Government Operations Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2016

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you, Minister. I'm sorry I missed the earlier presentation a couple of weeks ago, at which an issue came out. That was that in the voting structure, disaggregating control by program rather than nature of expenditure could reduce departmental flexibility and increase lapses of appropriations. Of course that's something that greatly concerns us. On the performance side, the money is there, the needs are there, and we want those programs delivered. How would we be able to deal with these lapsed appropriations?

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

There are a couple of things on that. Transport Canada has done a pilot about going to program-based expenditure approval, which has worked quite well. Something that could be done is to transfer say 10% for the program to another program within the department. There can be some flexibility, which can reduce the lapses. The other thing to keep in mind is that we have changed the reportage of lapses to Parliament. We're being more transparent on that, and the PBO has recognized that. We are actually identifying lapses. The important thing is transparency. I think program-based expenditures are good for good governance and good in terms of transparency to Parliament. You don't want someone, hypothetically speaking, taking money out of a border infrastructure program and using it to build gazebos or something.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Yes, that would be worrisome. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I'm wondering if that just popped into your head.

You have about a minute and a half.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

That's all I can share of my time?

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

Thanks, Mr. Brison, for coming, and thanks, Mr. McCauley, for extending everyone's time.

When we talk about the budget cycle, there's been some discussion that the current process is ineffective or not worthwhile, but I disagree. We had the opportunity to have the committee of the whole last year talk about what we currently refer to as the “main estimates”. It was really what the next year would look like if we kept the budget the way it was.

It is a valuable opportunity to test, over the course of the budget cycle, whether the government is achieving its goals. I would like to see, as part of the proposal, at least during the interim period, an opportunity for parliamentarians to have the committee of the whole in respect of the interim supply. It would allow us to test the changes the government will be bringing forward in the new budget.

I would like your thoughts on that.

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

As for the committee of the whole, we've proposed some changes in terms of flexibility so that opposition parties have the opportunity to choose ministers for that.

l think I understand, Nick, what you're saying about the benefit of committee of the whole. I think committee of the whole would actually be more beneficial when we're talking about estimates, which reflect more broadly the direction—

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

I'm talking about both interim supply, and then, when the main estimates are actually tabled, giving parliamentarians a chance to test the assumptions of the most recent budget year against future performance and seeing how those changes measure up. I think it's good oversight.

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

Beyond that, this will not eliminate supplementary estimates either. Over time there will be less of a reliance on supplementary estimates as main estimates become more comprehensive.

Yaprak, you may have some thoughts on this, because you've actually done committee of the whole with me. Do you have any thoughts on Nick's point?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Only brief thoughts.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

I think what the minister offered were some solutions. We're open to solutions from the committee and the House. It's the House's Standing Orders.

I agree. Committee of the whole actually is quite an amazing process. It's actually good for transparency.

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

I must say that I was subject to committee of the whole in my second week on the job, and I really enjoyed it, actually. It was great. I like committee of the whole.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We'll note your acceptance of the committee of the whole process.

We'll now go to five-minute interventions, and we will be strict on the five minutes.

Mr. Clarke, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, minister. Thank you for joining us this morning.

First, Her Majesty's official opposition wants to strongly reiterate that any change that may bring more transparency and align main estimates and supplementary estimates is in itself laudable.

Second, in theory, we are clearly talking about a reform of budgetary appropriations and of the process related to budgetary appropriations. However, it would also appear that, behind the facade, we are talking about a fundamental reform of Canada's parliamentary democracy, and I will tell you why. I believe that there are currently two opposing philosophies. There are two fundamental premises that you have indirectly addressed.

First is the premise where parliamentarians can better understand the budgetary processes—in other words, supplementary estimates and main estimates. That is the first premise. No one can be against it because it is good.

The second premise, which you also addressed, is the need for and importance of making the government responsible and accountable for its actions, including the budget, which is basically the government's main tool.

Those are the two opposing premises. When we look at our country's last 150 years, I think that our founding fathers and parliamentarians clearly chose the second premise. They chose the premise that tries to make the government responsible and accountable through the oversight of the use of public funds. Here is my question on that matter.

I want to bring you back to the mandate letter the Prime Minister publicly addressed to you. The fourth priority is to:

Strengthen the oversight of taxpayer dollars and the clarity and consistency of financial reporting. Ensure consistency and maximum alignment between the estimates [...]

That sentence shows the clash between the two premises. Your reform proposes clarity and consistency of financial reporting, as well as consistency and alignment of the estimates. On the contrary, your reform does not seem to really ensure and strengthen the oversight of public funds. We even have the impression that it's doing the opposite.

You yourself said:

more meaningful—okay, but government accountability, and the responsibility is less.

So there are two opposing premises and we, on this side of the House, want to ensure that the second premise, which has been maintained by parliamentarians for 150 years, will not be changed lightly. In addition, you are talking about a second standing order. Will there soon be a third one?

What do you have to say about the clash between those two philosophical premises that are important for our country's parliamentary democracy?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

You have a minute and a half, Mr. Minister.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Clark. I appreciate your question.

There is no conflict between our objectives and our actions. In fact, your committee's report in 2012 provided direction that reflects that of the current government—in other words, increasing the government's accountability and making its spending more transparent for Parliament and for Canadians.

Our reform will improve on the current situation. Our approach and our proposal reflect the approach of provincial governments such as those of Ontario and Quebec, as well as the approach of national models like Australia.

Thanks to the numerous studies carried out by this committee and our work as government, I think we can do better and should do better. I don't understand your position. You say that a conflict exists between our approach and our objective to increase accountability in terms of government spending for taxpayers.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

It's because you are increasing....

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but time is up.

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

We will continue this discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Whalen, you have five minutes.

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

I think Mr. Whalen doesn't want to ask any more questions.

Is that correct?

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

That's right.

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

Thank you, Minister, for being here. Thank you for taking into consideration our concerns from the previous time.

Like you, I am confused as to why this simple process is not being treated in holistic way that you're showing us. If you have consulted with the previous parliamentary budget officer, who was well versed in the parliamentary processes and how budgets have to appear and who knew that accountability and transparency were critical, because we have to perform our oversight function....

My question is, when you were in opposition for 17 years out of your 20 years, what were the main challenges you faced trying to match these apples and pears, the apples being the estimates and the pears being the budget? How did you reconcile them? What was the transparency there?

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

Yasmin, you have the advantage of being an accountant. Not all of us are accountants. I was a finance guy, but we relied heavily on the accountants.

It is confusing as it is. In opposition we have limited resources. Individual members in their offices do not have a lot of legislative resources. I was very fortunate in opposition in having Tisha Ashton, who just loved the estimates process. There aren't many people like that. Over a long period of time, I got to understand them to a certain extent, although not as well as she did. All our parties have people in our offices and the leader's office who really love this process.

The idea is that we shouldn't need experts who understand and love this process. Every member of Parliament, and Canadians in general, should understand a process that is simple and is easier to understand. The process should be something that we can describe to any Canadian, both in terms of the sequencing and departmental reports.

There are thousands of people in departments across the Government of Canada who are writing reports that almost nobody reads. That's because they don't provide these reports. It's not their fault, by the way. The nature of the report now means that they spend a lot of time providing information that isn't that useful, that isn't of that high a quality, and that doesn't really reflect the basic departmental plans and departmental results. We want to change that part of it as well.

These are significant changes. I think smart members of Parliament from all parties struggle with this. It's not just opposition members who have the responsibility to hold government to account.

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

All you're trying to do is simplify the process so that you can compare apples with apples, not apples with oranges.