Government Operations Committee on Nov. 17th, 2016

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Colleagues, I think we'll start. We're running a few minutes behind because of votes, but we should be able to still have a productive meeting.

Minister Brison, welcome once again to our committee. This time you are here to discuss supplementary estimates (B). Without any further ado, to try to make up for some lost time, perhaps we can start with your opening statement.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm delighted to be back with the committee.

I'm joined today by Joyce Murray, who is just joining us; our parliamentary secretary, Yaprak Baltacioglu; the secretary of the Treasury Board, Brian Pagan, assistant secretary of expenditure, management sector; and Renée LaFontaine, chief financial officer.

With supplementary estimates (B), the government is seeking Parliament's approval of funding to address matters of importance to Canadians.

This includes funds for the crises in Iraq and Syria, first nations education, recovery efforts in Fort McMurray, and funds for youth employment. We're seeking additional parliamentary approval of $3.9 billion in additional spending for 68 organizations. I'd like to draw your attention to some of the major voted items.

There is the amount of $375.5 million in funding to address the crises in Iraq and Syria, providing funding for Canadian Forces to train, advise, and assist Iraqi security forces and to address the humanitarian crisis in the region.

There is $350.6 million in funding to advance early work and land acquisition in Michigan for the Gordie Howe International Bridge between Windsor and Detroit.

There is $249.3 million in funding for the post-secondary institution strategic investment fund, or SIF, to enhance, modernize, and improve environmental sustainability of research facilities across Canada.

We are also asking for $245.8 million in funding for additional investments in first nations elementary and secondary education, as per budget 2016.

In addition, supplementary estimates (B) include an increase of $375 million in planned statutory expenditures. This increase reflects revised forecasts for such items as interest payments, territorial financing and payments to provinces related to softwood lumber export charges.

This brings them in line with the forecast set out in budget 2016.

Mr. Chair, these are some of the highlights of the supplementary estimates. As you know, supplementary estimates ensure that departments and agencies can receive the necessary funding to move planned government initiatives forward and meet the needs of Canadians. They include budget priorities and information on spending requirements that couldn't be included in the main estimates in many cases because of when the main estimates were tabled, but this, as in previous discussions we've had, could change for the better with the package of reforms we discussed when I was here earlier this month.

I'm referring specifically to the proposal to move the tabling of the main estimates from March 1 to on or before May 1 on a provisional basis for the next two budget and estimate cycles. This change would help ensure that main estimates include budget items. As it stands now, as you're aware, the main estimates can only reflect decisions as of January, long before the budget actually comes out, so the main estimates, as they are now, do not reflect the government's most recent plans and priorities as outlined in the budget.

This timing limits your ability to provide proper oversight of a fundamentally important financial document. Reforming the estimates process would give parliamentarians better tools to hold the government to account, and future governments to account, and you'd be able to study documents that would be substantially more meaningful than the ones you have today.

By tabling the main estimates later, we would also eliminate the need for spring supplementary estimates, and this would create the added benefit of enabling parliamentarians to focus their attention on one estimates document in the supply period ending June 23, a more meaningful document. It would also mean that the first round of supplementary estimates would be tabled in the autumn during the supply period ending December 10.

I would add that this proposal would not reduce the number of supply days, and I want to be clear on that point. Adjusting the tabling date for main estimates would have no impact on the number of allotted opposition days or other aspects of the supply cycle, including planned supplementary estimates for the supply periods ending December 20 and March 26. Committees would be able to examine estimates documents and call in officials and ministers throughout this supply cycle.

After the two budget and estimates cycles, the House would examine the provisional reform and determine a permanent date. The goal would be to have an earlier date to tighten the timelines between the budget and the main estimates. In the past, I've suggested March 31, but that's ultimately up to Parliament to determine.

In closing, allow me to reiterate our strong commitment to working with all parliamentarians to strengthen the estimates process. I think we can all agree on the need for reform. As I have said earlier, I view this as an evergreening process that makes significant but iterative steps, identifying what works and having an opportunity to work with these changes and to consider other steps as we move forward.

There is a clear need for making the planning, spending, and tracking of tax dollars more timely and transparent. I am confident that the package of reforms our government is proposing will help achieve those objectives.

I look forward to your feedback and recommendations as we move forward together. My officials and I would be more than happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much, Minister.

We'll start off a round of questioning with Madam Ratansi, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Minister, and thank you to the staff for being here.

If I understand your presentation clearly, the purpose of the supplementary (B)s is—I'm reading the introduction—to provide us, the MPs, the spending requirements that were either not sufficiently developed in time for inclusion in the main estimates or have subsequently been refined. At the moment, you are talking about a 4.3% increase, about $3.9 billion.

How would the proposal that you have for realigning the mains and the budget reduce the spread? How would it reduce the number of supplementary estimates that we get?

Before you answer the question, I was asked by my colleague to thank Mr. Pagan for his Movember moustache and to ask you why you don't have one.

Now, you can answer the serious question.

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

I'll start with the last question. It would take me far longer than November to achieve what Mr. Pagan has achieved; I'd need about the next 12 years.

On the other question, there has been a lot of progress in terms of the work between Finance and the Treasury Board and departments. In fact, last year, I believe, almost 70% of budget initiatives were delivered in supplementary (A)s, and that's up from about 6% the year previous.

Our objective, in changing the sequence of budget and estimates so that the main estimates are tabled after the budget, would be to include the lion's share of budget initiatives in the main estimates, which would make the main estimates a more meaningful document.

As it stands now, with the main estimates coming out with a deadline of March 1, what happens is that, first of all, you don't have any of the budget initiatives. All the significant efforts parliamentarians put into studying the main estimates are rendered basically useless and irrelevant once the budget comes out. We view the work of Parliament as being important, and we want parliamentarians to have the opportunity to hold the government to account on meaningful documents.

Estimates timing is one of the four areas of reform we are proposing in terms of the budget estimates process. The others are a better reconciliation of cash and accrual accounting methods in terms of the estimates and the budget; program-based expenditure approval, providing more detail, and ultimately more power, to Parliament on specific expenditures; and finally, departmental plans that are more informative and actually reflect what a department or a program does, and ultimately measure the results so that parliamentarians and Canadians can hold any government to account.

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

I have two supplementary questions but I don't think I'll have time for them. I like the fact that the Department of Industry funding for post-secondary strategic research facilities across Canada is getting additional money, because we've had students say, “What about us? You're giving money for researchers at the Ph.D. level but we're not getting it.”

You can answer the question later.

As a member of the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, I feel that the process you are asking of us is a more transparent process because it enables accountability. I think that third world countries want to adopt that type of methodology. What prevents us? What is the hump that we have to get over to get to the collective understanding that this is good for us?

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

I think we all agree in terms of the need for some change. I think there is a broad consensus that the system as it exists now is not transparent, is unnecessarily complicated, and as such, isn't working that well.

This is not avant-garde stuff. The fact is that countries like Australia, provinces like Ontario and Quebec, and other jurisdictions have done this. They have taken this sort of approach. What we're doing in some ways is catching up to the logical budget and estimates alignment processes that other jurisdictions already have.

While I agree that we have a responsibly to show an example in terms of governance, right now we're actually not setting a great example. I think this is important, and we have other jurisdictions that are doing a better job of it. I would hope to emulate their success, but at some point in the future I would hope for us to keep evergreening this and strengthening it as a model for the world.

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

How do you see the importance, Minister, of the interim supply, given the changes in the dates and the opportunities Parliamentarians might have to ask questions about the budgetary process in a prospective way?

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

The opportunity for Parliamentarians to ask questions on interim supply is very important, and we would want to maintain an opportunity for Parliamentarians to do that. Beyond that, Mr. Whalen, it's important that there be no loss to supply days as a result of these changes. The idea here is to improve the scrutiny of government spending, not the opposite.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. McCauley, you have seven minutes, please.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Great. We'll actually get to the scrutiny instead of alignment.

Welcome. I appreciate you not taking the opportunity to grow a mustache.

Mr. Pagan, congratulations on your epic 'stache.

Minister if we could just step back, I want to go back to what we discussed about the supplementary estimates (A). There was $1.7 billion we specifically discussed. There was money for safe water for first nations reserves. I asked specifically how we are prioritizing that.

Can you update us on that money? How much has been spent? What has been done?

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

I don't personally have the details on that, but I can find them in consultation with my colleague, Minister Bennett. Brian may have that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

If you don't have it immediately, you can respond later.

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

Certainly.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I want to get to a couple of the items in the supplementary estimates, and I realize time is short.

Under the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food, on page 2-23, there's almost $1.9 million for grants to foreign recipients for participation in international organizations supporting agriculture.

Why are we spending $1.9 million for foreigners to attend foreign conferences?

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

Food security, Mr. McCauley, is a global issue. As part of the global community, Canada has a responsibility to—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Does the government see it as its responsibility to send foreigners to foreign conferences?

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

It's not just part of our responsibility as part of the global community. One of the biggest industries within Canada that has the greatest global growth potential is our agrifood industry. There are real opportunities for the Canadian agrifood industry to participate in the development of agriculture in the developing world.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I appreciate that.

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

Ultimately, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Minister MacAulay, is in a better position to tell you. However, I participate in international fora from time to time, and I can tell you that Canada's role in international food security is a respected one. I think it is an important leadership one because if you don't have food security in the developing world, what you end up with is a greater contribution to the types of global crises we see that emanate from those countries.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

It's our responsibility to send our people to participate.

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

That happens as well, but part of institution building is ensuring that people in those countries have the skills they need to lead.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Maybe with the other follow-ups, Mr. Pagan, you could send us a list of what countries we're providing that money to?

[Brian Pagan, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat]

I'd be glad to.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I just have a quick question with regard to the listing under the Department of Finance for $4 million for the Harbourfront Centre in Toronto. Do you know what that would be for? Is it just a straight operating grant?