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.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK
Fair enough.
To bring up a specific example, the government was putting forward a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. That was in the budget, but there was no funding for it in the main estimates. When we asked the Privy Council Office, they said they had enough money left over from other things to pay for it up until supplementary estimates.
Does that seem like a reasonable approach?
9:45 a.m.
Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
One of the interesting things about having the two processes separate is that something can get refined. Something gets announced in the budget—i.e., we're going to do this—but the departments have not been fully brought onside on their planning processes. So they say, well, it's not really going to roll out that way; we need to actually refine the numbers or the year in which we're going to spend the money. In doing the tracking document, one of the things that was different between the budget and the estimates numbers was that when the departments then refined the numbers and said, you know, maybe we're not going to spend it in that particular timeline.... A classic example is the inquiry. There was an announcement in the budget, but when it came to try to implement it through the department, it took longer than expected.
If there was a better integration of the processes, the department could have that upfront discussion before it even gets announced in the budget. Then it would improve the information in the budget as well, not just in the estimates.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you very much.
We'll go back, as far as time allows, to the seven-minute rounds.
Mr. Whalen.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all for coming today from the parliamentary budget office. It's very helpful for us as we continue to meet with Treasury Board about this process.
There's been some discussion today about targets, timelines, and a detailed plan, yet the Treasury Board has come to us many times setting a very clear strategic direction and goal of competently aligning the budgets and the estimates process, and doing so in a way that will allow parliamentarians to have better oversight. In my view, getting there in a reasonable way, any improvement will be greatly appreciated by parliamentarians.
In terms of baselining, why do you think it's important that they should establish some benchmark criteria for a number of estimates that get wound up in the mains, or an amount of spending that gets wound up in the mains, when the first step appears to me to be just to align the timing and provide an opportunity to table the estimates as closely as possible after the budget? Doesn't the change to the standing order allow them to make that first step?
9:45 a.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
We weren't actually proposing a target. It was as a response to a question that we were asked about whether it would be 40% or 50%.
Again, going back to what I and others have said here before, just changing the date of the main estimates and putting them right after the budget...or maybe after the budget, because we don't know when the budget is going to be tabled. It's still possible that the budget comes after the main estimates, even with the change. That is not going to help them to align, because we know from past experience—
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
[Technical difficulty—Editor] make it possible for them to align? Currently, with a March budget, which is typical, it's impossible to align the main estimates with the budget, but now this would make it possible. Is that not the case?
9:45 a.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
It will make it possible but not very likely. I don't want to repeat myself, but as long as the processes for approval have not been changed and improved, it's very unlikely that they can actually align by changing the date by six weeks.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Well, I think we've heard the President of the Treasury Board come before us and say that this is his goal. The change to the standing order gives him two opportunities to do that. Is that not correct?
9:45 a.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
It will give him an opportunity to change the internal processes, but as to whether or not they have a plan to do that, we don't know, because we haven't seen any plan.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
9:45 a.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Not to us, to you.
9:45 a.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Perhaps I can add something very quickly, Mr. Chair.
What's interesting is that in the standing order, if you remember, the original plan, as I mentioned, was May 1 from the beginning, since February 2016 when these discussions began. Eventually it was refined, and in November with the reform, the proposal, and so on, it was always May 1. Now it is pushed back two weeks, to April 16, which is interesting to see. Were there some negotiations somewhere at one point? We are not aware of that. Is it because the Treasury Board believes that no matter when the budget is tabled, they will have sufficient time by April 16 as opposed to May 1?
It is intriguing a little bit. I have to admit that it is intriguing to see that they pushed that date back a bit.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
I'm keen to see them succeed. Obviously I would like to see a new main estimates that aligns with the budget tabled within a few days or a week of the budget. I think that would be laudable, and it would be a great improvement on what we currently have.
A missing piece in Canada versus what the Australians have is an expenditure review committee in the finance and budget preparation process. You've talked a little bit about aligning TBS and Finance's commitment to these goals and their ability to work together. What does Finance need to change in order for them to align the budget with the estimates process, rather than simply aligning the estimates with the budget process? Do we need to have an expenditure review committee, which would take a look at budgetary measures and their costs before a budget is actually tabled?
9:50 a.m.
Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
That's a great example. That would be an example of the two processes being integrated and working together. If the Department of Finance works closely with the Treasury Board Secretariat before the budget is prepared—an expenditure review committee would be a way of doing that—then the two processes are aligned. Then an integration can happen. Then you can align the budget and the main estimates.
If they were to do that type of process—it could be something similar or something slightly different—they wouldn't actually need to change the Standing Orders. If you had that integration within the government, you could make the alignment and then present both documents at the same time. They would be fully integrated.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
On the last little bit there, we could do that; is there any negative to having that happen between March 1 and April 16, which is the extra window the government is asking for, versus requiring them to do it before March 1, given historically what the budget timing is?
9:50 a.m.
Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Part of the implication of the process is that you will now have an interim estimate. Currently you have the main estimates and you vote on interim supply at the start of the year and it's roughly three-twelfths of that. Instead, because main estimates are going to be presented after the fiscal year starts, you're going to have to start with something else. That would be based on the expiring year's main estimates rather than the current year's. So there is a disadvantage in the sense that the funds being provided for the first three months of the year are not based on the spending for this current fiscal year.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Well, that might be a recommendation, to ask that interim supply be based on estimates for the current year rather than the previous year. That might be a good recommendation to make to Treasury Board.
9:50 a.m.
Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
You can't do that, because you're not going to present the main estimates until after the fiscal year has started.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Assuming that the documents that are tabled with interim supply are as you described them, there is no reason why we, as parliamentarians, couldn't require Treasury Board to prepare interim supply estimates based on projected future. They would have to do those calculations anyway, and then there would be no loss of information. You're assuming that information is lost here, but I don't think there is a requirement for any information that currently exists not to be presented to parliamentarians.
9:50 a.m.
Director, Economic and Fiscal Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
That's a good point. Again, with respect to incorporating the additional information, I think everyone would agree with you. That said, there is the reality check that under the current internal guidelines produced by the Treasury Board Secretariat, these interim estimates are actually locked down in December of the previous year. So if they are locked down in December of the previous year, then that, in effect, leaves you in a situation where there's simply not enough time—
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
I think the projections you make in December about next year's spending would be just as good as the projections you make in February.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Unfortunately, Mr. Whalen, we'll have to wrap it up.
Mr. McCauley, you have seven minutes. Go ahead, please.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Thanks again, gentlemen.
Without the improvement in our internal processes, we're not likely going to see—though it would be nice if we could—better alignment with the estimates, with the budget, by changing the date. Are there any negative consequences with going to April 16? Unless we have a big improvement in internal processes, we're not going to see any positive consequences out of this. What are the negative consequences?
9:55 a.m.
Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
There is, ironically enough, a positive to the current system. When preparing the tracking document, for which we took budget 2016 and tried to see where it appeared in the estimates, the irony of the current system is that the supplementary estimates provide a lot of detail. There are different lines and it is identified which budget something came from.
While there were some difficulties, it was possible, more or less, to make a table in which you could align the budget priorities with the estimates. Because of the way the main estimates are prepared, departments roll up all of their spending into programs, and they have a highlight section in which they may or may not provide financial information. So if the budget items were included in the main estimates, that is not transparent to Parliament. The irony is that you would lose a little bit of transparency in being able to see how those budget items are being approved by Parliament.