Evidence of meeting #56 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 post.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I just want to understand why you want to spend so many weeks of your life as a Parliamentarian doing busywork that isn't pertinent to the lives of Canadians.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
It was a rhetorical question, so we won't get into a debate.
We were quite a bit over time.
Mr. Blaikie, I'll give you extra time, as I will everyone on the government side as well.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much.
I'll start by saying that we in the NDP do think that it's a good idea to try to better align the budget documents and the estimates documents. There's value in doing that.
Thank you for making it a priority to try to do that, but there are concerns around the amount of time that parliamentarians have to study that document, however better it may be in terms of information. There are concerns around actually ensuring that those documents remain coordinated to the extent that there isn't either a fixed budget date or a fixed budget period in which that budget would be brought in. You can't coordinate two things if you don't know where one of them is. To the extent that the Standing Orders remain silent on the budget, it's hard to feel that this limited change to the Standing Orders will actually ensure any kind of coordination.
Then of course access to government is also requisite for a good study of the estimates. I think those are represented in the six concerns that you identified.
We've had your assurances and the assurances of your colleagues—or you've assured us on behalf of them—that they're prepared to appear before committee. But we know that governments don't last forever, and as much as the latest infrastructure plan projects your government sticking around past 2023, Canadians may well change their minds. With a different government, those assurances may not amount to much.
Would you be prepared to consider changes to the Standing Orders that would require ministers to appear before committee to ensure that parliamentarians have the access they need in a restricted time frame to be able to get the answers they need with respect to the estimates?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I'd say two things.
The appearance of ministers before standing committees to defend their estimates is not a new thing. Your dad would tell you that this was something that was fundamental. Ministers always appeared before parliamentary committees to defend their estimates. Any movement away from that long-standing tradition in recent years was fairly new.
What we're doing as a government is making sure we can speak on behalf of our government, that we will, as ministers, appear before parliamentary committees when asked to defend our estimates. It is expected.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
This is not something that is new. There may have been a time, and I'm not being partisan here—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
In the previous government it may have been difficult to get ministers sometimes.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
—but we have an example of a departure from that practice.
As we talk about the reforming process and the reforms of those processes, assuming they'll most likely persist beyond the life of this government, if the appearance of ministers is an integral part of that improvement, we would also want that improvement to persist.
Granted, there was a long tradition of ministers appearing, but other governments have shown that the tradition needn't have been maintained and that it's at the pleasure of the government that it's done.
Are you open to the idea of creating, as part of your proposal, a situation in which there's an obligation for ministers beyond convention and tradition, a standing order obligation for ministers to be accessible to committees for a study of the estimates?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Again, I can commit on behalf of our government, and there is an absolute commitment for us to appear. Also, our House leaders can have further discussions and are always open to suggestions, but again, on the issue, governments of different stripes over time have consistently adhered to that principle and convention.
This is something that I can commit to on behalf of our government. Our ministers are expected to defend their estimates before parliamentary committees.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
We'll see if that's adequate, ultimately, because we do have a situation whereby, objectively, the amount of time that parliamentarians have to study the estimates is being reduced—
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
—and on the other hand, we have the word of your government that ministers will appear. One will carry into the scenario of a future government and the other won't, because you can't commit on behalf of ministers of a future government that they will appear.
On the question of a fixed budget date, I know that you've talked a lot about the Australian model. Can you confirm for the committee that in Australia there is a fixed budget date in their Standing Orders?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
As you're aware, we've had that discussion. I really do view the Australian model as one that informs my thinking on this and provides a good model. Over time, I think, we get better alignment and more logical sequencing between budgets and estimates, and that model, over time, may be the direction, but I want to try these changes. I want to try these changes first, and I want us to go through this. We will have a better idea, Mr. Blaikie, in a year and a half, after having gone through two budget/estimates cycles.
Again, I view this as an evergreening process. We make these changes, we successfully implement these changes, and we may actually see new approaches that would make sense in two years, but I really do want to see these two budget/estimates cycles, so—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
—I'm saying that in a year and about four months, we will have a much better idea as to other ideas or other approaches that could make sense.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
In the context not of your own government but in some future government where there is still a shortened amount of time for parliamentarians to be studying the estimates, do you think it would make sense to deem those estimates to have been passed by May 31 if the minister has not appeared before the committee?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I think we can have a discussion. I can speak on behalf of our government in terms of the commitment of ministers to appear before committee and defend their estimates.
Beyond that, one of the things I want to be clear about is that the nature of the study that parliamentarians will be doing around main estimates will be more meaningful now. When ministers appear before you, you'll be able to have a more meaningful discussion about the estimates because they will actually be pertinent. The work you do, the work we do collectively, government and parliamentarians together, will be more meaningful to the work we do on behalf of Canadians.
On this idea, in the first two years, there are some things we can do to change dates in a way that would provide a little more flexibility. In many of those challenges, and I'm talking about in a year and four or five months when we would go to a main estimates tabled before the end of the fiscal year, the concern you raise about a reduction or a perceived reduction in the days for scrutinizing estimates would be addressed. During that period of time, we would do everything we can to ensure....
Brian, do you have that information?
12:30 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat
Yes. Quickly, on the use of committee time, we have looked at committees over the last three parliaments. Some 17 of the 24 held a single meeting on the estimates. The majority of those meetings were held in May. Even in this committee, OGGO, 13 of the 19 meetings were after April 25. We do take the point that we are focusing effort here in the May period, but we believe that we're alleviating a problem by focusing that effort on the main estimates and not the main estimates and a supplementary estimates (A) at the same time.
12:30 p.m.
NDP
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Mr. Blaikie, I was extremely generous with you, as I had been with the previous speaker.
Therefore, Madam Shanahan, you'll have seven-ish minutes.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much to you, Mr. Brison, for being here with us, and to all the members of the panel. I will not make any reference to my age or anybody else's age, thank you very much. As I am also a member of the public accounts committee, let me just say I commend you on this initiative. We're already seeing in public accounts how important it is to have the program base control structure in place so that we can make good assessments on the performance of departments, agencies, and crown corporations. That's definitely going to help us in our work in the future, but here of course it all starts when we are actually doling out the money, and we need to know why we're doling it out. I'm interested in exploring further this incremental approach you've taken to aligning the estimates in the budget cycle.
Maybe some of the members of the panel can talk a little bit about what's involved, why you have chosen this approach, and what challenges you face. The last thing we want is for this to not be done properly.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Thanks, Brenda.
There are a couple of things. One is, you reminded me, that this is actually one of the four pillars of reform that we believe are important. There are estimates and budget timing, which is what we're focusing on here today. There's also this accounting approach with regard to the methods and cash and accrual reconciliation for parliamentarians. There's a vote structure or a program-based expenditure approval, and then reportage to Parliament and to Canadians. Departmental reporting is changing, such that departmental plans and departmental results are simpler. There are four areas broadly.
There's need for some flexibility initially. All things being equal, if we could deliver the kind of result that I would like to within the fiscal year immediately, I think we would all agree to that. This will take time. Within the departments, it's a very significant undertaking, and changing practices have evolved over decades. I want us to be successful in and among other things in seeing the main estimates rendered more relevant and meaningful by having more of the budget items in the main estimates. That requires a lot of work in advance between Treasury Board and Finance and other departments and agencies. It's a fundamental shift. This committee raised concerns about this in the beginning, and we believe that the proposal we're making, to have a year and five months, whereby there would be two budget cycles, and an additional period going up to April 30, will provide us with the operational flexibility for our public servants and our officials to deliver a good result. I think at the end of that, going to the budget estimates before the end of the fiscal year, will deliver a good result that we'll be able to achieve at that point. We're being totally transparent about the direction of this and about the ability to get this right in the first year and a half.