Government Operations Committee on May 2nd, 2012

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

Thanks very much for being here.

In common with many other witnesses, you have said that the budget should be released in such a way that the measures can be in the estimates to follow. But unlike other witnesses, you've put a great deal of emphasis on the need for them to be the same accounting. You seemed to go so far as to say that if they can't have the same accounting, don't bother.

Why are you so strong on that? Isn't it better to have estimates—even if it's different accounting—that include the budget measures than to not have them? Or does it not make any difference if you don't have the same accounting process?

[Peter DeVries]

Let me go through a table, Mr. Chairman, that highlights my frustration with the estimates.

If you take a look at the estimates for 2012-13 and the estimates comparison, you'll see they indicate that the estimates are going to go up by $1.1 billion, or 0.5%. This is usually the headline number that the President of the Treasury Board comes out with to say, “Look how we've controlled spending”.

But that's not a proper comparison, because of course the estimates for 2012-13 include a lot of the supplementary estimates that were tabled in the previous year. You're comparing apples and oranges.

If you then compare the full estimates for the previous year to the estimates of the current year, suddenly you have a $7.1 billion decline in estimates now, or a 2.5% to 2.6% change. That's not a legitimate comparison either, because you know there are going to be supplementary estimates during the course of the upcoming fiscal year, which is going to raise that number. When—

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

It would take quite a lot of work to make them consistent with each other—

[Peter DeVries]

Well...

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

—in terms of accrual accounting and other things you've mentioned, right?

[Peter DeVries]

The information on accrual accounting should be in the department now. Departments are supposed to present or provide information on an accrual basis for all of their expenditures. They are supposed to be on an expense-based system at this point in time.

I hate to use the words “two sets of books”, but that's what we have. We have a set on cash and we have a set on accrual. There's no reason why the information can't be made available or can't be incorporated.

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

I just—

[Peter DeVries]

But I have just one other point if I may, Mr. Chair. I don't want to take away from the member's time.

But when you then compare those estimates to the budget for 2012-13, the budget is different from the estimates by $24.2 billion. The budget shows an increase in spending, whereas the estimates would show a decline in spending.

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

I just have one more question. This goes back to the question I asked the previous witnesses about how you scale the programs. If you're going to present the estimates on a program basis, do you have the program being the whole defence department or do you break it into 50 units? What do you do?

I was interested in your comment on the part IIIs, when you said that's where you went to get the program information. Would that also be a good place for this committee to go if they brought back that earlier methodology?

[Peter DeVries]

I would say so. Yes. There is information available on various programs and other documents, such as the public accounts, at a fairly highly aggregated basis for some parts of spending—like the operating expenses or expenditures—but the transfers are all listed there. Also, more detail is available in volume II and upon request.

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

Okay, thank you. But to do that, we would have to bring back the part IIIs, which would be another significant change to the status quo.

[Peter DeVries]

I would say don't bring back the part IIIs, just change the reports on plans and priorities.

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, John.

Next, for the Conservatives, we have Peter Braid.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. DeVries, for being here this afternoon.

I would just like to continue with the same theme as Mr. McCallum, on this notion of looking at and reviewing items by program and delineating by program. We seem to be hearing, to some degree, some conflicting information as to whether, if we moved to a process of reviewing and approving by program, as parliamentarians we would currently have the available information to do that or we would need new or different information presented to us. Could you start with that question, please?

[Peter DeVries]

First of all, I believe the information is all there, so it can be done. It depends on how far down you want to go in this process. I would start slowly, rather than taking it all on in one lump sum, so that you get some familiarity with the new information that you receive and you know how you can then use it.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Okay.

Assuming that we move to this new process of review by program, then, in addition to more clearly delineating specific programs, as Mr. McCallum has pointed out, I presume, as well, we would need to perhaps have better measurement criteria by program as well. We would need to clearly understand the objectives of each program, and then know how those programs will be measured, in terms of achieving the objectives.

How close are we to that today? How might we measure the achievement of objectives by program?

[Peter DeVries]

Well, we're not very close to it today, even though departments are supposed to do ongoing evaluations of their programs. At one point in time the Office of the Comptroller General did that. That was changed and that responsibility was transferred back to the departments and agencies to do it. Apart from some lofty words in the RPPs and the departmental performance reports, you don't see a lot of detail on those reviews. Of course, the Office of the Auditor General every once in a while does do in-depth reviews on certain aspects of programs. They, of course, are public and generate a fair bit of controversy, especially if there are some issues associated with it.

I strongly believe, as I said before, that there should be an ongoing review, a cyclical review, of government programs. I think they've made a start with the strategic reviews, although one cannot glean a lot of information out of the documents as to what was actually done in order to achieve those savings, so more information will have to be provided.

I agree with you that certain criteria would have to be established in order to see whether or not they met the objectives.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Do you have any thoughts on how we would help government as a whole or individual departments move to that end goal of measuring programs and measuring results?

[Peter DeVries]

What we're seeing here today, just by having this committee review the estimates, is a sign that there is something that's not right and that most members agree that change has to be made. You've had many meetings on this. You've called forward many witnesses who have given you their opinions. It now depends upon the type of report that you're going to write. How hard-hitting is that going to be? What recommendations are going to be in that? It's a matter of trying to convince other committees now to accept your recommendations, or to at least embrace your recommendations, when they review departmental spending.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Some of this change, I suspect, though—and this is where I was going—will need to be systemic and cultural. That takes some work and effort. Do you have any advice on how we move through that?

[Peter DeVries]

I'm a little pessimistic on that one. When I was asked before about the number of times I had presented my views on what should be included in the estimates and hadn't gotten anywhere on it.... As you said, there is some inertia in the system. There is a tendency to not change and rather to keep the status quo. Sometimes it takes a high-level event in order to bring about change. But even if you go back and look at things in the past, certain events that have generated a lot of controversy and a lot of debate about government spending, have they really changed how the process works and what the guidelines are for those?

So I'm not overly optimistic on that. A lot will depend upon how you present your report and how you sell it, then, to others.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That concludes your time, Peter. Thank you very much.

The last name we have on the schedule here is Denis Blanchette. You have five minutes, Denis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So what you are basically saying is that you think the Reports on Plans and Priorities and the estimates should be tabled around the same time if they are to have any value. Did I understand you correctly?