Government Operations Committee on March 18th, 2019

[Glenn Purves]

Specifically, in the two-year comparison I'm drawing, about $2.3 billion was approved for allocation in the first year after budget 2017. In budget 2018, it was about $7 billion. We're talking about different amounts and we're still effectively seeing full implementation by the end of the fiscal year. Again, I understand you're quoting the PBO in terms of certain results but from an implementation lens, we're seeing it being on track.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

The PBO says very clearly it's a slow process for Treasury Board and other departments to get the money out the door.

Do you agree with that or not? Are you saying the PBO is wrong on this issue?

[Glenn Purves]

The second point that you raised—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Do you agree with the PBO's report that he's issued on the supplementary (B)s?

[Glenn Purves]

Because the definition of withheld includes things such as employee benefits plans, funding for SSC and so forth—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

That's not in vote 40.

[Glenn Purves]

—the definition of withheld, I think, is not being represented appropriately from what you are saying.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

Mr. Blaikie, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you very much.

Thanks for being here.

I want to quickly follow up on a detail that's come up in some of the other presentations we've had on the interim estimates.

We heard from a couple of departments and agencies that the interim estimates they presented this year are calculated based on their projected spending next year. That's the way it had always been done—

[Glenn Purves]

Yes.

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

—but there was a change when the government moved toward a later tabling date of the main estimates. It was an important part of that package of changes, that interim estimates—hence the name change to interim estimates as opposed to what it was before—would be calculated on last year's spending. I think there's a reference to that in our notes for today's meeting.

I'm wondering what work Treasury Board did. Clearly, some departments and agencies are not aware of that change. I'm wondering what kind of communication went out from Treasury Board when we changed from interim supply to interim estimates to notify departments and agencies of that change.

[Glenn Purves]

I'll lead off and Marcia will add if needed.

In the fall of every year over the last couple of years we have always issued guidance to the departments and agencies on how to calculate interim estimates. Ultimately, the determination is the cash needs of a department or agency for the first three months of the coming fiscal year. In the past there was always this rule of thumb of using three-twelfths or 25%. There continues to be a circumstance where departments or agencies, depending on contracts or settlements...and it could be indigenous settlements, it could be—

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

I appreciate that.

[Glenn Purves]

There's variability in terms of what they're looking for.

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

I'm not asking about whether a hard 25% is what makes sense.

[Glenn Purves]

Right.

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

What I'm zeroing in on is this. There's an issue for parliamentarians here. In the old system, where you would introduce the interim supply alongside the main estimates, you could base your interim supply on a percentage, whether it be three-twelfths, four-twelfths, five-twelfths, or six-twelfths, for that matter, of what was being requested in the mains, the projected spending for the coming year. Now that the mains are being tabled after the beginning of the fiscal year, there's obviously a need for some kind of interim supply or interim estimates to be approved so that departments don't have to put their spending on hold for two or four weeks or longer.

We've had departments come here and tell us that they continue to base the number on their projected main estimates. Now, as a parliamentarian, I think that's kind of weird. I would think it would be something your department and the Ministry of Finance might be concerned about. What it means is that we're being told, essentially, or we can figure out by implication, what the spending demand will be in the main estimates before they're tabled. Just for ease of example, if departments come here and say, “We're asking for $5 million for next year, which is 25% of our projected spending for the year”, then we know, before the main estimates are tabled, that they will be asking for $20 million. That doesn't make sense. It made sense under the old system, because the mains would be tabled at the same time and we would know that they were asking for $20 million.

I don't think there's necessarily anything untoward going on, but if you care about the process, this really does matter. I've asked them to tell us what communication they received from Treasury Board informing them of the change from interim supply to interim estimates. Now I'm asking you to tell us what work was done by Treasury Board to ensure that departments and agencies understood this watershed change and a number of other things that came with that along with the budget implementation vote and a bunch of other stuff.

What due diligence was Treasury Board doing to ensure that people understood they were now being asked to base their interim estimates on the previous year's supply as opposed to the projected fiscal year's supply?

[Glenn Purves]

The process we're using this year is the exact same as we used last year. I can't comment on previous testimony that you've received. In terms of the instructions, those instructions have been going out, again, like last year's, in the fall preceding the new fiscal year. Again, it's basically the funding needs of the department for the first three months.

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

Would you be willing to supply the committee with a copy of the instructions on how to prepare your estimates for a department or agency?

[Glenn Purves]

That's fine. Yes.

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I want to come back to the question that was raised earlier on vote 40 and the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimation of the impact, or lack thereof, that's had on getting new budget initiatives out the door, so to speak, funded and operational. You said in your earlier testimony that if you look at the last two years, largely the results have been more or less the same in terms of how quickly programs get out the door under the budget implementation vote system and the preceding system. There are still two things you need in order to get that money out the door, right? You need parliamentary approval of the funds and then you need Treasury Board approval of the funds. In the past, usually departments would wait to go to Parliament until they had received Treasury Board approval, and then they would submit their funding request to Parliament through the estimates process. Now they're getting that funding pre-approved, and then they still have to go to Treasury Board. Going through Treasury Board, they still....

Is it fair to say that departments are largely finding out their new budget initiatives when the budget is announced and not much in advance in terms of what's actually approved by cabinet and Treasury Board, so that it still takes them roughly the same amount of time to then prepare a Treasury Board submission and go to Treasury Board to get those funds approved? Is that a fair assessment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Unfortunately, Mr. Purves, while it may be a very legitimate question, we're completely out of time. I would suggest, sir, that if you do want to make a comprehensive answer to that question, you do so in writing and submit it to the clerk.

[Glenn Purves]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We're out of time on this particular round.

Madam Mendès, you have seven minutes, please.