Evidence of meeting #50 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 main.
A video is available from Parliament.
Noon
Secretary of the Treasury Board Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat
I have a small explanation to maybe answer the question of why it is going to take us a few years.
It's because what's in the budget and what goes into estimates are completely different details of a program. For estimates we make sure that the full detail and the design is done. That is where we need the time. So when budget and estimates come, ideally where we want to be, hopefully in a few years, is where the budget makes the commitment and we give the green light to a program to be on the ground the day the main estimates are approved. That's what we're aiming for, but it's a little soon for the whole machine to turn that way.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you for the clarification.
Minister, if we finish this round, it'll be about 15 minutes or just a little less, if you can spare the time. We thank you for that.
Mr. McCauley, you have five minutes.
Noon
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Very quickly, on pillar one, when it talks about alignment, again we're comparing ourselves to Australia. And you're right, they do everything great—although everything God created that can kill you and crawls is there.
It talks about Australia taking a very short period of time between policy and implementation of policy, and of course we're lagging behind at 19 months. Perhaps Yaprak could give us an idea of why it's like that.
Then it talks about how recent success demonstrates that such an internal alignment is possible for the Government of Canada. I'm just wondering if you could talk about what you're considering recent success.
Noon
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I'll say a couple of things, and then I'll ask Yaprak to reply. Again, Brian, Yaprak, and Marcia in our department have seen more of this. I was on the Treasury Board cabinet committee in the previous government, but it's different being President of the Treasury Board. You get to see it from a different perspective.
There is a closer alignment now in terms of collaboration between Treasury Board and Finance than I think existed in the past. There's a very close collaborative relationship and engagement throughout the budget process, stronger than in the past. So there has been some progress made.
As Yaprak said, the details involved in the main estimates are far greater than those in the budget. A budget gives a general view and a perspective. For instance, you could say we're going to invest so much money into indigenous education, but the details come out—
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I know; that's exactly the point, Kelly. Currently there is up to an 18-month lag. We're seeking to shorten that dramatically in terms of budget and estimates alignment process to get it closer together.
You've cited actually a key reason why we're saying May 1 initially. It's like that old country music song, “Give me 40 acres and I'll turn this rig around”. We're going to need a little time to work this through.
Go ahead, Yaprak.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I'm not familiar with that song, but maybe another time.
I have one more question, so please be brief, if you don't mind.
12:05 p.m.
Secretary of the Treasury Board Secretariat, Treasury Board Secretariat
Absolutely—and I can't help with the country music song.
The way the Australians do it is that when the budget cycle starts, Treasury and Finance both work at the same time, not only in terms of the policy but also determining what a program could look like. Because it starts from the get-go, they can table it at the same time. That's where we should be. May 1 may sound like a long way away for designing all of these programs. Basically we are going to have to start from the beginning and design it at the same time. That's what we're aiming to do.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Okay. That's great.
I'll just bounce over to pillar three. Again, we're here about transparency and accountability, and one of the suggestions seems to be kind of the opposite. It says give higher votes but let the departments have more flexibility to use the money without parliamentary approval. That seems to be going backwards from what we're trying to do here.
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat
Thank you, Mr. McCauley.
What we have learned in looking at other jurisdictions is that they do introduce what we call “purpose-based” votes so that parliamentarians have a better sense of how the resources are supporting specific programs. In doing that, in moving from a single operating vote in a department to three, four, or five purpose-based votes, you're necessarily—
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Do you think the answer is just giving them a higher amount of money without any oversight?
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat
It's not a question of oversight—
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Or without parliamentary approval to move it around...?
12:05 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat
For instance, in Quebec what they do with their supply bill is that they have purpose-based votes, but the supply bill allows departments to transfer up to 10% of funds between votes, and it's not done without full reporting by departments. There is transparency in the reporting. Other jurisdictions introduce either multi-year appropriations or enhanced carry-forward—
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I want to quote you. This says that the balance could be achieved by establishing votes “at a relatively high level”—not moderate, but relatively high—and then allowing organizations to move monies without additional approval of Parliament.
Again, it seems to be the opposite of what we're trying to achieve. We're going to give a relatively high amount of money and then take away any ability for Parliament to approve—
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
If I may cut in, what we have now is that within a department you can move money around without really any—
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Right, but this really doesn't seem to be helping that.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
It is a step, and you can look at the work done at Transport in terms of the pilot. Again, when funding is approved by Parliament for a specific program, on the ability within a ministry to move it from there to somewhere else, you can have up to 10%, which provides.... Particularly to avoid lapsing in a particular area, it would make sense, but it's significantly improved over what exists now, and moving in this direction—
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
—but all improvement begins with a step. You see how it works, and then say, can we move further? I'm open to that.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you, Minister.
Mr. Ayoub, you have the floor for five minutes.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ramez Ayoub Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minister, for being with us today. Thanks as well to the witnesses who are with you.
I am going to ask a more technical question about the Treasury Board Secretariat.
A pilot project is under way in cooperation with Transport Canada. You must have achieved results or received feedback on the subject. I would like you to tell me about that briefly. What have been the observed results, advantages, or disadvantages, and how will this help you plan other changes in the near future?