Government Operations Committee on June 19th, 2018

[Marcia Santiago]

The intention wasn't to argue against the need to come back to Parliament for significant material changes in the cash requirements of programs. It was really more a case of the possibility of introducing a 10% allowance for transfers to be approved outside of the parliamentary process. It was exactly that. It was meant to be a small allowance on the total G and C, operating, or whatever envelope, even on total supply. The idea was just to introduce a small amount of flexibility so departments could respond immediately, rather than being tied to either the limitations of a small central capacity for contingency or to the supply cycle.

[Brian Pagan]

Mr. Kelly, on that point, the supply cycle is very restrictive, as you know. Government can only introduce supply to the House of Commons on the last opposition day in each of the three supply periods. If something were to happen in advance of that supply date—we had an instance several years ago when a ferry sank off the west coast of B.C., and the Transportation Safety Board had to do an immediate investigation—we don't have the ability to go to Parliament to get that funding outside of supply, so vote 5 is the mechanism by which Parliament grants us the authority to provide that immediate relief to departments.

What we were saying here is that in the future, if we add in more grants and contributions or more votes to this pilot, we would either need to increase the contingency vote or otherwise provide flexibilities for departments to manage changes in volume.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I think the Standing Orders do allow for addressing supply on an emergency basis through government orders. When there is a national emergency and there is co-operation between parties in recognition of that, that is a possible way to deal with such things.

Really we're down to this conflict between bureaucratic expediency and democratic accountability. Those are two different things. I do understand that if you make the accountability measures so difficult that departments can't execute their functions, that's a problem, but allowing latitude for expenditure without proper oversight is an issue as well. That's what the conflict is.

Just in the last moment I have left, I can maybe address the issue of vote 40 as it applies to the Department of Transportation. There was $60 million in the A2.11 table of the budget. How do these allocations fit within purpose-based votes? Will funds allocated under vote 40 be transferrable according to purpose-based votes? How will that work?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

If you could create an answer in about 30 seconds, it would be appreciated.

[André Lapointe]

Some items listed in vote 40 were approved—for instance, the one maintaining rail service to remote communities. That is a G and C vote and would fall into one of our three votes. It's not reflected in 2018-19 because it expires, and now it will show up in the next round of estimates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Our final intervention will come from Madam Ratansi.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you all for being here.

I was just looking at the genesis of how this program of purpose-based votes came about. There was a report entitled “Strengthening Parliamentary Scrutiny of Estimates and Supply”, in which Mr. Page, at that time the PBO, advised the OGGO committee to “move it away from voting on inputs, operating, capital, and grants and contributions to a program activity basis.” Then I looked at some of the breakdowns you have provided. That made it easier for me to understand that your vote 5, which is grants and contributions, was then broken down into votes 5, 10, 20, etc.

Having done that, I'm trying to figure out some of the challenges that were faced. Perhaps Transport Canada can address this. When you were going from the old system to the new system, were there any challenges faced, were there any hiccups you went through, and was there any room for improvement in that system?

[André Lapointe]

Thank you for the question.

By and large the transition was relatively smooth. There was one instance in 2016-17, at period four, where there was a risk of overspending in that vote, so we were contemplating whether or not we should ask for a vote transfer from one of the lapsing votes into that one to cover it off. We would have had to do that in supplementary estimates (C), and we were contemplating that. We had a late reprofile request that was in with the Department of Finance and Treasury Board, and we hadn't had an answer. Usually they're quite diligent about doing that; sometimes they take a little longer. To ensure that we were not at risk on that vote, we would have requested a transfer.

We decided to hold off and monitor, and in the end the reprofile request came in and it was fine. However, we could have possibly been in a situation at the end of the year, in March, in which we would have received funding that would have essentially lapsed because we would have had money coming in—

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

In your opinion, is this a step in the right direction? I know the PBO wanted it, and he says here it's to provide clarity to parliamentarians through a breakdown. Has it helped you do your business differently or more accurately, and have you been able to provide parliamentarians with clarity?

[André Lapointe]

Even in the system prior to the pilot, all of the grants and contributions were listed, and they continue to be listed. They're now bucketed in different themes. Presumably that is proving helpful for parliamentarians, although we did not necessarily see a latching on to that during transportation committee hearings.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

The Senate finance committee recommended extending this pilot to the TBS. What other departments might you be going to? Are there any other pilot projects that you're proposing?

[Brian Pagan]

Thank you, Madame Ratansi.

We would be looking for direction or input from parliamentarians in terms of how to expand the pilot—should it be confined to Gs and Cs and rolled out to a broader subset of departments, or should it encompass other votes, including operating and capital? There are advantages and disadvantages to each, as we've heard today.

We've made the case that change of this magnitude requires careful planning and consideration, and so a gradual approach to roll this out over time, I think, would be appropriate.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Are there any risks, and what would you do to mitigate risks in going from the old system to this pilot system?

[Brian Pagan]

Risks would be related to challenges in dealing with old and rickety financial systems—there are some challenges there—and depending on the contours of the purpose-based votes, the complexity that would be introduced in terms of managing programs and services for Canadians. At the end of the day, we understand the interest in oversight and accountability and we take that very seriously, but we would also be concerned about the ability of the government and government departments to deliver programs and services to Canadians.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Madam Cahill, Madam Santiago, Monsieur Lapointe, and Mr. Pagan, thank you all for being here. You have provided some clarity, I'm sure, to committee members.

We will suspend now, colleagues, for a couple of moments. Then we'll come back in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]