Government Operations Committee on June 11th, 2018

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'm trying to understand whether or not what the opposition is bringing forward is legitimate. Certainly Ontario has been doing this for many years now. We know that the current leader of the NDP has not been, or I don't recall seeing in the media, against the current Ontario budget process and main estimates. Now he's at the federal level, different story.

I'm trying to understand this. In the spirit of collaboration, next year when we go through this process again, are there items that you would look to improve in order to perhaps bring in, whether it's warranted or not, what the official opposition is saying and what the Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying? Is there a way we could improve this process, moving forward or do you believe we've done a good job?

[Brian Pagan]

I believe we have done a very good job this year in providing information that enhances transparency, but this is not our idea of an end state. It is a step along the way to continue, and it's a never-ending quest to improve that alignment and transparency.

As the president has said, there are jurisdictions out there where they start the planning process earlier. They can do the budget decision and TB decision in parallel, and that's what we aspire to. He's also said that will take a number of years to change the machinery and the processes related to budget development.

I would also point out that, although we have identified other jurisdictions that we would like to emulate, those are not perfect models themselves. Even in Australia and Ontario, they include a number of items in the estimates documents that are yet to be developed or for which subsequent TB approvals are going to be required. In fact, in Australia that number approaches 10% of the estimates. Our budget implementation vote is considerably less than 10% of vote expending.

We feel we have made an important step forward, but it's a step, not the end state.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay, and what you've committed to is to publish, once the votes are approved, for example, vote 40 is $7 billion. I know that some $1.2 billion has already been published online, so you're going to do this every month for the next—

[Brian Pagan]

That's correct, right until the end of the fiscal year.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay.

I read an article by Scott Clark and Peter DeVries who are not just editorialists; one is a former deputy minister of finance, and the other one was the director of the fiscal policy division at the Department of Finance. They are supportive of the changes that the President of the Treasury Board has brought forward, and they don't necessarily agree with what the PBO has suggested—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Drouin, I'm afraid I'm going to have to interrupt you. I know it's going to be an interesting question, but Mr. Pagan will have to wait before he gets to answer.

We now go to our five-minute round.

Mr. McCauley, you have five minutes, please.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I just want to note one thing. I've read the 2012 report out of OGGO about the estimates, and nowhere does it say “create a $7-billion vote 40”. In fact, I've chatted with some of the people who were on the committee at the time and they're quite aghast at this.

You mentioned that, with some of the funds, the plans were under development when we talked about how items under vote 40 would be spent. If they're under development, do you not believe it's kind of incorrect to ask Parliament to approve money for which the plan hasn't been developed as to how this money is going to be spent? Isn't it putting the cart before the horse?

[Brian Pagan]

Right, thank you, Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm sorry, just give a very brief response, because I have a couple of other things.

[Brian Pagan]

It's a valid point and we struggled with the best way of achieving that alignment to the budget. At the end of the day, the estimates provide “up-to” amounts. The money need not be allocated or spent. Our goal is simply to provide information to Parliament as early as possible in the fiscal year about the potential authorities required by the executive to implement the priorities of government as articulated in the budget.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I just want to read you something. This is from the Parliamentary Budget Officer: “[T]here remains a lack of alignment between the Budget initiatives and planned results” because “the initiatives to be funded through this vote are not reflected in the Departmental Plans.”

We brought this up before. They're not developed plans; hence, he says they are not in alignment.

He said:

The Government’s approach to funding Budget 2018 initiatives provides parliamentarians with information that only marginally supports their deliberations and places fewer controls around the money it approves.

Again, on one hand we're saying it's more transparent, but the PBO is saying it's not in alignment and it's actually taking away oversight and control. Do you concur with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or—

[Brian Pagan]

I would clarify the points he is trying to make. With respect to departmental plans, as we have seen in years past, we bring forward in supplementary estimates (A), (B), and (C) budget initiatives that are also not part of departmental plans when they are tabled, so there is no difference or inconsistency.

There is a challenge in timing, I grant you that. We now have the estimates after the budget. We need to work closely with departments and with the Department of Finance so that we can properly sequence—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm just going to ask quickly about the departmental plans. When will the money that is shown in vote 40...? When will we actually see what the department will achieve for results? I would challenge you to actually read the departmental plans. I've been through every single one of them, and they do not provide any.... They provide very bare information for actually what is in their estimates, much less for what's in vote 40.

Let me just—

[Brian Pagan]

I have two answers to your question, Mr. McCauley.

The first is that we did a demonstration a couple of weeks ago on TBS InfoBase and our commitment to parliamentarians is that as initiatives are approved they will be added to TBS InfoBase with the results to be achieved.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I have another question for you, as I think we're going to run out of time. There are two tables on the website, and Mr. Drouin referred to them. These are the Treasury Board central vote allocations and the sources and uses table. One shows $220 million; that's one where we have vague details. The other is $1.4 billion, with no details at all. They're both updated the same day.

Can you explain what is what, and why do they not match? We've heard repeatedly from your department and from the President of Treasury Board we would receive updated information, but we don't.

[Brian Pagan]

Marcia's team just led the update of those tables so she'll respond.

[Marcia Santiago, Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

The difference between the two tables is this. The sources and uses table, which is the detailed Excel table that goes item by item and shows items allocated, in this case proposed to be allocated, as well as the amounts withheld, that's the report that's intended to be reported monthly. We did post a notice in May that said nothing had been allocated or proposed.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

We've been told monthly we will get the full details and that's been part of the promise of, “Don't worry, you'll get the full details of what the plan is,” but we don't. We have $1.2 billion with no backup, and no explanation.

[Marcia Santiago]

The text report on allocations and planned central votes, that's the parallel report to the one we publish with every supplementary estimates, and the intention was to have the same kind of information published for everything that was approved between April 16 and when we table supplementary estimates (A) to release that all at that point. We could, if it's the interest of this committee, look into doing earlier updates of that. That actually wasn't part of our original plan, but we could look at accelerating the release of the text information as well.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

You have five minutes, Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to go straight to Mr. Pagan.

Mr. Pagan, I'm trying to get my head around at the outset when the $7-billion estimate was presented and was presented on A2.11 and it's been itemized. What information do I have available in my position so that I would be able to make a decision on whether this needs my approval or not? I'd like to actually use two examples by referencing the sources and uses document, the one that came on June 5, especially the line item having to do with “Strengthening the Canada Border Services Agency” for $85 million, of which we've now allocated $73 million and withheld $11 million. There's another line item “Building More Rental Housing for Canadian Families”, for which there's a total of $447 million.

There seems to be information available, and I believe this is as the details are provided to the Treasury Board and Treasury Board reviews it and it says it approves. That's where the $73 million comes in. Very little information is available, or the file is in the process of you guys reviewing, and that's why the zero allocation is done. At the outset, what information do I have available, because allocated, it looks like at the outset they're all going to be zero. Tell me what information is available so that you made the decision on $73 million, no decision on zero, and why that information cannot be available earlier when you're actually submitting this document so we could say, yes, we know everything that's happening.

[Brian Pagan]

Thank you, Mr. Jowhari.

It's a very important point. It's a fundamental point, and I think it speaks to some of the confusion that exists around what we're presenting, and actually what parliamentarians are approving. With respect, I make this point very carefully.

Parliament does not approve individual initiatives. That is the role of the executive. That's a Treasury Board function. The estimates process exists in order to help parliamentarians hold the government to account for expenditures.

What we have done in TB vote 40 is to itemize every single initiative that the government intends to bring forward as a result of budget 2018, and that the House of Commons has endorsed by endorsing budget 2018 in March. The information available to you facilitates that ability to hold the government to account for these items.

How much has been allocated? For what purpose? How many FTEs are there? What are the results? What are the indicators? These are all legitimate and valid questions that parliamentarians can and should be asking departments as the initiatives are approved and this money is allocated out to departments.

We have before us today $1.2 billion of decisions that have been taken, so parliamentarians can ask my colleagues about the specifics around that initiative—FTEs, results, partners that they're working with, and so on.

For the other items, as we've made clear, these are under development, so we don't have the specific details of FTEs or partners, but we certainly have information about what the government would like to achieve as a result of this investment, and departments can speak to that as well. They can't get into the details of the discussions with Treasury Board at this point, but they can certainly identify in a fair bit of detail what they hope to achieve with the moneys that have been set out in the budget.

That is the principle around vote 40 and why we believe that this actually helps parliamentarians hold the government to account for the authorities to be sought in fiscal year 2018-19.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

The government is accountable after the detail is done, based on the criteria that has been agreed on, because, aside from holding the government accountable for $447 million, the detail of what we can hold the government accountable for is coming after it has been agreed to by the Treasury Board.

[Brian Pagan]

Well, it starts with an endorsement of the—