Government Operations Committee on May 3rd, 2018

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

We're talking about the PBO.

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

They're easy to get along with.

The reality is that I would never attack the PBO. In fact, I've always spoken of the importance of the work of the PBO. Furthermore, we're unlike the past government. The PBO actually had to take the Conservative government to court to get information.

The Conservatives called the PBO unreliable and not credible. In fact, the Conservative government was the only government in the history of the British Commonwealth to be found in contempt of Parliament for not giving Parliament information.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Why didn't you include the information in A2.11 in vote 40 itself in the first place? You're now assuring us that, when it's tabled, you will in fact do that. You could have done that from the beginning.

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

It's because obviously you were having difficulties cross-referencing the main estimates to the budget in table A2.11. I'm just making it easier for you.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

What you're doing now would in fact make it legally binding, whereas it would not have been before.

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

The Auditor General, in whom I have a great deal of faith—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

The PBO, the Library of Parliament, and perhaps the clerks of the House would have all disagreed with you.

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

—considered it legally binding as it was. The Auditor General in whom I place a great deal of trust was very comfortable with this.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

If any expenditures, with this inclusion or not, were made outside of the bounds prescribed in A2.11, would you or any other future president of the Treasury Board be in contempt of Parliament, if they were not spent in accordance with that table?

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

If they went above—and I used the example of the opiate crisis and the funding for that—and if we needed to spend more on that crisis, we would have to come back to Parliament.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

What if you wanted to spend less? What if you chose to spend less and chose to spend it on a different...?

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

These are for the maximum. You're approving up to that amount. As a Conservative, you should be happy if we spend less, but of course, that wasn't consistent with your government, because you guys always spend more.

In terms of whether we wanted to exceed, these are limits. We cannot exceed these limits because you are approving up to that amount. You're approving up to; that's the way—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

You haven't answered my question, Minister.

If you are saying that if you wanted to spend more on that particular piece, I am suggesting, if you did wish to spend less, but to spend instead on something under the budget, which has a number of very vague categories, would that minister then be in contempt if they did so?

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

I'm trying to understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Minister, we've only got about five seconds left. Perhaps you can get to your answer in the next intervention.

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

I just want to understand the question here. Are you suggesting that, if we spent less, somehow that would be contemptuous of Parliament?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

You then wanted to repurpose the money, which, in the absence of wording in the bill, you would have had the authority to do. That's a criticism that—

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

We cannot move from one category to another, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We have to break it off.

Madame Mendès, you have five minutes, please.

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

Let's be very clear, these are as they're stated—

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

I'll give you the chance to finish that, Mr. President, to clarify, because that has been my understanding, that if you have a line item in the budget or in the supply bill you're going to spend that money or less, but you can't cross over. You can't pollinate all over the place.

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

Yes, exactly.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

But please clarify it.

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

I think you've done a great job of that, Alexandra. I thought it was pretty evident as well.

In the big picture, these reforms make this report the most transparent in recent history. As parliamentarians you are voting on real numbers. You are getting real details, and you are being given the numbers in advance. You can track this on a monthly basis. This will be provided and updated on a monthly basis.

Over time I would like to engage even on the new departmental reporting, because that is equally important in terms of the activities and the results of individual departments and programs. As I've said earlier, I'd like this committee to engage on the whole issue of purpose-based reporting and budgeting.

This is, again, to be absolutely clear, as the Auditor General has said—and I read you his comments yesterday—we are bound by table A2.11 of the budget, which is clearly referred to in the main estimates. Again, if you go to table A2.11, it's quite granular and much more so...in 2009, I believe. Taki, in 2009 what was the—

[Taki Sarantakis, Associate Secretary, Treasury Board Secretariat]

It was a budget implementation vote of $3 billion.

The biggest single difference is that budget 2009, vote 35, didn't have any particular line items associated with it, in contrast to this vote 40.