Government Operations Committee on May 3rd, 2018

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

I can tell you there's a very strong level of co-operation between Treasury Board and Finance. In fact, if you look at the level—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Well, it's clearly not what's required in order to have budget items in the main estimates, as they do in Australia, which is your preferred example.

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

This is the first time in a long time that we've done this type of alignment between the main estimates and the budget in terms of the sequence, and in the first year we've had a really significant success. You would acknowledge that this is a significant step forward. You've told me that—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

My question to you is that—

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

Beyond that, in the first year we've achieved the success. As time goes on, this is going to bake in an even stronger working relationship between Treasury Board, Finance, and departments as we use that in terms of strengthening the budget and Treasury Board process.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

If people aren't just wasting their time at Treasury Board, if the costing process actually adds value.... The PBO is suggesting it does because when they tracked the budget items from 2016, they said that for somewhere in the neighbourhood of 31% of the items, there was either significantly more spent or less spent than what was foreseen in the budget spending.

The question is, if there's valuable work being done at Treasury Board, why should parliamentarians not benefit from that work prior to approving funding, which is the norm, and has been the norm. The central vote authorizes a lot of money—almost $7 billion—because only $221 million of this vote is allocated so far. Those are the only things that have been through Treasury Board. Why should parliamentarians not benefit from a more rigorous costing prior to approving authority for program spending?

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

First of all, we cannot exceed any of these amounts without going first to Parliament.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

But we can't ask questions about programs that haven't been costed adequately. So, if Treasury Board plays a real role in providing decent costing—

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

I would disagree with what you're saying because Treasury Board and Finance work together even in the budgeting process. They work with departments and—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

If that relationship exists, why did these items not go through the Treasury Board approval process prior to the main estimates and then get included in the regular departmental estimates?

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

Daniel, you started with the Australian model. The Australian model, where main estimates and the budget come out simultaneously, is a gold standard. That is something that I've said to you, I've said at this committee, that we will attain over time. What we've done here—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

But what you're asking now is that in the interim, Parliament—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Gentlemen, we want to give adequate time for everyone here to hear questions and answers. Having said that, I'd like to move on to Mr. Peterson for seven minutes.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the Treasury Board officials and the President of the Treasury Board for being with us this morning.

I think this process needs to be looked at as a non-partisan process. I think the number one rule as a parliamentarian is to oversee government spending, regardless of what party you're in.

Mr. President, I'm sure you would agree, based on your 21 years of experience—as you said, most of it in opposition—that a fundamental role of a parliamentarian and, indeed, the fundamental role of our parliamentary system is oversight of expenditures by the government. I don't think any member sitting around this table would disagree with that premise—at least, I would hope not.

That begs a few questions, of course, as a member of Parliament. In order to provide effective oversight, and efficient oversight, for that matter, I think we need access to as much information as possible in a timely manner. In that sense, I do think that the new sequencing is a vast improvement over the old way of doing things, so to speak.

Now, you mentioned that the new system will bake into it a stronger working relationship with Finance. Can you elaborate a bit on that? I'm saying, okay, that may be true, and in that sense this is sort of a first step.

How do you see this process evolving to get to the outcome we all want, regardless of what party we're from? Parliament needs information in a timely manner to review expenditures of government to make a decision on whether or not to approve those expenditures. Our role is as basic and fundamental as that. I just wonder how you think the sequencing may be a step in the right direction. And if only a step, what else do we need to do to get to that outcome?

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

First, getting the sequencing right, in and of itself, makes a significant difference. In the weeks just before a budget, the discussions we used to have on main estimates were largely a waste of Parliament's efforts and time, basically rendered irrelevant by the budget a few weeks later. We are now in the position where we can have a more productive discussion on main estimates that contain the budget initiatives.

Over time—and I've been Treasury Board president now for over two years—the working relationship between Treasury Board and Finance is very strong, as it is with individual departments.

The budget submissions and Treasury Board submission process is aligned to an extent that it has not been in the past. I understand that there are people at the Parliamentary Budget Office who may have worked for Treasury Board in the past and they might be surprised at the workings of Treasury Board and Finance and the productive and effective work that is going on today.

As I said earlier, we have great respect for the work of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In fact, when I spoke to Jean-Denis earlier this week, he was satisfied with the step of actually putting in the items from table A2.11 in the supply bill and I didn't see that as.... It makes it even more plain to the PBO and more plain to Parliament that we are serious about our accountability. Furthermore, as I read that the Auditor General said yesterday, he agreed with the government's assessment that our process as it is now is binding on the government.

We cannot exceed any of those amounts without going back to Parliament and that is a significant step forward. We want to do more. I would hope that parliamentarians of all parties are familiarizing themselves with our new departmental reports that are much more transparent than those that existed in the past. They are also easy to understand and very results-focused. Again, this is important to our government. It's important to me, as a parliamentarian, and I would hope there are certain things on which we should be able to agree. Making the budget estimates process more transparent is one that is good for all parliamentarians, regardless of where you are in the House of Commons.

It's a responsibility that not only opposition members have, but government members or members of the governing party have, to hold government accountable. I'm very pleased with this progress that we've made in a fairly short period. People like Brian and his team have been working on it for a longer time. I believe this is a significant advancement.

Now, Brian or Taki, you may want to add something to that.

[Brian Pagan, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

The main estimates represent the government's expenditure plan. By tabling the main estimates after the budget, we are presenting the full plan for Parliament, so that they have enhanced oversight, in terms of how the government will manage its priorities as articulated in budget 2018, which has been endorsed by Parliament, and as laid out in detail in the estimates through annex A1.

In that way, we are aligned with the budget and at this time, we are presenting the full plan before Parliament. In our understanding, that has been the objective of the work that the president cited over the last number of years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to our five-minute rounds of questions.

Mr. Kelly, you're up for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

Minister, you made a significant commitment this morning during your opening remarks, one that we hadn't heard previously, that you will include in the wording of the actual bill the entire table A2.11 and all of the specifics in that table in the wording of the budget.

Why this morning?

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

Let me try to explain this in a way that....

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

Is it in response to critics who describe, in the absence of that inclusion, that this vote 40 would have in fact been a slush fund?

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

The characterization that you've made is bunk. It is absolutely false.

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

Without the wording in the bill—

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

The reality is that table A2.11, which is referred to in the main estimates, is binding on the government.

I have four-year olds, two of them, Rose and Claire, twin daughters, and sometimes they ask me for things that are kind of irrational. They get irrational sometimes, but as a parent, sometimes, you just give it to them and it quiets them down and you can go back to your work. It makes a much more productive family, and you can actually get back to the main business.

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

I'm not sure I understand where this is going. Are you comparing the PBO to irrational children?

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

My daughters are whip smart.