Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 466-480 of 572
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Government Operations committee  In terms of timing, we believe costs are negligible. It's simply a question of better sequencing the work in departments. In fact, by not having to produce spring supplementaries, which basically duplicate the main estimates, there would be very minor savings of some efforts.

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan

Government Operations committee  Thank you for your question. First of all, the process has to be simplified and made easier for the committees to understand. Overlaps between the estimates and supplementary estimates currently make the process more complicated than it ideally should be. Minister Brison mentioned it is important to adopt a better, results-based approach and to present figures more clearly so that resources are aligned with results.

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan

Government Operations committee  I think the PBO's role is very clear. He must work with MPs and the committee to make the process more comprehensible in order to answer the questions identified by members. Since last year, we have worked closely with the PBO to identify parliamentarians' problems and needs and to move ahead with our programs.

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan

Government Operations committee  Thank you, Mr. Grewal. You're absolutely right that the current process does not make much sense. It's very difficult to explain in its present sense. It's easier to describe what we want to do than how we're currently doing business. That's very much the reason we propose a four-pillar approach: get the timing right, and in getting the timing right, bring greater clarity on some of the other interests and needs of committees, including accounting and universe and the control structure through the vote framework.

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan

Government Operations committee  It's really a question of coherence and comprehension. Tabling main estimates last year in advance of the budget—everyone knew there was an important budget coming because of the platform commitments around infrastructure, environment, and aboriginals—made absolutely no sense. We put in front of Parliament a document that was of very little utility to committees.

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan

Government Operations committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. As presented, this is a four-pillar approach to estimates reform. We've just spent some time talking about the very critical element of timing. I'll quickly walk you through the three remaining pillars. Once we can fix the timing of the estimates, there are other sources of incoherence and coordination that must be addressed.

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan

Government Operations committee  I can tell you, Mr. Weir, that there is no intention to impact that in any way. The number of supply periods would remain the same. Supply days are negotiated by the government and opposition. There's no correlation here.

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan

Government Operations committee  This pilot project stems from a report that this committee prepared in 2012. Since then, we have worked with the department to prepare the pilot project. There was no particular training and there were no problems with the financial system. We simply had to identify the best example and work with the department to demonstrate the benefits of this approach.

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan

Government Operations committee  Thank you for your question. In 2015-2016, the Department of Transport had a single vote of approximately $600 million for grants. In this pilot project, we are working with the department to test the way votes are used for ports of entry and corridors, transportation infrastructure, and so on.

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan

Government Operations committee  That is correct. Consider the example of the nearly $600 million vote. In future, the department will be able to separate those resources and report results specific to each vote. Thus there will be one vote for corridors and another for transportation infrastructure. That will provide a more specific overview that focuses more on those programs.

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan

Government Operations committee  For the moment, this is a pilot project involving a single department. In the next phase, it will be extended to include other votes and especially other operating votes to gain a clearer understanding of the costs and benefits of this approach.

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan

Government Operations committee  Thank you, Mr. McCauley. What we have learned in looking at other jurisdictions is that they do introduce what we call “purpose-based” votes so that parliamentarians have a better sense of how the resources are supporting specific programs. In doing that, in moving from a single operating vote in a department to three, four, or five purpose-based votes, you're necessarily—

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan

Government Operations committee  It's not a question of oversight—

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan

Government Operations committee  For instance, in Quebec what they do with their supply bill is that they have purpose-based votes, but the supply bill allows departments to transfer up to 10% of funds between votes, and it's not done without full reporting by departments. There is transparency in the reporting.

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan

Government Operations committee  Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Whalen, for the question. Just to be clear, what we are proposing with this vision is not to eliminate supplementary estimates. It's to render the process more coherent and sequential, so that the main estimates tabled after the budget in fact reflect budget priorities.

October 24th, 2016Committee meeting

Brian Pagan