Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm delighted to be back before the committee. I'm here today with Yaprak Baltacioglu, the secretary of the Treasury Board, and Brian Pagan, the assistant secretary of the expenditure management sector.
Brian is still sporting the last remnants of Movember as he prepares for Manuary. I commend him for his considerable courage.
You're right; I do feel like an honorary member of your committee. This is the fourth time I've been here to discuss estimates reform, and in addition to that we've done technical briefings for members of Parliament and senators, last winter and more recently. As a minister, I feel it's incredibly important to engage Parliament, and the work of parliamentary committees is very important.
As I said the last time I was here, I know Estimates reform is a very important issue for this committee.
The ability to exercise oversight is the most important role we play as parliamentarians on behalf of Canadians. Mind you, of course and as I've said before, this coming spring, on June 2, will make 20 years since my first election. I spent 16 of those years in opposition and by that time will have spent four years as a member of two cabinets. That informs a lot of my passion for creating a system that works better for Parliament and for parliamentarians.
I believe very strongly that reform is necessary and will provide more meaningful tools for effective oversight by parliamentarians. I want to assure you on the record on one point, and I will repeat the commitment to ministers appearing before committee to defend their estimates—I've said this in the past, and our government has said—this is something we're committed to.
To further strengthen this reform process, our House leader will write a letter to committee chairs committing that ministers will appear on main estimates twice, if invited twice, for instance. We firmly believe that parliamentary oversight and accountability are crucial in our democratic system. Having ministers appear before committee when invited to discuss the estimates is a key part of holding government to account.
Further, my immediate focus for reform is creating better alignment of the budget and the estimates. Recently The Globe and Mail editorial, I thought, captured the current dysfunction of the process quite accurately, in saying:
...the current sequence is bad to the point of absurdity, with spending estimates usually coming before the budget, and in a different accounting format, rendering them virtually meaningless. It’s a discredited practice that has only served to keep MPs in the dark about how tax dollars are being spent. Almost any improvement will be welcome.
Because of these issues and some of the other ones we've discussed in previous appearances, we're committed to better alignment. Our intention is for parliamentarians to be able to study documents that will be substantially more meaningful than the status quo.
These are not easy changes. Recently the PBO released a report that said our efforts are laudable, but they also expressed some concerns about our current proposal of tabling the main estimates on or before May 1. They expressed concerns about, and I'll quote the PBO, “sclerotic internal administrative processes” of government.
I'm not sure I would have chosen the word “sclerotic”, but I can tell you—and this is my second time as a minister— that I get frustrated with the silos within government and the lack of connectivity between government departments and agencies and the inability to work horizontally across government departments and agencies.
Whether or not I would have chosen the word “sclerotic”, I think I agree with the PBO that there is a lot of work to be done for our Government of Canada to up its game and to better enable close working...horizontally on important issues for Canadians, and across government departments and agencies.
I understand their position. It does take time to change processes and cultures within government broadly but also within departments and agencies. The estimates process we have now has been in place for a long time. We are working hard, not just in terms of estimates reform but broadly on our results policy, which will focus the work of government more on results than on processes.
On the specific change we're seeking, in terms of the deadline for the main estimates, we are seeking a two-year provisional change that will allow the Treasury Board and the Department of Finance, particularly, to make substantial changes to how they work together and to operationalize these changes. This gives the department, along with all the departments that, in the budgeting process, are part of this, the time to ensure that substantial portions of the budget are reflected in the main estimates.
Changing the sequence, in and of itself, is a step in the right direction, but the two years gives us the opportunity to operationalize this and to have very high-quality and meaningful estimates documents that reflect budget items.
We have made some progress, particularly in the work between Treasury Board and the Department of Finance. If you recall supplementary estimates (A) for this year, 66% of the items were actually budgetary items. That was up from, I think, 6% the year previous. That indicates a closer working relationship between Finance and Treasury Board already. We view the changing of the sequencing of the main estimates as giving us an opportunity to deepen that co-operation and to strengthen the results of that.
Our goal is to have 100% of the budget measures in the main estimates. This is the case in other jurisdictions, such as Ontario or Australia. Getting the proper sequence in place is the first step in that. I've been clear here before of my admiration for the Australian model, and this is a move in that direction.
The former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, believes that our transitional approach is reasonable. He said, “While I believe Parliament and Canadians should see main estimates before the start of the fiscal year, I support your recommendation that this adjustment may take two years to implement.”
We welcome the PBO report. I also want to say how much I value the work of the parliamentary budget office. I have for some time. They do important work and provide important information to parliamentarians.
The PBO has pointed to a fixed budget date as a way forward. Mr. Chair, this is the purview of Finance. There's no requirement to table a budget at a fixed time. That falls under the jurisdiction of Finance. There's no provision in the Standing Orders on that.
What I believe the two-year period will give us operationally is a much closer alignment between the budget and main estimates, both in terms of content and also in terms of the sequencing. I think it's a step in the right direction that would be consistent, I think, with the broader objectives that the PBO would share with our government.
While the normal practice is to table budgets between mid-February and mid-March, extreme situations do arise where the government needs to avail itself of more flexible approaches. Even without a fixed budget date right now, our current proposal will get many budgetary items into the main estimates starting next year, and we'll have a better result in the second budget cycle of this provisional change. The estimates would immediately become a more useful and relevant document for all parliamentarians.
I want to thank the committee for their work on this. I look forward to hearing your advice, and we're always open to the suggestions of this committee. I take your work seriously and, if invited, will be back again. I might even seek an invitation sometime. I enjoy this very much.
One final thing, Mr. Chair and members, the better sequencing and the change we're seeking in terms of moving the deadline for the main estimates provisionally for the next two budget cycles is only part of what we're doing in terms of budget and estimates reform. Having departmental reports that are more informative, meaningful, and understandable is something we're doing as a government, and Treasury Board is helping lead that.
The cash accrual reconciliation and providing that important information to parliamentarians is something we are doing, as is purpose-based reporting, again giving parliamentarians a clearer line of sight into the spending of departments around specific purposes and building on the experience we've had with the pilot project at Transport Canada.
These are things we want to continue to expand and deepen as part of our overall reform of the budget and estimates process as part of our accountability, strengthening the accountability of Parliament but also developing a more results-based approach as the Government of Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
