Government Operations Committee on March 9th, 2016

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I would certainly appreciate that.

Just to clarify, you'll ask Minister Garneau specifically to look into the Global Transportation Hub to make sure that federal funds were not misspent.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I've been around long enough to know that when I don't know the answer to a question, I say I don't know the answer to the question. I will talk with Minister Garneau about that. I commit to get back to you on that.

The last thing I want to get drawn into is provincial politics from Saskatchewan. I don't know what the situation is there, but from a federal government perspective, we will certainly check into that.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

That's fair enough.

To touch on another issue, yesterday at this committee, the Privy Council Office indicated that it will spend about $1 million annually to support the new Independent Advisory Board for Senate Appointments, and that its recommendations will not be made public.

Will other departments or the Senate itself spend additional funds on this process?

The Senate remains unelected, unaccountable, and under investigation. Why is the government pouring more money into this unnecessary institution rather than simply following the example of every provincial legislature and abolishing the upper House?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Well, I've checked my mandate letter extensively and Senate reform is not in it, but Senate reform is something that's important to our government. My colleague, Minister Monsef, has put forward proposals in conjunction with our House leader.

This is something we take seriously in terms of strengthening the Senate and improving the appointment process. That process is under way now. As you know, there's an interim process because of the urgency of the appointment of senators from certain provinces. There's a panel, an independent advisory board of eminent Canadians that has been appointed to that task. We are moving forward with Senate reform.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Can you confirm that $1 million a year will be the total federal contribution to the cost of that board, or might other departments be spending money on this new regime as well?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Ultimately, I think you're talking about disbursements that occur within the Senate and the Parliament. The appointment process is what we're talking about, and to reform any process requires investment. We believe these are sensible investments aimed at a greater good for a stronger Senate, and a process that's more transparent and ultimately renders the Senate appointment process more meritorious.

I want to be very clear though, Mr. Weir. My view is that the Senate of Canada does important work. We believe that the Senate can be strengthened, but there's some very important work that occurs in the Senate and at Senate committees.

We can have a difference of opinion, but I believe that there are important steps we can take, without the need for opening up the Constitution, for example. Through the appointment process, we can further strengthen the Senate, and I think Canadians want to see that.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

There is a difference of opinion, but there's also an empirical question about the cost of this new process, and certainly that money could otherwise be used to fund good research and important studies for which the Senate is sometimes credited. There is a question about whether this is the most efficient use of money.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Would you agree, if the process we're speaking of rendered the Senate more effective and the appointment process more transparent, that it would be a sensible thing?

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

If it rendered the process more transparent.

I was disappointed to learn that the recommendations won't be public.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Would that be a laudable objective, though? Is that a laudable objective with which you would agree?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Weir, you will have a three-minute round I believe toward the end of this. We're at our seven minutes now.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

My problem there is you've got to understand that come June 19 I will have been around here elected for 19 years and by that point sixteen and a half of those years will have been in opposition so I'm more accustomed to asking questions sometimes. I apologize to my colleague.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, Minister.

Mr. Graham, seven minutes please.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Minister, thank you for being here. You have more experience on this particular file than I think any of us wants.

I want to dive into your favourite topic of frozen allotments and uncommitted authorities, which I know you're very much looking forward to doing. When we look at these allotments of $5.1 billion, I'm wondering this. The Conservatives tell us they balanced the last budget. I find that very hard to believe. How much money went unspent in that toward the number they claim was a surplus?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

There are a couple of things on this, David. I was joking a little bit with Mr. Blaney, but I don't want us to get into.... I've sat on committees that get too partisan and it's not a lot of fun.

On this, if you take a look at the “Fiscal Monitor” it's a picture in time of one month, one quarter, what have you, and it's like saying you check your bank account one day and you have $10,000 in it but you haven't paid your mortgage, you haven't paid your car payment. Or you think, I must have money in my account, I still have cheques left, kind of thing. It's not exactly a broader picture. It doesn't necessarily reflect the overall.

In terms of the frozen allotments in that question, I just want to give you some examples. These are funds that are approved by Parliament but the Treasury Board will restrict access to the monies for various reasons. I'll give you just a couple of examples.

One is, for instance, when there's a commitment to transfer dollars to another department or agency in exchange for a service. Another is the reprofiling to future years.

For instance, freezing allotments sometimes occurs with defence procurement where we set aside a certain amount of money with the expectation that money will be expended in the future. Again you can go to the Treasury Board website and see $5.1 billion laid out in terms of specific examples.

There's $2.8 billion of the frozen amounts that are funds that have been approved for reprofiling to future years. This includes $630 million in capital and operating funds for major defence projects like I mentioned; $675 million for claims settlements and other transfers supporting indigenous peoples.

I'll give you one example here that falls under Treasury Board, and that's $507 million for maternity and parental benefits and severance. That falls under “Treasury Board Central”. It's an important one because Treasury Board, by doing this centrally, takes that financial cost out of departments and agencies, and Treasury Board manages it. We do that because we believe there is a public good to not having departments and agencies making hiring decisions with limited budgets based on whether there's a possibility that somebody may need parental benefits or severance. There are some very important and progressive reasons why Treasury Board will manage some of these centrally.

We are managing government contingencies. This year, part of this for Treasury Board is $750 million of government contingencies that won't be allocated. There are carry-forwards from other years for operating capital budgets of $560 million. The rendering of this public “earlier in the budget” process, as the parliamentary budget officer has said, is a significant step in terms of transparency. It's an important step. It's just the beginning in terms of transparency and providing better information to parliamentarians and Canadians.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have another question for you. You want to reform the supplements system and I think it's really interesting. Have there been recent reforms or has there been a fairly constant system for a long time?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

It's been a process that, on a secular basis over a period of time, I think has become less meaningful. There was a time when the main estimates and the ministers coming before committees to defend their estimates was considered a big deal to parliamentarians, and it was central to the job of parliamentarians.

We were talking about the Senate earlier, and I have to tell you that within the Senate, there are senators who actually, I must say, understand this process more thoroughly and who make a point of holding ministers to account on estimates in a very effective way. I think my officials would agree with that. You might want to go to a Senate committee where ministers are appearing on their estimates.

This is something that's happened on a secular basis over a longer period of time. It's not purely a partisan thing. The question is, how do we fix it? This is something we take very seriously. I know there's been really good work done by the officials in our department on this. I pointed out earlier the Australian model.

I think, Mr. Graham, you were at the session we did with parliamentarians a few weeks ago.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I arrived very late because I had rural caucus before it.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I'm a proud member of rural caucus as well.

I do want to come back to committee specifically to focus on some of the ideas around reforming. There is a deck that we presented to members of Parliament and senators who came to that meeting that night and, if I may, we will provide that deck to the committee. We haven't set a date to come back to this estimates and parliamentary supply process, but I would like to provide that to committee members soon, such that you can start thinking about this as we move forward. It's really important. It's in our wheelhouse at Treasury Board and it's in the wheelhouse of the OGGO parliamentary committee as well in terms of making this work better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

We're out of time, but I'll just let you know, Minister, that Treasury Board has already given us that deck you referred to and it has already been distributed.

We'll go to the five-minute round now, starting with Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Minister, thanks for joining us today. I appreciate your dedication to open government. I think if you attended yesterday's session, you would have felt, as we did, that it was like something out of an episode of Yes, Minister, the way we were getting answers, so I appreciate your commitment to transparency.

I won't go over the billion dollar questions as my cohort here did, but with regard to the $81 million to support increased demand for health, rehab, and support services for Veterans Affairs, is that for the reopening of those nine outlets that have been closed, or how is this money being divided up, spent, and prioritized, especially across such a large country and with a large number of vets requiring service? Is it based solely on the election promise to reopen those nine outlets or is it based on actual proven need by geographic region?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

First of all, Veterans Affairs and treatment of our veterans and those who have served Canada so valiantly is something all of us as parliamentarians consider to be an important priority.

There are a couple of things. One is the nature of military service today, most recently in Afghanistan and now in terms of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are serving in the mission against ISIS as part of the training as we go forward. The nature of military service has changed. In fact, supporting veterans in the context of this changed environment—for instance, with the increase in the incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder and some of these other related challenges—necessitates that governments change the way we treat veterans, and update and modernize that. We take that seriously.

The requested funds are to support an increase in the number of disability benefit applications being processed, increasing requirements for health services for such things as prescription drugs, and, I want to stress, for increased support for mental health services.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I appreciate that. Is this specifically for those nine? Is it specifically for payment for the costs for reopening those nine or is it for separate services, as you're now saying?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

We are reopening the nine offices.