sorry, you have 10 seconds.

Time flies. I know, it's hard.

Very good. Thank you, Denis.

We'll go to Mr. Jacques Gourde, for the Conservatives.

4 p.m.

Conservative

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us today.

This is quite an intricate topic, and so is your presentation. Here is how I see things: we vote on a budget and then we vote on the process, on how the money is spent. We are talking about $250 billion here. Have you estimated how many hours we would need to get a better idea of all the spending areas we are voting on? That is a huge number of hours. If it takes us 250 days per year to do it, our work as parliamentarians will run into a logistics problem.

What solutions do you suggest so that things are more intelligible for everyone's sake, but also doable in a reasonable time? I don't think we have all the training we need to study budgets that are as intricate as that.

4 p.m.

Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Kevin Page

I might need more details to get a better sense of your question. However, in my view, we always have to think about the relative order of importance when we are talking about the scope of departmental activities or operations, for example. I feel that it is more important to approach this from a logical perspective in order to determine whether it makes sense. For example, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has some funding for the Coast Guard, some for buildings and some for scientific activities. In my view, that makes no sense and I don't understand why they are using a system like that.

4 p.m.

Sahir Khan Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

I would also add that, in order to make the process more effective, it might be a good idea to incorporate the budget bill into the supply bill, as some countries do. The two would be a bit more in sync. That would enable parliamentarians to deal with only one amount and to focus on priority issues, while studying a wide range of issues at the same time: the budget and supply. A number of countries are doing that. We could learn some lessons from them and apply them in Canada. I think that would help us understand the effect of the budget on supply.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

With regard to the process, the budget is usually brought down in the spring. If it were brought down later, say during the second quarter, would that make things easier for parliamentarians? Would it make a big difference?

4:05 p.m.

Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Sahir Khan

I think that it is all about synchronization. Yes, we think that it can help parliamentarians to understand the process. It is really a matter of whether they want to see the two things integrated, perhaps by changing the calendar.

Actually, some countries introduce two bills at the same time. So the votes are integrated with the new announcements in the budget. There are a number of examples of that. I will ask Mr. Jacques to speak to examples in other countries.

February 29th, 2012 / 4:05 p.m.

Jason Jacques Director, Budget, Estimates and Reporting, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

The two that come most immediately to mind are the two that Kevin mentioned previously, Australia and New Zealand. In that situation, when you look back through their records on why they actually set up that system, they found, to the point that you raised, that it facilitates members in their short timeframes to actually focus on the incremental issues and the material issues that are flagged in the government's policy document and the budget. It allows them to focus on those aspects within the appropriation bill. So instead of looking at the 95% of things that are routine, you're looking at the 5% of things that are novel and new and potentially the government hasn't tried before, and you can kick the tires and determine whether it makes sense or not.

The other benefit is that in both of those jurisdictions you can look at the individual departments, and there is a certain beauty in being able to look at the individual departments and roll everything up to the budget. When you look at the individual plans by department and you sum everything, it adds up to the budget and you're able to reconcile the numbers perfectly.

As an accountant, I like numbers to balance, but for parliamentarians who might not necessarily have a background in financial issues, there is a certain facility in doing that and knowing that if there is $5 billion for a certain department, say Public Safety, that same $5 billion will be showing up within the budget document itself.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

I'm afraid that is your—

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

So, to sum up, could you give the committee an example of what you have observed in other countries, so that we can compare? Perhaps we would understand better. Can you give the committee an example?

4:05 p.m.

Director, Budget, Estimates and Reporting, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Jason Jacques

Sure, absolutely.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

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

Thank you.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Now it is the Liberals, John McCallum.

You have five minutes, John.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

It's my understanding that Treasury Board can re-profile money that is inside a single vote without having to report on this publicly. I think the issue arose in the case of the G-8 legacy fund and also the green infrastructure fund.

Am I correct that they don't have to report this publicly? Should they not have to?

4:05 p.m.

Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Kevin Page

This has been our system for a long period of time, that we allow that discretion. To some degree, ministers, and perhaps even deputies working with ministers, need to have some discretion to move moneys around, but then the question really becomes, where do you, as members of Parliament, want to control?

It is not a new thing, and it is the case that people can move moneys within votes without going back to Parliament, but again, I go back. I think the time has come to move that control gate, just from lessons learned in recent years. But these are not even lessons learned, because this happens, just as a rule, all the time, where within a grant and contribution vote—

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

The point of parliamentarians approving money, say for border infrastructure, and then the government turning around and using it for G-8 legacy.... It's kind of meaningless if they don't even tell us that the moneys have been changed and are now being used for something totally different.

4:05 p.m.

Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Kevin Page

I agree with you one hundred percent, and you can go to other departments as well, such as Aboriginal and Northern Affairs. Multi-billion dollar grants and contribution votes, money gets moved around and no one really knows about it—at best, perhaps months and months later you can get a better sense from the public accounts, the reports on plans and priorities.

No, it doesn't make sense. Again, I think if we voted on an activity basis, they would not be allowed to do that, as opposed to a vote basis.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Okay.

I have a second question. I think—if I understood you correctly, but please tell me if I didn't—you agree that if the budget were in the fall rather than in the spring, it could be coordinated at the same time as the estimates, so that we would have the estimates, including the budgetary measures, in time for the beginning of the fiscal year. Is that right?

4:10 p.m.

Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Kevin Page

That is an option. I think it would be important if we want really consistent estimates documents, and by that I mean those reports one, two and three, and we want the appropriation bills to be consistent with those documents. Then, yes, we need to bring those two together.

I think it's possible, but it would be a huge shock to our public servants to actually run the two processes parallel behind the scenes. I think we use this veil of secrecy perhaps too strongly, saying that we need to keep people out of it. The budget is typically produced by people at the Department of Finance and the Privy Council Office. A lot of the treasury people are a step behind.

It is possible for this to work collaboratively behind the scenes.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

You have said, and others have said to us, that having the budget in the fall would be an improvement. It wouldn't solve everything, but it would be an improvement. I have a specific question and a general question.

If it's an improvement, if there are no down sides to it, why didn't it happened decades ago?

More generally, you have this chart showing a rise in the number of studies on the estimates and a reduction in the time spent on them. What's the main impediment to change? There's a strong case for major change to the system, more like Australia, more like New Zealand, or whatever. Why has that not happened? Is it a political problem? I don't think it's particularly partisan, because it didn't change when Liberals were government and it hasn't changed under the Conservatives.

Is it entrenched interest of Treasury Board or the bureaucracy that just likes everything to be the way it has always been? Are we just wasting our time on this study? What's the main source of lack of change or reform?

4:10 p.m.

Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Kevin Page

I think if we're going to change, to some degree the change will have to come from members of Parliament. I think members of Parliament have to decide what they want when they vote, how they want to vote, and the type of information they want.

I think if it isn't demanded by folks like yourself, you're not going to receive it. There won't be a supply. You'll have to instruct public servants to make this change. I think there is a case, and it probably shouldn't be surprising—and this is certainly not a partisan comment—that we probably design the system to support the government of the day or to support, to some degree, even the public servants of the day. Nobody likes coming to this committee.

4:10 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

4:10 p.m.

Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Kevin Page

Well, I do.

Nobody really wants to say, okay, decision support information, where the F-35, a crime bill.... I'm not picking on the Conservative side, because I'm sure you can go back a few years and talk about other issues of the day. Here's our decision support analysis. Here's the analysis that we used to make this decision, and here's what we're trying to achieve with it.

Unless members around this table and in the House of Commons say what they want, they will never get it. Obviously, the way power will work is it will work to make sure that we control.

There's a great expression I heard from a German colleague recently. He said, “Kevin, trust is good, but control is better.”

Trust is good, and the only way you get trust is by sharing information and having open debates. But if you can control it, you don't even need trust. You don't need to share information. Public servants like myself, who have operated the system for three decades, have manufactured a system so that you never get to see what you really need to see to do your job.

What we tried to do at PBO, and why people actually even came to this organization, was to show you what it might look like. What we released yesterday—and no offence—was actually decision support information after the fact. People behind the scenes get that all the time. This is what's rare. The kinds of projections Dr. Askari does and all the analysis around them...everybody behind the scenes, cabinet ministers, gets that. You don't get that unless you get it from Dr. Askari.

PBO is a bit different that way. We're showing the art of the possible. I know there's friction. I can feel the friction in this room, like the “media star” comments or whatever. There is friction. But it isn't friction. We're just trying to give you stuff that we were giving cabinet ministers in the past. That's the reason why we came. No one's getting rich here.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Thank you, Mr. Page.

You're well over your time, but we let it go because it was interesting.

Brian Jean, welcome. You have five minutes.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Page.

I just want to read a quote before I start:

It is by the application of the power of the purse that we have moved forward, slowly and prosaically, no doubt, but without any violent overturning, and have grown from being a small island in the Northern seas to be the centre of a world-wide Empire.

That was said 100 years ago by Winston Churchill in the Liberties of Britain, so I don't think this is a new question.

I have had an opportunity, quite frankly, to run 10 businesses—manage them, own them, have a $20 million portfolio. Financial statements are the only way I could run those businesses. I had hundreds of employees.

I am overwhelmed here. I am under budget, trying to run a $300,000 budget with a constituency like Fort McMurray—Athabasca, where I have huge immigration problems, a tremendous number of issues, and I have to run it all on that basis—all the employees, etc.

It's almost impossible. What you're suggesting along with that, or at least some of the practical suggestions, I just find overwhelming, and I don't know how it can be done with the current economic climate, and certainly not with the budget and what's happening in the world.

I would like to ask you a couple of questions regarding that, though, and I think there are some good suggestions—one in relation to the way we vote—and I think the Auditor General, in essence in a 2003 report, felt that the key to effective review is knowledge of the institution. I don't disagree with you there.

I was wondering about your own department in relation to what you do yourself. I know that recently you've developed computer software. Do you know which computer software system I'm speaking of? What's it called?

4:15 p.m.

Director, Budget, Estimates and Reporting, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament

Jason Jacques

It's the integrated monitoring database.