Government Operations Committee on June 11th, 2018

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

Thank you very much.

I want to start by reassuring Mr. Drouin that one of the reasons this hasn't come up in Ontario is that, notwithstanding the fact that it's pointed to as an example of what the government here would like to do, there is no central budget implementation vote in Ontario. If you'd like to refer to the various votes that are posted online, I'd be happy to share that URL. As much as they do coordinate between Finance and their Treasury Board, they didn't opt for one kind of omnibus vote as the way to bring about that alignment.

It seems to me—and you let me know if you think I'm being unfair, Mr. Pagan—that the job of Treasury Board is to provide accountability, and they do that through their challenge function. When departments come to them and say, “Hey, this is more or less what we want to do and this is how we plan to do it”, Treasury Board pushes back, asks if they've thought about this or about that, says that there might be a better way, and asks if they have tried this or thought about that.... That's where the accountability lies. Is that a pretty fair assessment of how Treasury Board works?

[Brian Pagan]

The Treasury Board process is very much designed to ensure accountability for the funds allocated, so there is a very rigorous due diligence process whereby we seek to understand the modalities of program implementation, the partners you're working with—

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

Departments likely perform better, I think, as a result of that challenge, right? It helps them. It's important to their internal process, and it provides a meaningful accountability after the fact, because they demonstrate what they're committed to.

Now, when it comes to Parliament, you said that Parliament should be satisfied with getting information about how departments spend money after the fact and that it doesn't inhibit the accountability function of Parliament in any way. What if departments were to come to Treasury Board and say that it should approve the money up front, and they'll go away, prepare a plan, and let them know how they spent the money after they've spent it, but not to worry, they'll give lots of detail...?

Do you think Treasury Board could do its accountability function if it only got information retrospectively or do you think it's part and parcel of the notion of accountability that some of that work be done beforehand, and that the person meant to hold someone accountable for funding has an obligation to ask questions and evaluate the answers—which presumes the answers exist—prior to granting that approval?

[Brian Pagan]

To be clear, Mr. Blaikie, what I said is that the purpose of the estimates is to provide information so that parliamentarians can hold the government to account. Parliament does not approve individual projects the way that the Treasury Board does.

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

But surely, Mr. Pagan.... We're talking about $54 million to the Canada Boarder Services Agency under these estimates—well, under vote 40. It's considerably more under their estimates, but under vote 40.

Do you think it doesn't matter to parliamentarians whether that money is going to be used to hire more staff, buy more guns, or build a wall?

[Brian Pagan]

I think those are very important questions, and parliamentarians now have the ability to ask the department involved just how they propose—

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

Do you think it's satisfactory that we would get that information after the money is already spent?

[Brian Pagan]

Well, in fact, the estimates process is very much built around that fundamental architecture.

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

Does the leverage for Treasury Board and other departments not come from the fact that Treasury Board can withhold approval if they don't like the details of a program?

[Brian Pagan]

I believe there is definitely value to departments and to the public service by Treasury Board exercising—

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

Then, why should Parliament be expected to hold the government to account without similar leverage? Is not the purpose of government voting on these funds the fact that.... We're in a majority government right now, so granted it's unlikely that this Parliament would refuse this government those funds. It may happen; it could happen, if you have a good process. It doesn't mean it will happen.

However, in other situations where the government doesn't have a majority, presumably this kind of information would be very valuable to parliamentarians who do have the opportunity to deny certain funding to government.

[Brian Pagan]

Mr. Blaikie, I take the point. I understand your concern, but what you're talking about goes to the heart of responsible government, the fact that the executive takes decisions to deliver programs and services to Canadians, and Parliament's role is to hold the government to account for that.

By definition, by nature, the decisions are taken by the executive, and they are necessarily provided to Parliament after—

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

Under the system of responsible government, the government has an obligation to make the case for Parliament that what they're planning to do with taxpayers' money makes sense. On the basis of those answers, Parliament either approves or rejects proposals for funding. That's why government comes to Parliament to ask for the money.

On your notion of accountability, the picture you're painting is that somehow Parliament is meant to hold government to account without any leverage, and that it's immaterial to parliamentary accountability how it is that government intends to implement a high-level goal.

If the high-level goal is supporting the Canada Border Services Agency, there are a number of ways you could do that, and it makes perfect sense that Parliament might approve some ways and not approve other ways. The point about vote 40 is that we're now being asked to approve that funding without knowing the way in which the government intends to pursue that high-level goal.

Do you not agree there's a problem in the basic notion of accountability that represents?

[Brian Pagan]

Respectfully, Mr. Blaikie, I would disagree.

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

You would not adopt that model of accountability for Treasury Board. You would not say that it is adequate for Treasury Board to be told retrospectively by departments, after the money was spent, what they did with it, and that Treasury Board could somehow do its accountability function after the fact because then they could have a nice conversation with them about how poorly they did, instead of having the conversation in advance, saying, “Whoa, where you're going doesn't make sense. Put the brakes on. You can't have the money until you come back with a better answer.”

Respectfully, there is a role of Parliament to do that.

[Brian Pagan]

Mr. Blaikie, if—

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

Parliament isn't here just to sign a blank cheque to the government and then criticize them after the fact. If Parliament is going to be a meaningful place, it's a place where parliamentarians should get answers from government on what they plan to do with the money, before the approval is granted. That actually means that some of this conversation can benefit the development of those programs and where they go.

I take your point that we don't need to be involved in the minutiae of the delivery details, but if our accountability is to make any sense at all, it can't be the case that it's only retroactive, because we can't take the money back after the fact. Once it's spent, it's spent. Treasury Board can't take the money back after the fact, which is why Treasury Board would never accept the proposition that somehow it could do its accountability function only retroactively.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Pagan, I know you would like to make a response. I'm quite confident that you'll have that opportunity with one of the government's questions for you, but we are now going to Mr. Ayoub.

Mr. Ayoub, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is always interesting to see how the opposition reacts to the way a government operates, especially in the presence of officials who are doing exactly what a government is supposed to do and are operating the way a government is supposed to operate.

A government must be accountable. So you have to ask questions about specific topics and not about processes that you are not happy with. In any case, regardless of how the government goes about it, you would not be happy, whether you are from the department or the opposition.

Since I want to make the most of my seven minutes, I will ask about how the funds are spent.

My question is for Mr. Thoppil, from Indigenous Services Canada.

I would like some information about the 1 billion dollars indicated in Budget 2018. For Indigenous Services Canada, $91 million was allocated on April 16, 2018, and $109 million was just allocated in June 2018. That leaves $832 million for that department.

How much will be allocated to give members of the first nations access to drinking water? Drinking water is a given in the big cities and developed areas, but that is not the case everywhere in Canada. The Prime Minister and the government have made a clear and specific commitment to Canadians to restore this service to the first nations.

I would like more information about what has been done in this regard.

[Paul Thoppil, Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Department of Indigenous Services Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Ayoub.

It is true that the policy on drinking water is very important to the government.

Roughly $100 million will be invested in the plan to eliminate the problem of communities that do not have long-term access to drinking water.

Currently, as of early May, there are 75 or 76 communities across the country with long-term drinking water boil advisories, and the intention of the government is to eliminate those 76 within a few years. There is a challenge, because there are a number of communities that are hovering into moving into long-term status due to long-term underfunding of water management on reserve.

While the government has essentially eliminated about 62 long-term boil advisories since November 2015, at the same time there are another 30 that have actually achieved that status. The money that is allocated in budget 2018, in addition to those monies that have been provided through the previous budgets, is essentially to ensure that not only are the 76 eliminated but that the number of communities that are on the cusp of moving into long-term are prevented from doing so.

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

Is there a planned date when everything would be met, so no first nation would have to look for clean water anymore? Is there a target date?

[Paul Thoppil]

I believe the Minister of Indigenous Services has been very clear, as of January, in her public announcement that she is trying to eliminate all long-term boil water advisories on reserve in five years. This money will ensure that, in fact.... While there is a plan, this money is in effect a contingency plan to accelerate that by a year earlier.

She also expanded, in January, the scope of the definition of what determines a long-term boil advisory from a public system. She expanded the scope of the definition of a public system on reserve, but notwithstanding that expansion of scope, we are still on track to meet that five-year goal.

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

Okay, thank you.

On the same front, there is a first nations housing plan. It is not a universal approach, as there are a number of differences. Many communities have different living conditions and different needs.

What approach could be taken to address these different living conditions? What funding has been allocated to this approach as opposed to the first nations housing strategy?

[Paul Thoppil]

Are you talking about housing or water?

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

This time I am referring to housing. You provided good answers to my questions about water.

What about housing?