Evidence of meeting #139 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 budget.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Brian Pagan  Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Pierre-Marc Mongeau  Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs, Department of Transport
Lori MacDonald  Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Adelle Laniel  Chief Financial Officer, Financial Management Directorate, Corporate Services Branch, Department of Finance
Marcia Santiago  Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
John Kozij  Director General, Trade, Economics and Industry Branch, Canadian Forest Service, Department of Natural Resources
Philippe Thompson  Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Sector, Department of Industry
Roger Scott-Douglas  Secretary General, National Research Council of Canada
Barbara Jordan  Vice-President, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Dilhari Fernando  Director General, Policy, Planning and Partnerships Directorate, Meteorological Service of Canada, Department of the Environment
Philippe Morel  Assistant Deputy Minister, Aquatic Ecosystems Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Paul Thoppil  Chief Finances, Results and Delivery Officer, Department of Indigenous Services Canada
Colin Barker  Director, Softwood Lumber Division, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

11 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

It being 11 a.m., I'll convene the meeting and call it to order.

Colleagues, I have a couple of housekeeping notes. This meeting is in public and it is televised, first of all. Second, as you can see from our witnesses assembled at the table, a number of department officials will be with us today. Because of the sheer number of witnesses we have, we will be forgoing our usual opening statements and going into questions immediately to give all of you more time to ask questions of the officials before you.

Treasury Board and their officials will be with us for the full two hours. We will have one-hour panels initially, followed by a second panel starting at approximately noon. Today we have representatives, in our first panel, besides the Treasury Board, from the Department of Finance, Department of Industry, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Transport, and the National Research Council of Canada. ¸

With that brief introduction, we will now begin with our seven-minute round of questions.

Madam Ratansi, the floor is yours.

June 11th, 2018 / 11 a.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Thank you, all, for being here. Treasury Board has been back here a few times. As you know, we are seized with the issue of vote 40 and the allocation in vote 40. I understand there's been a small confusion or misunderstanding, or perhaps lack of understanding of what that vote 40 is. It has come before OGGO, which is the committee that has to approve the allocation. There have been questions about how departments that have that money allocated to them are not comfortable, or don't know what that money is for. That's the narrative we've been hearing from the opposition. So I want a global view of what this vote 40 does and doesn't do.

For example, I know this has been a transition from the old system to the new system. In the old system everybody approved the main estimates without knowing what they were approving when they approved them. Now there's an alignment process. As an accountant, I think that is where the alignment process allows us to have a contingency or a buffer. For the benefit of all of us, and the people who are probably listening to this on television, could you please clarify and explain exactly what the parameters of vote 40 are. If monies are not used, what will happen to them?

11 a.m.

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

Thank you, Madam Ratansi.

As you mentioned in your question, vote 40 is a very important step towards the President of the Treasury Board's agenda for improved transparency in the reporting of estimates requirements and his ongoing effort to ensure maximum alignment between the budget that is tabled by the Department of Finance and the estimates that are prepared by the Treasury Board Secretariat to inform Parliament of the government's requirements for the year ahead.

In the main estimates for 2018-19, we've taken a very important step forward, by achieving that clarity between the budget and the estimates. The budget that was tabled in February identified the government's intention to seek authorities to spend just over $7 billion on a range of initiatives for departments and agencies across government. In years past, Parliament would have been left waiting for the estimates authority. There was no line of sight as to whether those requirements were going to be brought forward in the first supplementary estimates of the year, the last supplementary estimates of the year, or even in estimates in the year forward.

This year, for the first time, we have taken the clarity of the budget that outlines the items by department, by initiative, and by amount and we have replicated that in the estimates, so that parliamentarians can see very clearly what the government intends to do for the year ahead. This is a way for parliamentarians to hold the government to account for the requirements to be sought by departments. There is nothing nefarious here. It is 100% transparent between the budget and the estimates document.

In the event that items are not brought forward by departments for approval, as the president has made clear, those funds would remain in the vote. They cannot be used for any other purpose. We are bound by the annex list in the estimates, such that we can only allocate funding that has been specifically identified in the estimates document by department, by initiative, and by amount.

Over the last couple of years, again, as part of our effort to improve transparency to Parliament, we have taken the opportunity, with the last supplementary estimates of the year, to highlight to Parliament those amounts that have previously been approved and are not going to be accessed by departments and we have frozen those amounts. We have made them unavailable to departments. That same principle will be applied this year for TB vote 40. Should funds not be allocated, then they will be identified to parliamentarians as amounts frozen at the year end. They will lapse in the fiscal framework, and should that funding be required in subsequent fiscal years, then those will be identified in future year estimates documents.

To sum up, vote 40 is an important step forward in helping parliamentarians understand the connection between the budget and the estimates. There is no light between the amounts in the initiatives that are identified in the budget and the amounts in the initiatives that are identified in the estimates. In this way, we have achieved alignment with the budget. We have provided Parliament with additional information, by which they can hold the government to account, and they can regularly check in with departments and with the Treasury Board Secretariat to ask questions about the pace of implementation of these budget priorities.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

To clarify, you're saying that this is more accountable and more transparent, but vote 40 has come to OGGO. It hasn't gone to different departments. In the previous system, the supplementary estimates used to go to different departments.

Could you help us understand how that system has changed to make it more accountable? I am with you. Previously, the main estimates made no sense and we were approving something that had no relevance to the budget, but I think that we need to figure out whether vote 40 is a temporary measure, while you're moving from one system to the other, or whether it is a permanent fixture.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Mr. Pagan, I know it's going to be difficult for you, but you only have about 30 seconds left.

11:05 a.m.

Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Brian Pagan

The House of Commons has approved changes to the standing order for the duration of this Parliament in order to allow Treasury Board to move forward with an agenda to reform and align the estimates with the budget. Vote 40 is intended to be a temporary measure in accordance with that change to the Standing Orders for the duration of this Parliament.

We would expect to assess and evaluate this mechanism and then seek approval from Parliament in the next Parliament as to how best to move forward with the effort to align the estimates with the budget.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Thank you very much.

Mr. McCauley, you have seven minutes.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Welcome, everyone.

Mr. Mongeau, I'm going to start with you, please. There's $59.5 million, I think it is, for Transport in vote 40.

Can you walk us through how those numbers were included in this central vote? What did you have to provide to Treasury Board to get it into the central vote as opposed to the regular estimates process?

11:05 a.m.

Pierre-Marc Mongeau Assistant Deputy Minister, Programs, Department of Transport

Thank you for your question.

I will let my colleague speak to the second aspect of vote 40.

Essentially, to conduct the various projects, this year we have asked to continue working with the northern project management office, which is responsible for the environmental assessment of major projects in the north, above the 60th parallel.

As to the programs, vote 40 is 1 million dollars this year and we are requesting the same amount for a second year so that essentially...

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Let me interrupt you for a second.

For the items in vote 40 specifically, including protecting marine life, maintaining rail service to remote communities, and strengthening airports serving remote communities, what led you to request those to be in vote 40 as opposed to the regular estimates process in your own department? How did they end up in Treasury Board instead of in your department?

I would like to hear from the department, please.

11:10 a.m.

Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Brian Pagan

Because it's dealing with the Treasury Board approval process, I think I'm better positioned to respond to the question.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Let me ask you the question, then. Did you come up with these numbers for Treasury Board?

11:10 a.m.

Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Brian Pagan

The numbers were developed jointly with the department for approval by Treasury Board ministers.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Transport worked with Treasury Board?

11:10 a.m.

Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Brian Pagan

They identify their requirements and they cost those out, and then the Treasury Board approval process is the way in which the executive does their due diligence and challenges the requirements of the department before providing approval.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Then how, for example, for the items I just listed, are they determined to go into vote 40 under Treasury Board instead of Transport Canada estimates?

11:10 a.m.

Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Brian Pagan

As mentioned previously, the central vote is the construct by which we can take all of the budget items and bring them into the estimates. There were a number of initiatives, including from the 11 departments listed here—

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Specifically for transportation—

11:10 a.m.

Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Brian Pagan

—that were approved by Treasury Board in advance of the budget. For the most part, these were initiatives that had previously existed for which the authorities were sunsetting—

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Let me interrupt you there. Would this be for other departments as well?

11:10 a.m.

Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Brian Pagan

I don't understand the question.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

You said that these were numbers previously approved by Treasury Board.

11:10 a.m.

Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Brian Pagan

These are initiatives previously approved by Treasury Board and by parliamentarians, what we often refer to as sunsetting programs. In this case, the initiatives were brought forward to Treasury Board for approval. We challenged the numbers and made sure we were satisfied with the requirements, and then they were included in the vote.

Now, in this case, what you're seeing are items that had already been approved by Treasury Board in advance of the tabling of the estimates. The choice, too, Mr. McCauley, was—

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

That's my question. Would this be similar for other departments, then, for theirs...?

11:10 a.m.

Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat

Brian Pagan

For the amounts that were part of the allocations—