Government Operations Committee on May 22nd, 2018

[Brian Pagan]

We touched on this, Mr. Kelly, at our last appearance where we suggested that the information available to Parliament for the understanding and control of vote 40 compares very favourably to any other central vote. I used as an example pay list and operating budget carry forward.

We've got $5.2 billion in central votes, and I can't tell you today where that money is going to be allocated. I can't tell you which departments or which amounts. Whereas, vote 40 I can very clearly look you in the eye and tell you that this department is going to get this amount of money for this budget initiative.

That's the plan and those plans will unfold over the year, and there will be a reporting by the department in their departmental results report and in the public accounts.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you very much.

We now go to Mr. Peterson for five minutes.

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

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today. I appreciate your clarification on the vote 40 issue. I'm going to look at the broader picture a bit here.

I picked up on a term that you said, “feeding the beast”. I think you indicated the risk big departments run is they're doing reports for the sake of reports. Were you involved in the original drafting of the policy on results?

[Brian Pagan]

I was. Derek Armstrong is my executive director of the results division, and I'll have Derek say a word about how we're implementing that policy. This is one of three teams within my sector, and it was one of the president's very first priorities upon taking office in 2015.

I led off quite purposely by talking about the context, the machinery changes, the fact that the Prime Minister created a cabinet committee on results, and they created machinery within the Privy Council Office to support that cabinet committee, so clearly this was very important to the government and was very important to the president. We spent a good deal of time with him in the winter of 2016 looking at the existing policy and some of its limitations.

One of the limitations with the existing approach was its complexity. We had programs and subprograms and sub-subprograms and even levels beneath that in large departments. It was often only at the deepest levels of the department that we were able to get any meaningful results information, and that wasn't always being reflected in the reports presented to Parliament. There was a deliberate effort to simplify and to streamline.

A program is a program in the new policy. We don't discriminate on the type or the size of a program. Each program is important in its own right. It exists for a purpose. It has been approved by government for a purpose, and so we want to be really clear about the results that program is striving to achieve.

Derek, do you want to jump in on that?

[Derek Armstrong, Executive Director, Results Division, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

I think that's just it. The complexity was actually a barrier to being able to understand the business of government. One thing that we did in implementing the new policy was to rationalize a lot of those subprograms and sub-subprograms into programs that made more sense and were more directly linked to departmental results and their core responsibilities.

Just to give you a couple of stats around this, we kept transparency relatively the same, but in terms of the number of higher-level core responsibilities, we moved to about 162 core responsibilities versus 117 strategic outcomes and 262 higher-level programs, writ large, under the old policies. Suddenly we had a much smaller unit of understanding or a set of frameworks that we could wrap our heads around and pose important challenge questions to departments and to facilitate reporting to the public and to Parliament.

We kept the number of programs and departmental indicators relatively the same, though. We went from about 1,100 programs to about 800 programs with 1,200 indicators. This meant that we were clearly able to focus on the important business of departments—and reporting on that—and on important indicators that meaningfully spoke to the results that those departments and their programs were trying to achieve.

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

I appreciate that.

Part of it is the concept that the taxpayer, I don't think, is necessarily concerned with process; they want to see the value in the outcome. Does this system get us closer to that? That, I think, is the real crux of it all. If the tax dollars are spent properly, that means the outcome that is aimed for is achieved. The process is the process. Nobody wants to waste money on process.

How does the taxpayer, the Canadian public, know now that the outcomes that they desire are being achieved under this process?

[Derek Armstrong]

We're reporting very openly about the indicators, results, and targets that programs are intending to achieve. We're also in the same space—and you'll see this with the GC InfoBase—reporting on the cost of those programs. For the first time, you can see this link between the financial resources and the results that they're achieving. We're reinforcing that link and that discussion with departments by using this new policy on results.

Within Treasury Board we are keenly focused on exactly this question of achieving value for money in the results we look to achieve.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. McCauley, you have five minutes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Pagan, you talked about the results annex in each submission to Treasury Board. Is that going to be made public or will it show up somewhere?

[Brian Pagan]

It's a cabinet document, so therefore it's a cabinet confidence. In many cases the results information that they're committing to for Treasury Board ministers is one and the same as the information in the public-facing document in their departmental plan.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay, so no.

I just want to get to the policy on results. There are a couple of items. In 3.1 it has the expected results.... Actually, I'll read 3.1.2, “Enhance the understanding of the results government seeks to achieve, does achieve, and the resources used to achieve them.” Great. This goes back to, again, though, that the $7 billion is not in the departmental plans. When we've asked the departments, they're not even sure what the money's going to be used for. They're very clear they don't know what the intended results are going to be for the hundreds.... We'll use PSPC as an example. For two-thirds of $1 billion, they weren't even sure what the plan was going to be. They hadn't even developed it, but they're asking for money in advance. It says, “enhance the understanding”.

Under 3.2.1 it says, “Departments are clear on what they're trying to achieve and how they assess success”. Here we have the policy on results that says departments should be clear on what they're trying to achieve and how they assess success. However, when we actually had departments in front of us, including ministers, they were unsure, saying they hadn't formulated the plans, but to give them the money up front.

This goes back to your previous comment about how money not spent will show up in the winter supplementaries. We usually had the opportunity, in the supplementaries, to actually question departments and question ministers on that. The vote 40 issue takes that away entirely.

Again, it seems to be contradictory things. We have vote 40, which is supposed to be better transparency for us, and, yes, I understand what we're trying to do, get the money out the door faster. But you have your own policy on results stating that departments should be clear on what they're trying to achieve and how they assess success. They sat before us in this committee and said, “Well, we don't know what the success is. We don't know what the money's going to be used for.” One of the departments said they didn't even know how they came up with the budget; they were just told to put the number in and to ask Treasury Board.

You know, I understand what you're trying to get at, and we appreciate that, but it seems that we have the cart before the horse, or we have the policies before the horse. It's almost as if we have these policies that don't reflect the reality.

[Brian Pagan]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

I think you and I and most people in this room could talk about the challenges in this space all day and be hard pressed to come up with solutions that everyone will agree upon.

I cited supplementary estimates C from 2015-16 with intent here. The approval by Parliament to spend the money came after the close of business on the last fiscal day of the year. In my mind, there's some tension between Parliament's oversight and departments' ability to actually deliver programs and services.

Unfortunately, we're stuck on this discourse now about program approvals. I would respectfully argue that what we're providing here in the main estimates, after the budget and the budget implementation vote, is better oversight. The business of supply is a continuing order.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm talking about your policy.

[Brian Pagan]

Committees can call departments at any time to account for monies that have been entrusted to them, that have been appropriated for those purposes. We are not in any way taking away information or suggesting that committees stop asking questions about the budget implementation vote upon approval of the main estimates. On the contrary—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Let me interrupt, Mr. Pagan. There are a couple of things.

We can request, but that doesn't mean the minister is going to show up. If you remember back about two years, as we were discussing estimates reform, the minister of Treasury Board said here, “I will make sure every minister shows up”, etc. You have, however, taken away our ability—it's not you, but rather the minister—to have the various ministers appear to defend their spending: they don't have to anymore, because the money has been pre-approved.

I want to get back to the policy and results. You say the expected result of the policy will be that departments will be clear on what they're trying to achieve and how they assess success, and it goes on and on about being up front.

We actually had PSPC in and we went through the departmental plan. First of all, they didn't know what their money from vote 40 was going to be used for, particularly. We went through the department, and many of their departmental results were not actually set results. One of them was aspirational.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. McCauley, your question will have to wait.

Thank you.

Mr. Ayoub, you have five minutes.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, thank you for appearing again before this committee to answer our important questions on information sharing.

We are not surprised to find that the Conservatives still have a major conspiracy theory. I would say I feel bad, because when a minister comes before us, that's one thing, but when they are public servants, it's completely different.

The first question I would like to ask is this: Have you ever been asked to withhold information?

[Brian Pagan]

No.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

This has never happened?

[Brian Pagan]

No, never.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

So that still clarifies something important to me. I was beginning to have doubts, after hearing all the questions that still reflected the famous doubt that the Conservatives have. I still lost a minute clarifying an important point

The Policy on Results has still been an improvement for several years, particularly since its implementation in 2016.

Have you noticed any problems with compliance with the policy? If so, what have you done about it?

[Brian Pagan]

Thank you for the question.

In fact, the new approach offered by this policy has created space for ministers to address the Treasury Board. Ministers are therefore each responsible for presenting their own mandate and vision for results. This dynamic allowed for exchanges between ministers on priorities, reduced some of the tensions and smoothed out some of the obstacles to be overcome in order to accomplish the work and review the results.

It also highlighted the fact that each department has a different mandate and different priorities. Under the old policy, which had a very strict hierarchy, departments had to conform to a rigid structure. The new policy makes the exercise much more flexible so that individual ministers can set their own priorities and organize their programs to achieve their objectives.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

You have given us some explanations about the ministers. For the general public, what does the intended transparency change with respect to access to information? There is a dynamic within the Council of Ministers and the Treasury Board.

However, how can the general public be reassured about this transparency? Will the work you have been doing for several months or even years increase transparency and ensure that it is not the other way around?

[Derek Armstrong]

The launch of this new policy has given us a good opportunity to simplify the language we use to describe all of the government's responsibilities. If we can use language that is well understood by Canadians and MPs, it's easier to have a substantial conversation about results, indicators and what we're trying to achieve as public servants.