Evidence of meeting #133 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Andrew, help me here in terms of tagging.
What we've done here is we have presented the budget table by.... We can break it out by department, by chapter. There is a growth chapter.
In this example here, where we have a very specific example of what CMHC is going to do with rental housing. That fits in with the—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
What triggered that question in my mind was that at some point you're adding another column, where the actual spend comes.
There is an estimate. There is an allocation of where the money is going to go, and later on, when you have completed the job, then you're going to come back and say, “This amount is actually how much has gone to the roof.” That is the way I was trying to relate to it.
12:30 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Right.
Andrew, before you introduce more detail here, what colour is that?
12:30 p.m.
Director, Expenditure Analysis, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
It's randomly selected.
12:30 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
That pale Mediterranean sunset colour corresponds to—is that a budget theme, or is that a department?
12:30 p.m.
Director, Expenditure Analysis, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
It just helps visually to differentiate one from another, so no, the colour doesn't mean anything.
12:30 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Upon approval of $447.2 million for social housing, the intention here is that we would allocate that out to the department or departments involved in the delivery of that program. As Andrew was saying, we're going to add a column that will specify precisely which program within the department or departments it has been added to.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
It looks like the $7 billion is already broken into different allocations, as the allocation is made and the money is spent, then the detail is going to be added in here. I fail to understand where we're not being transparent because we can be as transparent at the moment, but the money hasn't been spent. Therefore, there's really blank to report on. The allocation is there, though. Is that the tool we could use to be able to demystify this $7 billion?
12:30 p.m.
Director, Expenditure Analysis, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
We won't be reporting on the actual spending. Once money is transferred to departments, we lose a line of sight on it. What we will be showing, however, is exactly which program or programs are receiving that funding.
You mentioned the idea of categories. We're moving to add more and more detail at the program level and we're adding what are called tags. For example, one of the things that we'll be adding soon is client groups. We could say, “Show me all of the programs that support indigenous youth that receive budget money”, and we'll be able to show those particular budget initiatives and the programs. At the end of the year, the total spending for all those programs will be shown in public accounts and you'll be able to see that total spending.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
How well do you think the public knows about this tool? You can answer this as part of other questions.
12:35 p.m.
Director, Expenditure Analysis, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
We're looking to do better on that.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
This is fascinating stuff.
You commented that once the spending is done, you lose the line of sight on it. Could you expand on that a bit, in answer to Mr. Jowhari's question, about what Mr. Gibson—because I'm going to ask him about—
12:35 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
It speaks to the supply bill. When we allocate money out to a department, it fits within the structures approved by Parliament, which is votes and not programs. Within a vote, there are a number of programs. We're coming back to you later in June. I think it's June 12.
The president is very keen to advance some alternate models of parliamentary control, like purpose-based votes. Right now, within—pick a department—the Canada Revenue Agency, they have a budget of some $4 billion. All of their programs slosh around in either their operating vote or their capital budget.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I want to get to a specific example of Mr. Gibson's addressing the opioid crisis—$134 million in vote 40. The only real line is that the government is committed to taking action. Could you bring that up? It's under Health Canada.
Again, we hear that there's all the information you need, but there's $134 million and that the government's committed to taking action. Now, once that $134 million is spent, how will it show that detail in the public accounts or how will we be able to track, item by item, how that money is being spent here? It's like the argument that, if the government buys 20,000 iPhones every year, it shows up in the public accounts—as long as it's not through vote 40—as 20,000 iPhones. How will that detail show up in this new program? It's pretty amazing if you can figure out a way through the rabbit warren to find out stuff. How will it show?
12:35 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
What we see here is the money for the opioid crisis of $154 million. This is—
12:35 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Once allocated, we will be adding another level of detail here to specify which departmental votes that money is going into.
Then, in the public accounts, that will be part of the reporting back. Therefore, if in vote 1, operating, Health Canada is starting with, say, $800 million and we're advancing $150 million for operating and $54 million for grants and contributions, then they'll take their $800 million operating plus $100 million—so that they'll have $900 million, their grants and contributions—whatever that is, plus the $54 million that's allocated by Treasury Board to report on. In that way, there will a be a full accounting for—
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
How will the $134 million that's in the vote 40 be detailed in the InfoBase? Mr. Gibson commented to Mr. Jowhari that once the money is spent, it leaves the line of sight. To what level of detail will the items in the vote 40 be shown in this? The Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that it would just show as a lump sum and that it won't show as detailed in the public accounts. However, you're indicating that it will show up here, as you mentioned earlier. To what level of detail will something like $134 million, for a commitment to taking action, provide detail...?
12:35 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
It goes to the level of vote and program. Of this money in the budget, we will be able to specify which votes it is going into at Health Canada and for which programs.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
We won't see detail for what that $134 million is spent on. Whether it's hiring people to provide services to get people off opioids or adding a building, we won't show a level of detail that actually breaks it out.
12:35 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
The information you're looking for is almost by definition always after the fact. That's information that's provided in the departmental results report tabled at the end of the fiscal year.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
It's not in the departmental plan now, but you're saying it will show up in the DPRs?
