Evidence of meeting #42 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 estimates.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Peter Dobell  Founding Director, The Parliamentary Centre, As an Individual
Martin Ulrich  Independant Consultant, As an Individual
Peter DeVries  Consultant, Budgetary Affairs, 3D Policy, As an Individual

5:15 p.m.

Consultant, Budgetary Affairs, 3D Policy, As an Individual

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC

As I understand it, then, the budget could be tabled shortly before or shortly after the Reports on Plans and Priorities and the estimates, but not outside that time frame. Is that right?

5:15 p.m.

Consultant, Budgetary Affairs, 3D Policy, As an Individual

Peter DeVries

I believe so, yes.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC

So what I take from your comments is that the public administration has the ability to provide that information in that way with the resources it has. Okay. In that case, it is quite clear.

Now I want to talk about the review being done by the various committees. One of the reasons we started this study was the difficulty we had trying to make sense of the estimates given the quantity of information involved. Every committee has to do an assessment, but since we can't figure out what we should be comparing, confusion sets in and the whole exercise becomes almost futile.

By the way, there have been other attempts to bring everything together in a more coherent way, both in 1998 and in 2003.

As far as the information provided to MPs goes, what changes do you think are needed to make everything easier to understand, so we can then identify the relevant information and do our job more effectively and efficiently?

5:15 p.m.

Consultant, Budgetary Affairs, 3D Policy, As an Individual

Peter DeVries

I believe in your everyday work you may deal more with programs that are available to individuals and your constituents than a vote structure that is very difficult to explain to anybody. On that basis, as I've argued, I think that more information should be provided on programs. How far down you go is up to debate, but I think more information should be given on programs. There should be an ongoing review of these programs, a cyclical review of these programs, so that you parcel your work out more over the approval process than you are doing right now in considering the mains as a whole.

In the current system, in which the government tables the mains by March 1, everything is sort of automatic after that. You don't have a lot of discretion in changing stuff. You can propose cuts but you can't propose any increases. If you had more detail or more information or more analysis of what these programs are actually doing, and whether they are meeting the criteria set out, then I think you could make more of a difference.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC

How much time do I have left?

5:15 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

You have one and a half minutes.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Denis Blanchette NDP Louis-Hébert, QC

Very well.

I am going to hand the floor over to Ms. Duncan.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. DeVries, some of the experts who came in suggested that there should be more time allotted to MPs to review, for example, the estimates. If I round out your recommendations, I wonder if you're saying the PBO be made independent and be given more resources to do a more fulsome review. Would you suggest then we'd not necessarily need a lot more time because the members in the committee and individually would have more resources at their means to review? Or do you agree with the suggestion that there should be more time allotted to do a full review of the estimates?

5:15 p.m.

Consultant, Budgetary Affairs, 3D Policy, As an Individual

Peter DeVries

I think more analysis of the estimates has to be done and it has to be done by a cast supporting this committee, or other committees. Whether that's the PBO.... I said the PBO should be made an agent of Parliament and be made more independent, but there are a lot of functions that the PBO can do, apart from being assigned to this committee to look at the estimates.

The Library of Parliament is another area that could do a lot of work on providing details and information to members of this committee on the individual programs. They could be tasked to do more of that research-type of analysis that maybe you would have given to the PBO under a different set of circumstances. I have a lot of respect for the members of the Library of Parliament and I think they do a good job. From what I have seen in my appearances before the Finance Committee, they have done a fairly good job.

5:20 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Thank you very much, Ms. Duncan and Mr. DeVries.

We have a brief round of questioning.

Mike Wallace, you asked for a quick question. Go ahead.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Mr. DeVries, you are a chartered accountant. Is that correct?

5:20 p.m.

Consultant, Budgetary Affairs, 3D Policy, As an Individual

Peter DeVries

No, I'm not.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Are you giving advice to the CICA or you are on the board of public accounting?

5:20 p.m.

Consultant, Budgetary Affairs, 3D Policy, As an Individual

Peter DeVries

The Public Sector Accounting Board issues accounting standards for senior levels of government. In doing that they have a research staff of professionals who prepare policy papers for review by a task force. That task force is made up of professionals and non-professionals, and I have served on a number of those task forces.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

We've had a fair discussion on accrual versus cash, and to be frank, most members of Parliament can understand cash; they may have a little more difficult time understanding carrying forward liabilities and so on before the cash is paid for them.

What do you think would need to be done in terms of training members of Parliament so they can understand accrual accounting and what they see in front of them?

We had an example where we believe Australia went to accrual accounting and is now going back to cash. Do you have a comment on that?

5:20 p.m.

Consultant, Budgetary Affairs, 3D Policy, As an Individual

Peter DeVries

First off, it's not easy understanding accrual. Somehow I did and I'm not an accountant, so there is hope.

Where I come from on this is that when you approve a capital expenditure in the current year—let's say the government is going to build a new building for $500 million—you appropriate only the funds that are required in the course of a year. Basically once you approve the funds for year one, you're stuck for year three, four, or whatever length of time it takes to build that building.

On that basis you're moving more to an accrual basis of accounting because you've accepted that the capital costs of this over a period of time are going to have to be met.

This is maybe more from a budget point of view, but when we were on a cash basis of accounting I saw too many departments meeting their restraint targets by cutting capital because it was on a cash basis. Once it goes on an accrual basis, it's treated exactly the same way as any other program.

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Thank you.

5:20 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Thank you.

John McCallum has asked for a brief question as well.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

I do have one question.

I thought I heard you say we could get rid of the deemed approved rule. Is that right?

5:20 p.m.

Consultant, Budgetary Affairs, 3D Policy, As an Individual

Peter DeVries

That's right.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

One other witness said the government could be held to ransom, as it were, if MPs filibustered, and that this would be a counter-argument to your proposal.

5:20 p.m.

Consultant, Budgetary Affairs, 3D Policy, As an Individual

Peter DeVries

At least it would provide a source of power for the committees. They'd get more information on what it is they're voting on or be able to make suggestions as to how changes could be made.

I guess I'm of the view that right now you table the estimates by a certain time period and there's very little you can do after that. You have no clout really. A couple of times a committee has held back some funds or proposed to hold back some funds and a resolution was obtained before a final vote on the estimates, but that's very seldom.

5:20 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP Pat Martin

Thank you, John.

Thank very much, Mr. DeVries, for a very clear, concise, and useful presentation. I like your style. You're very matter of fact and we find that very helpful.

I'm going to suspend the meeting for a moment and reconvene in camera so we can discuss a potential change to one future witness.

We'll thank Mr. DeVries for his presentation and suspend the meeting.

Thank you, sir.

[Proceedings continue in camera]