Government Operations Committee on May 3rd, 2018

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Colleagues, I think we'll convene the meeting now. I see everyone seated at the table.

Colleagues, as we all know, yesterday was a tough day. Hopefully today will be a little better, and I'll leave it at that.

Mr. Brison, welcome to you and your officials. Minister, you've been at our committee many times in the past, so you know the drill. We'll look to you for a short opening address, and following that we will have a series of questions from our colleagues around the table.

My understanding is, Minister, you will be here for the first hour, and then your officials will stay here for the remaining second hour. Is that correct?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

That's right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Okay. Thank you for that.

Minister, the floor is yours.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start off by expressing my condolences and sadness at the loss of our colleague, Gord Brown, yesterday, and to all parliamentarians, because we are part of a broader parliamentary family, but particularly to our Conservative colleagues. I knew Gord well, and Claudine, and this is a great loss. He was a very good person.

Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to be here with you today. I'm thankful for the invitation to talk about the 2018-19 main estimates.

I have with me Taki Sarantakis, the associate secretary of the Treasury Board; Marcia Santiago, the executive director; Renée LaFontaine, the chief financial officer; and Brian Pagan, who's back with us now. Brian broke his leg a few weeks ago playing hockey, but he's back with us now. We're glad to have you back on the ice, as it were, Brian.

On April 16, I tabled the 2018-19 main estimates. These provide information to support the government's request that Parliament approve $276 billion of spending to deliver programs and services in the fiscal year starting April 1, 2018.

Through these main estimates, the government continues to make important investments in Canadians' priorities: growth, progress, reconciliation and advancement, as part of our plan to grow and strengthen Canada's middle class.

We are also living up to the commitments we made before Parliament, and we are doing so in a way that is open, transparent and accountable.

For the first time in recent history, the main estimates include 100% of the measures announced in the budget for this year. This is a major step forward, and it's been made possible, in part, by changing the tabling date of the main estimates to mid-April, after the budget. As a result, parliamentarians now have a document that is relevant and complete, so that they can better hold government to account on how it spends taxpayer dollars. To do this, we have added a new, centrally managed budget implementation vote, TB vote 40, to the main estimates. Parliamentarians can now trace each and every allocation from this new central vote to a specific line in the budget, table A2.11, and in the main estimates, annex 1. This is a level of transparency not available in the previous estimates that parliamentarians have been debating and voting on for years.

We have heard the argument that the legal constraints placed on the use of funds in the budget implementation vote are not sufficiently binding and that the government could use this vote to fund whatever it wants. That is categorically false.

Let me give you an example of how the budget implementation vote works. Budget 2018 proposes a number of important investments, including $154 million to the Department of Health to address the opioid crisis. These funds are reflected in the 2018-19 main estimates budget implementation vote. Let's just say that over the course of the year, the opioid crisis worsened and the government decided it needed to spend more. If the government wanted to increase funding for this, or for any other budget measure identified in the budget implementation vote, a separate funding decision would be required and Parliament would be asked to provide additional approval. To repeat, using the budget implementation vote to exceed the allocations listed would be an unauthorized use of public funds.

Mr. Chair, I've been very clear on this from the very beginning. The main estimates document itself tabled in Parliament says that the budget implementation vote is “for new measures approved and identified in table A2.11” of the budget. This table is also included as an annex to the main estimates.

As our Auditor General has said, the government is bound by those line-by-line allocations. To quote the Auditor General, “You can't just decide somebody else should get more and somebody else can get less. To me, that's not the authority that [the government has] been given by Parliament.”

The Auditor General is right. That's why I've said repeatedly, on the record, that the use of the budget implementation vote is legally binding to the allocations in that table. Exceeding those allocations through this vote cannot happen without additional parliamentary approval.

I spoke to the PBO earlier this week and we discussed the idea of including allocations in the wording of the vote itself for even more clarity and to provide him and Parliament with even greater assurance. Based on that conversation, I'm confident that this will provide the greater certainty that he's looking for. To provide as much clarity as possible, we will be listing the allocations within the appropriation bill itself when it's tabled this spring.

Another element of the PBO's report was the assertion that the budget implementation vote does not allow sufficient oversight by parliamentarians. In fact, parliamentarians not only still have the opportunity to study and vote on the budget and the estimates and the appropriation bills for the main and supplementary estimates. For the first time, they also have at their disposal a detailed disclosure of the measures to be funded from the central vote in both the budget plan and the main estimates.

In other words, for the first time ever, when MPs are voting on the main estimates they will know, initiative by initiative, where the budget money is going. This is a huge step forward for parliamentary oversight.

Parliamentarians will also be able to see allocations to departments and remaining balances for the line-by-line budget measures in monthly reports online and in the next available estimates. Thanks to these important changes, parliamentarians now have more control over government spending than ever before.

Mr. Chair, as you know, in our system of government the ability of parliamentarians to hold the government to account is of the utmost importance. To that end, we have made a number of important improvements. In addition to changing the timing of the main estimates to mid-April so that the budget items can be included, we have also increased transparency by reporting on frozen allotments.

Beginning with the 2015-16 supplementary estimates (C), we now publish an online annex that provides Parliament with an early indication of the lapses expected for the fiscal year. This improvement, the PBO says, “represents an important increase in fiscal transparency, ensuring that parliamentarians are on a less unequal footing with the Government”.

Beginning with the 2016-17 supplementary estimates (A), we also now provide parliamentarians with a reconciliation of the accrual expense forecast in the budget with the cash expenditure forecast through the estimates process. Again, this development has been cited by the PBO as a positive step forward in transparency and in efforts to align the budget and estimates process.

Moreover, we have reformed annual departmental reports so that parliamentarians can get better information on planned spending, expected outcomes, and actual results. On that note, I would encourage the committee to finalize its review of the pilot project on purpose-based votes to address the difficulty parliamentarians have in connecting the money we vote for with the program it will actually be used for. I firmly believe that strengthening the link between votes and the purpose or desired results of a program will further strengthen parliamentary oversight of government spending.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity and the invitation to join your committee today. Through the changes I've discussed this morning, we are improving the clarity, transparency, and accountability of government spending. In so doing, we are empowering parliamentarians to hold the government to account for how its spends tax dollars.

I'm looking forward to the questions and the discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much, Minister.

We'll start with the questions now.

Madam Ratansi, you have seven minutes, please.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you, Minister, and thank you for being here.

Thank you as well for the clarification around how you're increasing the accountability and transparency in the process by aligning the estimates and the budget and by bringing in the budget implementation vote, which, you say, binds the amounts listed in the table that shows the allocation for each budget initiative. But there is still some consideration around whether this is certain or not, and whether there's a slush fund that's available to you to use. I know that in the previous government there was an accountability act and that there is this confusion, because the accountability act did not function properly. I used to be the chair of the government operations committee, and I know some of the things we had to discuss.

One, could you tell us how your process will give certainty to parliamentarians that they can look at additional spending and be guaranteed that you will give them that opportunity? And two, how is this process different? What has the government done to give parliamentarians access to better and more timely information?

Thank you.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you, Yasmin. I appreciate your questions.

The Auditor General has said that he is satisfied that our new budget implementation vote is legally bound to the items and amounts listed in budget table A2.11. That is our government's intent. It's also our legal interpretation.

I'm proud that we are adding this amount of transparency and accountability and that it empowers Parliament much more than the previous budget estimates process. I want to ensure that there can be no doubt as to our government's intent for even the most skeptical amongst us; not that you're skeptical, but you are a chartered accountant, I believe.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Yes, I am.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

That's why we're taking a further step, to actually take all the items listed in budget table A2.11 and put them in the supply bill for those people who can't connect the annex to the main estimates, which clearly indicate that. I'm just taking a further step to make that clear. It's part of a broader results-based approach that our government is taking. The Treasury Board is very engaged in reporting not just programs but results, and in some cases, even challenges we're having on specific programs, so that the public is aware of what we're investing in and that we're not just looking at outputs in terms of spending but actually measuring outcomes.

As I said earlier, one of the things I want to do more of is purpose-based votes whereby parliamentarians have even more input, and ultimately, authority. Again, on this, just simply sequencing the main estimates after a budget makes the discussion this morning a far more pertinent one than the ones we used to have where the main estimates would come out and a few weeks later the budget would come out. Basically, all the discussion we had on the main estimates up to that point would be rendered out of date, and to a certain extent, less relevant. It's something on which The Globe and Mail, in 2016, said:

the current sequence is bad to the point of absurdity, with spending estimates usually coming before the budget, and in a different accounting format, rendering them virtually meaningless. It's a discredited practice that has only served to keep MPs in the dark about how tax dollars are being spent.

It is something we take very seriously. As some of you might be aware, I'm coming up on 21 years as a member of Parliament, and most of those years have been spent in opposition and at committee. It is one of the reasons I personally feel very vested in our work to make government, not just our government but future governments, more accountable to Parliament. It is absolutely fundamental to what we do. We've made significant progress and will continue to work to make more progress.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I'm very familiar with the estimates and the budgets really not making any sense to anybody when they were misaligned.

How have we made the system so much more open, such that parliamentarians can see the figures? How is this approach different from the previous approaches?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Minister, you'll have about 60 seconds to make, hopefully, a comprehensive answer.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Again, the sequencing certainly makes the exercise more relevant, but in actually having the list, line by line, that binds the government, we can't exceed those amounts without coming back to Parliament. If you look at the level of detail provided within table A2.11, it is very significant in terms of its granularity.

For the first time in recent history, the main estimates will actually include 100% of the measures announced in the budget for the fiscal year. Beyond that, it is creating within government, not just between the Department of Finance and Treasury Board but with departments, a different working relationship in terms of the budget estimates process. I believe it's not only more transparent, but also more effective in terms of how we are conducting our business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Deltell, you have seven minutes.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome the minister, as well as our colleagues and friends from the public service.

Obviously, all our thoughts today are with the late Gordon Brown, and especially with Claudine and their two children.

Mr. Chair, we are here today to talk about the main estimates. Given that this is the Treasury Board president's most important responsibility, we are analyzing each expenditure made according to the estimates that are tabled at the House of Commons and voted on.

The main estimates tabled by the Treasury Board president is unique, because it provides for expenditures upwards of $7 billion that cannot be directly identified nor accounted for. I am talking about vote 40. This vote has already been harshly condemned or, to put it in more polite terms, it was not viewed in an entirely positive light by the parliamentary budget officer, who had this to say:

With the money requested for TB Vote 40, TBS is effectively requesting that Parliament provide funding in advance of this scrutiny.

This obviously goes against our guiding principles as parliamentarians, which state that each expenditure should be authorized by a vote at Parliament. This is not the case here, however. Moreover, allow me to tell you how vote 40 is described. I will read to you exactly what is stated:

—Authority granted to the Treasury Board to supplement, in support of initiatives announced in the Budget of February 27, 2018, any appropriation for the fiscal year, including to allow for the provision of new grounds or for any increase to the amount of a grant that is listed in any of the Estimates for the fiscal year, as long as the expenditures made possible are not otherwise provided for and are within the legal mandates of the departments or other organizations for which they are made.

Just to let you know that I gave a copy of the English text to the interpreters.

All this to say that that this is gobbledygook. Rather than a run-on sentence, the government could have just used a short phrase to indicate that it will do as it pleases with $7 billion. That is the reality. You are asking for a blank check to the tune of $7 billion without giving any details.

We do understand that there are unexpected events. This is why, historically, the government has always had a contingency fund for those very situations. It sets up a contingency fund of a few hundred million dollars, say a maximum of $750 million, which is fine, but not $7 billion.

Can the Treasury Board president, who brags about being the most transparent president in the history of Canada, explain why he is asking parliamentarians to give him a check for $7 billion to spend as he likes in the fiscal year preceding our elections?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

With all due respect, Mr. Deltell, that is patently false. We are providing information on the measures that will be funded using the central votes, such as the main estimates. There will be monthly updates posted online on the measures approved by Treasury Board and funded by budget implementation votes.

What you're saying, Mr. Deltell, is false. The fact is that every line-by-line item you see on table A2.11—and this is referred to in the estimates in the annex—binds the government to not exceed those. Even for a case of an emergency situation—and as I cited the opioid crisis—if it worsened and we needed to increase...we would have to come back to Parliament.

You're an experienced parliamentarian, Mr. Deltell, and if I may say, quite an effective one. You've been in the provincial legislature, the National Assembly. You would be familiar with these processes. I understand you're playing politics, and that's fine. You're entitled to your opinions but you are not entitled to your parallel facts. The fact is that, line by line, every item in here on table A2.11 binds the government to not exceed those amounts without going to Parliament.

The Auditor General has also agreed with that. In fact, to make it more clear, we will actually take those items and we will put those line-by-line items in the supply bill so that you don't have to cross-reference, because obviously that is taking up too much work for you.

I'm trying to help.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

You have one minute left.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

You say that you want to help us. You may pass judgement on what I have just said, but the problem is that I'm not the only one who is thinking this way. The parliamentary budget officer said exactly the same thing:

...virtually none of the money requested in the new Budget Implementation vote has undergone scrutiny through the standard Treasury Board Submission process, which as indicated by the government, is to “ensure resources are directed to programs and activities that remain government priorities and achieve value for money.”

The parliamentary budget officer is telling you that you are not following the rules and that you will have $7 billion worth of expenditures for all departments, all at Treasury Board's pleasure.

I am sorry, Sir, but it is not Treasury Board that passes the laws and implements budgets, it's the Parliament of Canada.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chair, it is interesting to see the Conservatives' sudden interest in the work of the parliamentary budget officer. The very same Conservatives who had to be taken to court by the PBO in order to be able to obtain some information...

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

The PBO's statement is correct, is he not?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

The very same Conservatives who said that the former PBO was not credible nor reliable...

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Do you agree with the current PBO?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

The interest the Conservatives have in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's—

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Do you agree with the current Parliamentary...?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I've always demonstrated great respect for the work of the Parliamentary Budget Office.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Do you respect what you're saying now?