Evidence of meeting #95 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 see.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
You mentioned that one year would be the acid test to see how the government's doing with these proposed changes. What would success look like to you and what would failure look like to you after one year with these reforms?
9:35 a.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
I should not use that word, “acid” test. It's old. Preston Manning used to use that word.
Jason, do you want to say something?
9:35 a.m.
Director, Economic and Fiscal Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
I think the cleanest acid test is actually going to the Treasury Board Secretariat's departmental plan for this year, where they indicate that the target for the coming year is that 100% of items from the budget will be tabled in the most immediate supplementary estimates. That's the official target from the government, the 100%, and we're currently at roughly 40% for the current year.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Right. But by moving it to April 16, it bumps the next supplementary estimates to, I think, November. So it's giving them six extra months.
9:35 a.m.
Director, Economic and Fiscal Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Well, the precise language is that's in the next estimates.
9:35 a.m.
Director, Economic and Fiscal Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
The next estimates, after the budget, will actually be the new date for the main estimates, so....
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
That's not going to happen. What would you consider successful—60%, 80%...? They're not going to get 100%, let's be honest.
9:35 a.m.
Director, Economic and Fiscal Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
I think we have the much easier job of providing analysis to the committee and to parliamentarians.
9:35 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:35 a.m.
Director, Economic and Fiscal Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
As we've pointed out in the past, we've suggested that parliamentarians ask the government for a plan regarding how they're actually planning on implementing and achieving this target.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
We tried that last week and we didn't get an answer from TBS.
9:35 a.m.
Director, Economic and Fiscal Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
I think were we to actually see a plan, then just based upon the regular analytical approaches that we take we'd be able to actually look at the plan, determine where the risks are, determine the likelihood of achieving the results, and determine, of course, how those risks could actually be managed.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you very much.
Madam Shanahan, you have five minutes, please.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much to the panel. It's always interesting to discuss this subject. I think every time we do, we clarify somewhat more just how this process works, for ourselves and of course for the people who are watching this.
I think we need to clarify right away that it's not a one-year test. This change will be for the foreseeable future, over the next two years, certainly until the next Parliament. I think that's important to understand, because it's not a short-term process. It's not, “Let's try this, and if that doesn't work, let's try something else.” Many changes need to be done in this process, and I think we need to give it a chance.
Could you just clarify, Monsieur Fréchette, that it's not your understanding that it's just a one-year deal?
9:40 a.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
What I said is that we know, because it's mentioned in the Standing Orders, that it is for this Parliament. Technically it will end with this 41st Parliament. What will happen after, we don't know, but it's mentioned in the Standing Orders that the change to Standing Order 81 is for the next two years, according to the fact that we will have technically a new Parliament in 2019.
What I said is that, yes, it's going to be for two years. You're correct on that. What I also said is that the first real test will be the first year, the upcoming fiscal year. That's where I used the word “acid” test. Right there, if there were a question that, let's say, 40% of the measures are included.... I'm not saying that's the target. I'm just saying that it's going to be up to members to decide whether or not it's a proper performance. It's a good point; maybe in the Treasury Board plan they should have a target. They should come with a target and say, “We aim for 50%”, which would be better than just having an open end to that. There will be a baseline. The expectation will be there. It will be easier for the parliamentarians to judge whether or not the performance is okay or not.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
It's a point well taken. I think the government reform proposal does suggest adjusting internal processes—for example, to have the new initiatives approved by cabinet and Treasury Board, exactly the problem your panel was raising earlier about Treasury Board and cabinet working together. Clearly that's something that needs to be happening. Wouldn't this address your concerns about the timing of the estimates?
9:40 a.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
I think what you need to see as members of Parliament.... The objective is to improve the processes, but you haven't really seen any plan. If the government sets a goal of 50% or 60% or whatever that target is, if that goal comes with a plan that shows exactly the steps that the Treasury Board is going to take in order to improve the system, whether it's their collaboration with the Department of Finance or their own internal processes in how they are going to do that, then of course you're going to look at the target and the plan and say, okay, these two together will actually lead to success. But you have not seen, in Parliament, what the plan is.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
I understand. I think really what we want to do is set up a plan in which we're looking at where we need to go and how we're going to get there. It's not necessarily a number or percentage that's going to tell us if we're getting there, because we know from looking at other jurisdictions that it does take time. There's a lot of culture change that has to happen. I for one, having worked in both the financial area and the management area, know it's a step-by-step process. I think it's more important to get it right than to get somewhere artificially.
On that note, something that interests me is looking at different ways of providing appropriations. I like the idea of giving departments more leeway, something like a two-year appropriation cycle, which is something that's already being used in CRA, CBSA, and Parks Canada. Is this something that would be of benefit in other departments, in your estimation?
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
You will have to leave your answer until the next round. I'm afraid we're completely out of time.
Mr. Weir, you have three minutes. That will complete the first round of questioning, and we will go back to seven-minute rounds immediately after that.
Mr. Weir.
9:40 a.m.
NDP
Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK
Thank you.
We left off, Mr. Askari, where you were saying that there was better alignment between Treasury Board and budgetary processes in jurisdictions like Australia and Ontario. It strikes me that in many of those jurisdictions around the world and at the provincial level in Canada the Treasury Board is part of the finance department. Is that something we should consider at the federal level?
9:40 a.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
The machinery issue is something that we haven't really looked at. It's not really part of our mandate to look at the machinery of government. But whether it is part of Finance or separate from Finance doesn't mean they cannot work together. I think the way we have seen it is that those two processes are completely separate now, and there is no way you can align the results if the processes are completely separate.
To me, it's as simple as that. You have to find a way to integrate those processes in order to align the main estimates and the budget. With anything else, you may see some improvement, but not necessarily an improvement you are looking for.
9:45 a.m.
Director, Economic and Fiscal Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
I have nothing to add to that.