Government Operations Committee on Oct. 24th, 2016

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Minister, would your recommendation to the Minister of Finance be that there should be a fixed budget date, a set range of dates for the budget, a deadline by which a budget must be presented every year?

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

I think, first of all, we are going to accomplish, through the changes we're proposing here today, a better alignment of the budget and estimates process. That doesn't obviate the need to continue to consider improvements, including potentially in the future an earlier deadline on estimates, and a discussion. We're open to discussions. As we go through this change, as we evaluate the impact of these changes, I would be interested in the input of the committee. But again, perfection being the enemy of the good, I'd like to proceed with an improvement that makes a significant change in terms of accountability to Parliament and Parliament's ability to scrutinize.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Just for—

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

With regard to the estimates Parliament scrutinizes right now, you spend a lot of time on those. To a large extent your time is wasted, because we come out with a budget shortly after, and a lot of that work, a lot of that analysis, is wasted. It's rendered irrelevant. What we want to do is make sure the work of parliamentarians is meaningful and impactful and holds government to account on the things that really matter.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Right. And in terms of that work, I do want to congratulate you, Mr. Minister, on your keen ability to have moved between the Liberal and Conservative parties to remain on the opposition benches for a maximum amount of time. You clearly do appreciate the importance of effective opposition.

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

It was the Progressive Conservatives; Progressive.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Indeed.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

We want you to make that point as well.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Well, thanks. I'm happy to facilitate that point.

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

I was actually born as a Liberal; I just came out in 2003.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

You mentioned that these reforms might ultimately remove the need for supplementary estimates. While we certainly would value a more streamlined process, part of the importance of supplementary estimates is they provide an opportunity for scrutiny by the opposition to have ministers such as you before this committee.

So I wonder, in potentially eliminating supplementary estimates, what would be the replacement to ensure adequate opportunities over the course of the year for parliamentarians to scrutinize the budget.

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

There are a couple of things. I think over time the degree to which budget initiatives can be incorporated into main estimates will reduce the reliance on supplementary estimates. I don't see them being eliminated. I see our reliance on them being reduced over time.

You know, supplementary (A)s are actually more important, in some ways, than the main estimates. Last year 70% of the budget initiatives were delivered in supplementary (A)s, so in some ways you could argue that supplementary (A)s were more pertinent than the main estimates.

The big thing around here—I'm saying broadly Parliament—is that there are people who have been here a long time as members of Parliament who don't really understand the estimate and budget processes. It's not really their fault. If you were to design intentionally a system, and the objective was to design a system that was hard to understand, you would not do better than the one we have right now. But nobody wants to put their hand up and say they don't understand this.

Sometimes when you're doing something, it's hard to explain what it will look like after. This is one of the few changes, Erin, when it's actually easier to explain how the system will work after the change than what it is now. I can't explain—

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

In terms of how it would look—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Weir, we're out of time.

I will point out, Mr. Weir and Mr. McCauley, with your questioning about a fixed budget date, that in the 2012 OGGO report there was a recommendation that the budget be presented no later than February 1. It certainly would be within the purview of this committee to make such a recommendation again, should we wish.

Mr. Whalen, you're up for seven minutes.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, guys, for coming. As a new MP, it's interesting to see how the department's thinking on these four pillars of realigning the budget and the estimates process has evolved over the course of the last year. One of the first things we received when we came in November, whenever you were called last year, was a big stack of documents on estimates (B) and (C), which were almost indecipherable. Over time we learned how to figure them out, and now we're talking about changing them.

Just to follow up a little bit on Mr. Weir's question, do you see estimate (A)s being combined into the mains, and then only having estimates (A) and (B) and no need for a (C), or only in very rare circumstances? Or do we still see all three extra sets of estimates in addition to interim supply and in addition to the mains?

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

I'll start, and then I'll get Brian to reply, because he has more of an institutional memory on this from Treasury Board's perspective.

I see that the reliance on supplementary estimates (A) and (B), as an example, will be less than it is right now. As you sequence the main estimates after the budget, the main estimates I think will take on a more important role, as they ought to, but this will take time. Again, some of the changes to operationalize within government will take at least a couple of budget cycles to get it closer to the full potential.

Brian, would you like to continue?

[Brian Pagan]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Whalen, for the question. Just to be clear, what we are proposing with this vision is not to eliminate supplementary estimates. It's to render the process more coherent and sequential, so that the main estimates tabled after the budget in fact reflect budget priorities.

In that scenario, as mentioned, last year we brought forward approximately 70% of the budget in supplementary estimates (A). We would replace that spring supplementary estimates with the main estimates that would have the budget initiatives. Then we would bring forward the remaining budget priorities in a fall supplementary estimate, which would become the first supplementaries of the year, with supplementary (A)s in the fall, and then a cleanup of accounts in the winter in supplementary (B)s. We would continue to have an estimates document in each supply period, which would encourage committees to continue to call on departments and continue their scrutiny of government expenditure plans.

I would also mention, just in terms of history, that we introduced the spring supplementaries in 2007 as a way of facilitating a more timely implementation of budget initiatives. That has proven to be helpful, as we saw last year, but we can make the process more efficient by simply presenting a better main estimates. That's the heart of the proposal.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

In the concern over whether or not there's a need for a fixed budget date to have this process aligned, what do you envision would happen if the first week of April rolls around and the government in the future is not ready to present its budget? Would the department then be forced to carry two sets of main estimates it's working on, one that reflects the old process and one that reflects a new process? How difficult and taxing would that be on the department to try to triage a situation like that?

[Brian Pagan]

Thank you for the question.

We have seen over the last 10 years a wide variation in terms of budget tabling. We've seen something as early as January, in 2009, in response to the global economic crisis. As recently as 2015, we had a different problem in the energy market and a precipitous drop in energy prices, which had all kinds of impacts and implications for the government's ability to forecast and project requirements. We saw a budget on April 21 of that year.

So because we do not have a fixed budget date, because the government will want to avail itself of the flexibility to take advantage of the best available information in setting its economic forecasts, a tabling date of May 1 would encompass anything we've seen over the last 10 years, and it should provide the government with the ability to, at the very least, table the estimates after the budget so that we can reconcile to the budget.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thanks, Mr. Pagan.

Mr. Brison, when we look at the different pillars, it seems the department is very close now on pillar one. It seems some of the changes that are being proposed also include certain aspects of pillar four, which is departmental reports, plans, and priorities.

Can you speak a little about how ready you feel the department is in implementing the changes of having those plans and priorities presented in a more coherent fashion on May 1 of next year, or sooner, along with the main estimates?

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

Actually, in Treasury Board policy, in terms of departmental reports, as part of a broader results and delivery approach for our government, we're already doing that, and we're moving toward that. Even in terms of the format of Treasury Board submissions and the degree to which departments and agencies...as they present submissions to Treasury Board—we are pushing and getting metrics and a commitment to a results and delivery model so that we understand, not just with regard to committing funds but actually establishing objectives or goals in terms of what they're going to accomplish.

That part of it we are doing at Treasury Board, as a central agency, already. In some of the other areas, we're doing more reconciliation between cash and accrual accounting, as part of what we're doing already. With program-based expenditure reportage, we've done that with Transport Canada, and we'll be doing more—

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Sorry, Mr. Brison, I have a very short question. We haven't seen a copy of any proposed text for what the new standing order would look like. Has the department advanced its thinking that far as to what the standing order would look like?

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

Well, it would involve changing the date. I don't want to assume, because the committee would—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Minister, perhaps I could interject.

Having some knowledge in this, Mr. Whalen, I can say that our committee could certainly propose the text.