Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 32 - Evidence - February 13, 2013
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 13, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:45 p.m. to study the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this evening we are continuing our study of the Main Estimates for the 2012-13 fiscal year, which has been referred to our committee.
[English]
We are pleased to welcome back officials from the Expenditure Management Sector of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Appearing this evening are our good friends Bill Matthews, Assistant Secretary; and Sally Thornton, Executive Director, both of whom have been helping us with estimates on a regular basis.
Before us are the Main Estimates, and there are other documents that are part of the financial reporting cycle. All of them are intended to help parliamentarians, both the House of Commons and the Senate, hold the government to account and understand what the government proposes to spend, why they are proposing to spend that amount of money and how they have spent the money. All of the documents that we will look at tonight will relate to that fiscal parliamentary financial cycle.
I will give the floor now to Mr. Matthews. Thank you very much for being here. We look forward to your remarks.
[Translation]
Bill Matthews, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Honourable senators, thank you for inviting us here to speak about the supply process. As you mentioned, Sally Thornton is here with me.
[English]
My plan this evening is to walk you through a presentation first, which you should have in front of you in both languages. Do we have that?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Matthews: Good. That will explain the Main Estimates and supply process. I will spend a fair amount of time on the parliamentary reporting process as well.
[Translation]
Then I will hand things over to my colleague, who will explain to you the information in the Main Estimates, using the Department of Agriculture as an example.
[English]
After that, it would give us pleasure to answer any questions you might have on the documents or the presentation.
If I could start you on slide 2, we have an overview of what we will be presenting tonight in terms of the slide presentation. I note that you have a mix of more experienced members here and new members, as well. I have structured the presentation for those who are new, so I apologize if some of this is old news for members who might have been here long enough to give the presentation themselves; I know some of you have been studying estimates for quite a while.
We will start with the parliamentary reporting and supply cycle. That is the page I will spend the most time on because it is important to understand how all these documents fit together and what time of year they show up. We will spend a bit of time on what it means to seek Parliament's approving the Appropriation Act itself, what votes are, the various supply periods, and the information in the estimates — and that is where we will touch on the other documents that you mentioned in your opening remarks. We will speak a bit about what the committees can do in terms of their powers around the estimates. Then it is always good to talk about interim supply, because that tends to cause confusion because it is a complicated process. I will end with a quick update on the study that the house committee had done on operations and estimates on parliamentary scrutiny of the estimates to give you an update, because I have provided updates to the committee in the past on their work.
Let us move to slide 3. There are a couple of things I will tell you about the parliamentary reporting cycle.
The first thing you should remember when you are considering studying the estimates is that there are documents that departments table in Parliament and there are also other documents that are useful but not tabled but which are made available; they are published on websites or issued in hard copy. It is important to understand how all these fit together.
Second, when you are thinking about the parliamentary reporting cycle, think about 21 months. The process starts with the federal budget, which is typically in February or March, before a new fiscal year starts, and ends with the production of the Public Accounts of Canada and the related Departmental Performance Reports. That is about a 21- month cycle. We have two fiscal years going at once. We think of a year as 12 months but the government reporting cycle is 21 months. It starts with the federal budget and, in my opinion, ends with the Public Accounts of Canada and the Departmental Performance Reports, which close the fiscal year. When looking at reports, there are a few questions you should ask yourself before you start to read.
First, is it a whole-of-government report, like the federal budget, or is it specific to a department? An example of a departmental report would be the Report on Plans and Priorities or the Departmental Performance Report, which each department issues. You need that context first.
Second, which year am I dealing with? We have reports for the current fiscal year, such as the Department of Finance's monthly online report called the ``Fiscal Monitor,'' which gives an update on the fiscal results of the government in a current year. We also have reports that relate to the previous year by the time they are tabled. For example, the Public Accounts of Canada are tabled in September-October for the year ending March 31. They look backwards to a year that has ended. Some reports are tabled for the upcoming fiscal year. The federal budget, which is typically in February or March, is for the upcoming fiscal year, as are the Main Estimates. You have to understand which fiscal year you are dealing with.
Third, are you dealing with a planning document or an actual document? We have documents like the budget or the Report on Plans and Priorities that indicate the plans for the upcoming year, while other documents deal with the actuals, such as the Public Accounts or Departmental Performance Reports. A basic construct of the federal government's financial reporting is that for every report where we issue a plan, we always follow it up with an actual document. The budget is a plan and the Public Accounts of Canada Volume I is where you find out how we actually did against the budget. Reports on Plans and Priorities are departmental planning documents, which we follow up with Departmental Performance Reports that show how the department did. Each time there is a planning document there is eventually an actuals document.
We will have to touch on accrual and cash accounting, which this committee loves. We have documents on an accrual basis, such as the budget and Public Accounts of Canada Volume I, and we have documents on a near cash basis, such as the Main Estimates — what the department will actually spend. The same basic premise follows: If we issue a document for planning purposes on an accrual basis, the companion piece with the actuals is always issued on the same basis. For example, the budget and Public Accounts of Canada Volume I are both on a full accrual basis and the Main Estimates and PAC Volume II are on a near cash basis. The planning documents and actuals documents are always issued on the same basis of accounting. You do not need to be an expert in accounting to understand that concept.
For this lovely diagram on page three, I will start on the left-hand side, January to March 26 in terms of the reports that we issue. I am starting there because we issue reports during that time frame that are for the upcoming fiscal year. I mentioned that when I think about the government's fiscal year, I think about 21 months. That January to March period is typically when you will see the budget presentation as well as the tabling of the Main Estimates. I believe most senators are aware that legally speaking Main Estimates must be tabled before March 1 to allow Parliament some time to study the estimates before we get to interim supply. During that time period as well, you will see departmental Reports on Plans and Priorities and interim supply, which I mentioned — Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates (C). You will see a mix between current fiscal year items in Supplementary Estimates (C) and documents that relate to the upcoming fiscal year, such as the budget and the Main Estimates. There is a mix in there.
We then start the fiscal year on April 1. I mentioned that the Main Estimates must be legally tabled on or before March 1. For your reference, there is no legal requirement to table a budget. We can have a budget at any time or not at all. However, the Main Estimates must be legally tabled on or before March 1 to allow the supply process to take place. The first supply period during the year, April 1 to June 23, is when you will typically see the tabling of the first supplementary estimates. There is no legal requirement to have supplementary estimates. If you have been around long enough, you will know that we have had some years where we have had two supplementary estimates or three. It is on an as-required basis. If we need supplementary estimates early in the year, they would be Supplementary Estimates (A), April 1 to June 23. We will speak later about the approval of Main Estimates and appropriations bills, which occur as well during this period.
September to December 10 is the second supply period. During that period, you will typically see the tabling of the Public Accounts of Canada that relate to the previous fiscal year ended March 31, tabling of the second supplementary estimates, Supplementary Estimates (B). In some previous years, that has been the first supplementary estimates but, generally speaking, it is the second one. That is usually our largest supplementary estimates for the year. If you are wondering about which ones are the biggest, it is usually the ones in the fall. The supplementary estimates in the spring that I spoke about a few minutes ago are typically for urgent or new budget items only. If we can, we hold off major items to Supplementary Estimates (B). I mentioned Departmental Performance Reports, which we will speak to later. They are typically tabled before each Parliament on the heels of the Public Accounts. During this time period, you will typically see the economic and fiscal update from the Department of Finance. There is no legal requirement to do that, but it is common practice, and the approval of the Supplementary Estimates (B) Appropriation Bill.
During the last supply period, January to March 26, you close out the old year and start the new year.
The bottom right-hand side of this slide contains a list of other key documents. These documents are not tabled in Parliament necessarily but may be useful to parliamentarians and to senators when they are studying the estimates. The first one I will highlight for you is the quarterly financial reports. These are not tabled in Parliament but are a legal requirement of the Financial Administration Act. Every department has to issue a quarterly financial report for the first three-quarters of the fiscal year. They are produced on their websites. They are interested in looking at estimates because they actually link back to the estimates. They will show you for each department the authorities they have with the Main Estimates and supplementary estimates, whatever has been processed to date, and their spending against those authorities. They will show it for the current year and the previous year. If you are wondering whether a department will spend all its money or how it is tracking versus the previous year, the quarterly financial reports are a great place to look. The quarterly report is a relatively new thing in the past two years with the legislation that updated the Financial Administration Act.
The monthly Fiscal Monitor is not departmental specific but is a Department of Finance publication that appears on their website. It shows the monthly financial results of the government. If you are looking for information on how the government as a whole is doing, the monthly Fiscal Monitor is a great place to look.
The annual Debt Management Strategy and the Debt Management Report are flagged for you because if you look at the estimates, you will see a significant amount of money on interest costs. If you are wondering about the debt of the government and the management strategy and how that is going, the Department of Finance's Debt Management Strategy is the place to look.
The last one is the annual Tax Expenditures and Evaluations Report. I mention that because tax expenditures are an alternative to government programs. A good example would be the Child Fitness Tax Credit. There could have been a government program to deliver that but instead, they offered a tax deduction. If we issued a government program, there would be information in the estimates on it. If they decided that a tax expenditure or credit is a better way to deliver that program or achieve that result, then no money is being spent. Instead, we are foregoing tax revenues. All of those are listed in the Annual Tax Expenditures Report. It is not the same as spending money. A policy choice was made to have a tax credit as opposed to a government program. If you are interested in annual tax expenditures, which are foregone revenues as opposed to government programs, it is an interesting report to look at.
I flagged that for you because I will update you at the end of this deck on the work of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which put some thought toward tax expenditures and how often they should be studied.
The Chair: Where is the report from?
Mr. Matthews: The report is from the Department of Finance.
On slide 4, we are into Parliament's approval and what we have to do to get the appropriations approved. This flows directly from the Financial Administration Act, which states that the government needs Parliament's authority in order to make payments. There are two ways to get Parliament's authority: either through specific legislation or an appropriation bill. When we are dealing with specific legislation, we end up with statutory authorities or payments. The best example I can give you is under Employment Insurance. There is a piece of legislation that says that qualified recipients will receive Employment Insurance benefits. There is no cap put on that money. That is a statutory expense. If Canadians are entitled to it, if they meet the requirements, they get a cheque.
When you think about the estimates, what we put in the estimates for those is the best estimate on what the government will spend, but there is no hard cap on that money; whatever is spent is spent. It is for information purposes only. That is the statutory authority.
Other examples we have listed are transfers to other levels of government like the Canada Health Transfer.
The second one is the Appropriation Act, which is why we are here for Main Estimates and supplementary estimates. That authority is for one fiscal year only, generally speaking. That is called a voted authority. If departments do not spend that money they need to come back to Parliament to get spending approval the next year because their spending authority is only good until March 31 and then we start all over again April 1.
I know this committee has had discussions around re-profiles and what those mean, and I am happy to explain those in more detail. The reason we have re-profiles is if a department does not spend its money. A good example would be our major restructure programs. It takes a long time to negotiate those deals. Departments have to plan for those and if it turns out the deal is not realized as quickly as they thought it would be, they still intend to spend the money, but just not in the fiscal year they originally thought, they have to come back and get Parliament's approval to spend that money.
From a parliamentary perspective, a dollar is a dollar. It does not matter if it has been re-profiled, you start the year fresh. Departments are asking for money, it does not matter if it has been approved in the previous fiscal year. That authority has expired and they have to start over and ask for that authority again.
Re-profiles come up in terms of explaining why there are amounts in estimates but, from a parliamentary perspective, a dollar is a dollar. A re-profile is no different from a new program; you start the year fresh on April 1.
Roughly two thirds of government spending flows from statutory payments and the other third is from appropriation acts. When you think about committees studying the estimates, they are really only studying and voting on about one third of government spending. The other two thirds were passed through existing legislation. The supply process is the one we use to get Parliament's authority through appropriation acts.
One thing often forgotten is we table estimates and supply documents to assist parliamentarians in studying the appropriation acts. It is the appropriation acts or the legislation that Parliament approves. Parliament does not approve the Main Estimates. Parliament approves the appropriation acts. The Main Estimates are simply there to help Parliament study the appropriation acts.
On slide 5 we give you some detail as to what an appropriation act looks like, also called a supply bill. There are two pieces to it. There is what is called the preamble, which is the total amount of funds and for which fiscal year. There are also some details on the amounts and purposes for which the funding can be spent. A department does not get carte blanche when they get some money and what they can spend it on. There are typically purposes attached to the amount.
You will have a list of the organizations and the votes for the schedules. The votes consist of the vote number itself and then wording that describes what the money can be spent on as well as the maximum amount of the vote. The key thing to remember when dealing with votes is that the figure is an ``up to'' amount. Departments are under no obligation to spend the full amount of the authority. It is absolutely okay to under spend. Departments do not need Parliament's authority to not spend. They need Parliament's authority to spend up to an amount.
If you think about this from a departmental perspective, they have to plan for the worst-case scenario. It is illegal for them to overspend their vote. If you are in charge of an infrastructure program and thinking about your Main Estimates and forecasting what you will spend, you have to forecast all of the deals that might get realized that fiscal year. If they all come to fruition, you have to have Parliament's authority to spend that money.
Inevitably they do not all occur, so then we are into lapses. It is often thought that lapsing is a bad thing, but you have to understand why a department lapses money. It could be because they were more efficient than they had been in previous years. It could be because projects were delayed. You have to understand the reasons for the lapses. A ``lapse'' means unspent money.
Slide 6 is important because it talks about the vote structure. The House of Commons committee on operations and estimates has spent some time thinking about what the vote structure is. I will talk about the current vote structure and we can talk later about potential changes to the vote structure.
The vote structure for most departments is pretty straightforward. We have capital expenditures, grants and contributions and operating. Those would be the basic three votes most departments would get.
If you are interested in understanding why a department might get a capital vote, we look at their regular spending of capital, so fixed assets of $5 million or more per year. If we are in that territory, we typically set up a separate capital vote.
It is the same concept for grants and contributions. If a department has programs that typically require $5 million or more per year, we will set up a separate vote for grants and contributions.
Operating is what is left over and that is the money required to actually to run the department. If you are dealing with a smaller organization that does not meet those $5 million thresholds, we have what is called a program vote. We lump those three things together into one vote. If you are dealing with not large amounts there is no point in having a separate vote for capital and a separate vote for operating. We lump them into what is called a program vote.
You will see departments will have one of two structures. They are either program votes or you will see the split between operating grants and contributions and capital. If you are wondering why a department does not have capital votes or a capital vote, it does not mean they do not have any equipment. It just means they do not regularly spend enough money to warrant a capital vote.
There are some other types of votes which we should highlight for you. Payments to Crown corporations are a separate vote. Treasury Board central votes are an important separate kind of vote. That is money that ends up being allocated out to departments.
The example we have for you there. I mentioned on the previous slide we have lapses. Treasury Board has central votes for what is called operating budget carry forward and capital budget carry forward. That means if a department does not spend all of its capital, they can roll over 20 per cent into the next fiscal year. The way we allocate that is through a Treasury Board central vote. That item still has to be voted on, but we have a capital budget carry forward which is 20 per cent and an operating budget carry forward which is 5 per cent. Those are just two examples of Treasury Board central votes.
We also have others that relate to pay and benefits because Treasury Board functions as the employer for the Government of Canada.
Once approved by Parliament, that becomes the conditions under which the spending can be made. There is absolutely no commitment to spend an entire amount, it is just a maximum.
Slide 7 provides a bit of history for you. If you are really a history buff, Ms. Thornton brought along a very old version of the estimates, which stems from 1889. Some of you have seen these before, but if you are curious to take a look at what the Estimates looked like in the past, we can pass those around.
If you are curious about the three supply periods April 1 to June 23, September to December 10 and January to March 26, those come from standing orders. They are not set by Treasury Board Secretariat. Those are standards that have existed since 1968.
Under those same standing orders Parliament votes on supply bills the last opposition day in each period so we know which days we will have the supply votes. If the house approves the supply bill it goes on to the Senate and then to the Governor General for Royal Assent. If you think about that process for a moment, the government cannot spend money on April 1 unless it has had some sort of approval from Parliament and the Senate and Royal Assent to spend money. We have to get the new year started in the old year. If the supply bill is defeated it is a matter of confidence. It would be cause for a general election.
On slide 8 we have the information to assist in the consideration of an appropriation act. I have already mentioned the estimates themselves.
When most people think of estimates they think of the blue books. That is what Ms. Thornton has just held up. That is only one part of it. The other piece is the reports on plans and priorities. For the beginning of the fiscal year, to really understand the true estimates package, you need the Main Estimates plus the reports on plans and priorities. That is a lot of paper to get through. It is really a matter, to be practical, of picking and choosing which departments you want to look at, might be interested in, and taking a close look at their report on plans and priorities.
We mentioned during the fiscal year we have Supplementary Estimates (A), (B) and (C). At the end of the fiscal year you have departmental performance reports. If you are wondering about how a department did in terms of spending or achieving its objectives, the departmental performance reports are a great place to look.
On slide 9, the Main Estimates, I think most of you are familiar with this, but there are three parts of the Main Estimates. I have touched on this already, but Part I, the upfront piece of the Main Estimates, is the overview of the government's projected expenditures at a high level. Part II is important because it directly supports the schedules in the Appropriation Act.
In the Main Estimates you will actually see details by department as well as voted and statutory. Then at the end of the document you will see a draft of the Appropriation Act that will be submitted for approval. Part III, as I have mentioned, are the RPPs and DPRs. They become important for actually studying a department in detail.
We are frequently asked why we need supplementary estimates. The OGGO study I have mentioned spent a lot of time talking about the link between the budget and the Main Estimates and there was some frustration to be honest. Why can there not be better links between the budget and the Main Estimates? The issue is timing.
If you think about the process to develop the Main Estimates, in the Main Estimates we put in any spending proposal that has had Treasury Board approval — it has been through the cabinet process and was covered in a previous budget. Roughly around early January we have cut that off. We go into production mode on Main Estimates, but no new items go in the Main Estimates after early January. If you think about the budget, it is typically tabled February or March. Because of budget secrecy, we do not know what is in the budget, so if a department gets new money in a budget and is in a rush to spend it, we have Supplementary Estimates (A) so they can come in fairly quickly with new spending ideas that were not developed in time for the Main Estimates. If they can wait for Supplementary Estimates (B), we make them wait. We have examples on this slide of cases where we have come in for supplementary estimates because the proposals and spending ideas were not sufficiently developed for inclusion in the Main Estimates. It is not unplanned spending; it is purely a timing issue.
Slide 10, the committee review of the estimates. Upon tabling, the estimates are referred to various standing committees. The standing committees can do a few things: review each item and then vote to approve, reduce or negative, which is code for not approving a vote. Committees have no authority to increase the amount of a vote or to transfer it to another vote. The options are approve, reduce or negative.
The committees report back, and where committees do not report back they are deemed to have been reported back. If there is no report from a committee, there is the deeming rule where silence means no objection. They are deemed to have reported back.
On the last opposition day of the supply period, a vote takes place, and that eventually becomes authority for the departments to spend money.
Slide 11 is interim supply. This is where we get into the challenge of departments cannot spend money on April 1 without Parliament's approval. We need something in place before April 1. We can get around that. The Main Estimates is a thick document and is tabled on or before March 1, but we do want to give Parliament — the House of Commons and the Senate — time to study the estimates before they are asked to vote in full. To manage this, we table the Main Estimates. Reports on Plans and Priorities follow shortly after, and then we table appropriation legislation called interim supply.
Interim supply recognizes that Parliament has not had sufficient time to study all the estimates. It says departments need authority to spend money on April 1, and they need about three months' worth of money — April, May, June. By the end of June, when the house rises, it is expected that the various committees would have had time to study the estimates and that the appropriation bills will be approved. The interim supply default is three twelfths of their spending — April, May, June. For most departments we take whatever is three twelfths of the Main Estimates. That goes into the interim supply bill, and the theory is it is enough to get departments through until the end of June waiting for the House of Commons and the Senate to have passed the various appropriation bills and do full supply.
That is how we allow departments to spend money on April 1. Interim supply needs to be passed before any new money can be spent in the fiscal year, so it has to be passed before March 31. If a department has a very unusual spending profile where they might need more than three twelfths of their money early in the year, they can ask for more. Our default is three twelfths, and if we do not hear anything, that is what they get. That is how we deal with interim supply.
The last opposition day of the supply period ends March 26, and that gives us time to get everything in order for the start of the new fiscal year.
I will give you an update on the recommendations stemming from the House of Commons committee that looked at parliamentary scrutiny of the estimates. I have mentioned this work to the committee before. There were 16 recommendations in total. Six were directed at the government and the other 10 were directed at House of Commons procedure, standing committees, those kinds of things, but I will speak to the ones directed at the government.
The first thing they asked the government to do was finish its study of accrual appropriations. You may recall that the idea of whether appropriations should be a cash-based or accrual-based concept has been around for a number of years. The government adopted accrual accounting for the budget and for its financial statements in 2003, and there was some push by the Auditor General to actually extend those concepts to appropriations. The pros and cons were cash is easily understood. People understand cash; you do not need to be an accountant. The con was it would be nice if all our documents were on the same basis of accounting. If financial statements are on the accrual basis of accounting, maybe the estimates should be too.
The committee did not say which they would prefer. They just said please finish your study and get back by March 31 on what your go-forward action is. The government has committed to finish its study by March 31, and that was always the intent. It was really just reconfirming the idea of finishing the study on accrual appropriations.
The second recommendation was a really interesting one, this notion of how Parliament votes money to departments. I mentioned that right now it is capital, operating, and grants and contributions. The committee felt that some sort of model based on programs would be more appropriate, and they asked the government to actually consider a program-based model. Most people are familiar with government programs. That is how they think of departments. The government did not commit one way or the other. They responded they would get back to the committee by March 31 with an implementation plan. This would be difficult and potentially costly to do, so they wanted to understand that. The government can get back to the committee with an implementation plan by March 31, as well as an estimate of the costs to undertake this.
Next I will speak to Recommendation 4, and that relates to information in the Reports on Plans and Priorities. The committee felt that the Reports on Plans and Priorities of each department would be more useful if it had a three-year history of spending and three years of future plan spending. The government agreed with that recommendation, so in future Reports on Plans and Priorities, you will see three years of history and three future years of spending.
The committee also felt that Reports on Plans and Priorities would be more useful if they contained explanations of changes in those spending profiles in the future or significant variances against actuals. Where a department planned on spending a certain amount of money and spent much less, they wanted to know why. The government has agreed that RPPs will explain variances in plan spending or changes in plan spending and significant variances against actual spending. If a department is lapsing money significantly, you will get a better sense of why that is.
The next recommendation I will speak to is this link between budgets and Main Estimates. The government committed that the first time a new program shows up in the estimates it will publish in the estimates documents a link to the budget so it will be clear which budget that money came from. The first time you see a new program in future estimates documents, it will be clear which budget the money came from. The reason for this is because it could be from a budget two years ago that contained the initiative. That will help the linkage issue.
The last one, the one I am most excited about, is a searchable online database. These are paper documents, and to really understand what is going on in departments you need to know what authorities they have, what their spending has been in previous years, what they have spent in the current year, what their future spending plans are, and the thought was this would be much easier with an online database that is searchable, not just an online document but a document you can search on.
Senator De Bané: Will it have hyperlinks?
Mr. Matthews: Yes, it will, and away you go. The government has committed to putting its plan in place — to give a sense of how long that might take — by March 31. The government did agree with the notion of an online database, and the plan will be available by March 31.
That is the end of what I want to cover, and I will turn to Ms. Thornton to talk about agriculture.
Sally Thornton, Executive Director, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Honourable senators, Mr. Matthews talked about the Main Estimates and supplementary estimates. I will use agriculture by way of an example and give a sense of what you see in the Main Estimates and then compare it to supplementary estimates, and I would like to use Supplementary Estimates (B) from this current year. I do not know if any of you have that.
I will start with the supplementary estimates because in time you will see, before you come up to the mains, but also the irony as well, supplementary estimates are requests for smaller amounts of funding. They can be as small as $1 billion, often $4 billion, compared to $90 billion in the mains. There is much more detail in the supplementary estimates than there is in the Main Estimates about the incremental spending being requested in year.
In the Supplementary Estimates (B), the agriculture example — page 32 in the English and page 53 in the French — will give you a sense of what you see in the supplementary estimates and also our codes.
The Chair: Sorry, Ms. Thornton. We have another Supplementary Estimates (B) here if someone does not have one.
Ms. Thornton: I have one I can pass out. We are on page 53 in the French copy and page 32 in the English. I want to walk you through so you can understand some of the codes and things to help clarify.
First, the supplementary estimates start with the ministry summary, and that is what you are seeing in the first page. It is by portfolio, and that includes all the organizations related to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
You see in the left-hand column the vote in terms of dollars, and there are the numbers. As Mr. Matthews explained, vote 1 is typically for operating and vote 5 for capital grants and contributions, but the number is a reference. What is important is the description beside the vote, because vote numbering is not consistent throughout organizations. Therefore, always read the descriptor beside the vote number.
You will notice in this instance that vote 1 has a small ``b'' beside it. That means there is a change in either the vote wording or amount in the supplementary estimates. Otherwise it would just be ``1.'' If there had been a change in Supplementary Estimates (A) you will see A, and in C you see C. You know which supplementary estimates is bringing that change through.
In the last Supplementary Estimates (B), there was a change. You go to the columns to find out what happened. Your first column is ``authorities to date'' and that shows you what that organization had received in Main Estimates, plus any adjustments prior to this supplementary estimates. In this case, it would have been the Main Estimates plus Supplementary Estimates (A). In this specific example, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is looking at a transfer and there is a dollar adjustment and new total estimates.
I would like to focus a bit on vote 5.
The Chair: Can you explain the ``b'' again?
Ms. Thornton: This is Supplementary Estimates (B).
The Chair: And 20b is the number; what does that mean? We know this is Supplementary Estimates (B).
Ms. Thornton: If there is no change in these supplementary estimates, it would be 1 and there would be ``a,'' ``b,'' ``c,'' which means there is no change in that vote in these supplementary estimates. In this instance there is a change and that is a ``b.''
The Chair: You said a change was made in Supplementary Estimates (A)?
Ms. Thornton: Had there been a change in Supplementary Estimates (A) —
The Chair: This transfer is taking place here now.
Ms. Thornton: In the last Supplementary Estimates (B).
Senator Callbeck: I want to clarify this. Are the numbers on the left explained in the document anywhere as to what they mean?
Ms. Thornton: Immediately under the department, it has ``. . . when the operating expenditures and pursuant. . .'' That is the vote wording you will actually see in the bill.
Senator Callbeck: If anybody picks up this document —
Senator Moore: Is there an index explaining what they are?
Senator Callbeck: With 1b and 5b.
Ms. Thornton: There is not a separate index. This is the index to the ministry portfolio. The 1b is their operating expenditures.
Senator Callbeck: How does anybody know that?
Ms. Thornton: In that instance, you have to actually read the vote wording to understand what that vote is. The vote numbering is for ease of reference and there is no consistency. You need to read the vote wording.
Senator Callbeck: Why is there not an explanation? Someone who picks this document up and really wants to know about the department, the first thing they see are all these figures on the left. They have no clue what they represent.
The Chair: For the department, typically, vote 1 would be operating.
Ms. Thornton: Vote 1 is operating and vote 5 is capital or grants and contribution.
The Chair: Over on page 33, you have 20b because you are into a sub department.
Ms. Thornton: That is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
The Chair: That is a sub department of the overall department.
Ms. Thornton: This is why the numbers are not that helpful; the numbers are based on the portfolio. The lead department begins with one but if there are other organizations within that portfolio, the numbers are sequential. That is why the Canadian Food Inspection Agency begins at 20.
The numbers are not helpful. We put them there because that is how they are referred to in the legislation. It is the vote that is your control factor, and those are the amounts for those votes. However, you have to read the text to understand what that vote is.
Senator Moore: Using that 1b and the figures, we have ``authorities to date,'' $697 million, and so on. Then there are transfers and adjustments, and then there is a new total that includes both the transfers and adjustments. Where do the transfer and adjustment monies come from and when?
Ms. Thornton: Your ``authorities to date'' was the Main Estimates at the beginning of the year, plus Supplementary Estimates (A), which preceded this. Then the transfers and adjustments are things being requested in these supplementary estimates. You are still on the summary page, so if you want the detail, you actually go in this instance to page 34 — so two pages after — which explains the requirements.
Remember that first page is just a summary, and then two pages later you have the explanation of requirements. In this instance, you have the details for vote 1, vote 5 and vote 10. For vote 1 you will see the total adjustments requested were $8 million, and here you see the four items that comprise that $8 million. That explains at a fair level of detail what they were looking for in terms of which programs they were looking for additional funds.
On that same page, under the explanation of requirements —
Senator Moore: Do you just round it up?
Ms. Thornton: We do.
I will bring your attention to the vote 10 requirements because that is more interesting in that you have the breakdown for what is required for vote 10 and that totals ``gross voted appropriations.'' However, underneath that you have a line that says ``funds available.'' I am on page 34 — two pages after — in the explanation of requirements.
You have the total being requested in vote 10, but then you have a section called ``funds available.'' As you may recall, throughout the year, organizations acknowledge or recognize they will not be spending certain monies. We make a point of offsetting that so we do not keep asking for more and more; we offset it by monies we know will not be spent that year. We ask for less.
The overall need for vote 10 was $217 million, less $10 million of available funds for a total of $206 million. The common question is: ``What is it they are not spending money on? We approved this money in the past, so why do they have this money left?''
If you go to the bottom of page 34, you have the explanation of funds available. That gives you where those funds are coming from and why they were not spent this year. They are simply offsets, and that is for your information only.
That is working through the numbers. However, there were a few codes I wanted to ensure you were aware of. I will go back to the first page, which was 32, the ministry summary. Again, we start with the vote number and if it is a voted appropriation, it does have a number attached to it. However, you will also see a number of items that have an ``s'' in brackets. Those are statutory items and here for your information. They are not being voted on but they are to give you a broader context.
There is not an example in the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, but periodically in that wording, you will see text underlined. That means that is something for which we are seeking a change; we are amending the wording and underlined text is your giveaway. Frequently that is associated with a $1 item, as are transfers and changes.
What is a $1 item? You will see, for example, on vote 5 in their capital expenditures, there is a $1 dollar item in the adjustments. In supplementary estimates, a dollar value must be attached to put something in the bill because you have to be able to reduce, negative or approve. There has to be a dollar value. However, when there is no money being requested, we simply put $1 to it so that there is something to vote on in the bill. We talked about it being the cost of admission to the bill. You see that for transfers, where money is being moved from one vote to another vote but no money. You see that for wording changes or authority changes or grants, where no new money is being requested but something else is being voted on. That is typical for the dollar items.
The other thing I would like to flag for you on this is in the adjustments column, down near the bottom in the statutory section, where there is a number in brackets. The brackets mean that the money is being taken out — it is a reduction. We simply subtract that number. Sometimes you will see a bracket in one organization when a transfer is going to another organization, for example from Agriculture and Agri-Food to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The brackets mean it is being transferred out or subracted from one.
That is some of the basic coding that I can help you with. The ministry summary on the first page flags the major changes, which you see in terms of adjustments. If you want the detail, you have to move forward a couple of pages to find the explanation of requirements that actually spells out what is being done.
The Chair: Can you explain 1b operating expenditures on page 32 under ``Ministry Summary'' where we see both transfers and adjustments. At 5b capital expenditures you have a transfer and not the adjustment; but you put in $1. Can you explain why there is $1? There are transfers in each of these instances, but in one you do not need the dollar.
Ms. Thornton: Absolutely. In vote 1b, there is a transfer of funds. There is new money coming in from the fiscal framework. There is actually an increase of $8.5 million.
The Chair: Is that the adjustment?
Ms. Thornton: That is the adjustment. That will be in the bill because there is a dollar figure attached. You will be authorizing an increase of that amount.
The Chair: There is also a transfer?
Ms. Thornton: Yes. They all add up and net out to the adjustment amount.
The Chair: Yes, to the total.
Ms. Thornton: In vote 5b, there is simply a transfer. There are no new funds. This is a zero. When we look at the explanation of requirements, we will find that the exact amount is being transferred from another organization or another vote; so no new dollars. We are asking for $1 simply to effect the transfer, but no new dollars. There has to be a dollar value attached. If there is no other value, we put it at $1.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Moore: I want to go back to that example you talked about regarding vote 10b on page 32. I looked at the numbers and found a transfer in of $206 million. The total then becomes $632 million. Moving to the bottom of page 34 for an explanation of that item and funds available, vote 10, how does that relate? I do not see those figures on page 32.
Ms. Thornton: The $1 transfer was related to vote 5. The 10b grant listed in this estimate is a new grant. You may find that on page 34 in the column entitled ``Vote 10'' and see requests for new funding. There are four.
Senator Moore: That gets us to $206. I am okay there.
Ms. Thornton: Okay. It is $216 less the offsets — other monies in that vote that are not being spent — coming to $206. We are at different decimal points, but that is the amount you see in the adjustments column on page 53.
Senator Moore: What about the little note at the bottom — the vote 10 explanation? Am I missing something? I do not understand that.
Ms. Thornton: No, not at all. These are minus funds available. We found $10 million already in that vote that is not being spent by that organization. They are not asking for this, but we are telling them that $10 million was available within the vote due to savings identified as part of the Budget 2012 spending review, a reallocation of contributions and a reduction to contributions to fund statutory payment.
Senator Moore: There is $10 million, plus $600 million, plus $70 million totals the $680 million. That is where it shows up. Thank you.
The Chair: A number of senators have had general questions which were important as you were presenting. Will your presentation continue or do you want to go to questions now?
Ms. Thornton: I am happy to take questions. I wanted to give you a sense of what is in the Main Estimates as well, but Mr. Matthews did that basically. You have the departmental summaries by vote and highlights that give you all the increases and decreases for a net amount and then the strategic outline. That was it.
The Chair: Let us go to questions. If some of those questions illustrate to you that you might want to go to the Main Estimates and give us a bit more explanation on that, it would be helpful.
Senator Buth: My first question should be fairly straightforward. Where do I find departmental Reports on Plans and Priorities?
Mr. Matthews: There are two places: You can go on the specific department's website to find it there or I believe you can go to the website of Treasury Board of Canada to find the whole list.
Ms. Thornton: This year, they usually come out shortly after the Main Estimates.
Senator Buth: My second question is on something that Mr. Matthews said. You made a comment in terms of re- profiling. I refer to a comment made by Department of National Defence when we were going through one of the estimates. They said that they re-profiled money from capital to operating. I assume that is a legitimate procedure.
Mr. Matthews: Yes.
Senator Buth: They then made the comment that for capital projects that cover many years, such as infrastructure and buildings, they do not need to come back to Parliament for approval.
Mr. Matthews: There are two things to talk about here. I will try to be as simple as I can.
Re-profile is an important word to understand why a department is coming back. Senators may remember that if it seems they are approving the same money two years in a row, it is because of re-profile. Let us make up a fictitious example. National Defence comes in and wants money for a new building for 2014-15. It shows up in Supplementary Estimates (A) and, guess what, plans get delayed and they do not spend it. That money expires. They still have absolutely every intention of coming back for a new building. We get to 2015-16 and it shows up again because they need Parliament to vote on that money again. Parliament has basically now voted twice on the same piece of money because their authority to spend that money expires each March 31.
There is a link to the capital budget carry forwards that I mentioned. If a department needs money to spend, they have to come back to Parliament again. When they are explaining why they are back again, they might say this is a re- profile. This was actually planned last year. We have already been here once, but we have to come back again. That is piece one.
A re-profile, from a voting perspective, has no standing whatsoever. A dollar is a dollar, it expires March 31, but a department may use the word ``re-profile'' to say, look, here is why it is back again. If they have shifted requirements from capital to operating they are still coming back to Parliament to get that money approved. It is in the vote. That is why it is there.
The second bit about multi-year spending, DND is a bit different in that they have a significant capital budget, a complex procurement and things tend to get delayed. As you know, they are complex projects. Whatever National Defence needs, like any other department, they have to come to Parliament every year for their spending that fiscal year. From a parliamentary perspective, multi-year projects are meaningless because what every department needs is your approval to spend that money this year.
If you think about a $1 billion project and they will spend $500 million this year, they need Parliament's approval for the $500 million but they do not need Parliament's approval for the $1 billion until the next year comes up.
Multi-year projects do not line up well with an annual appropriation system because they are coming for approval to spend money this fiscal year.
Senator Gerstein: If I may, sir, the question, as I understood it, was why DND was able to transfer approved capital expenditure in the budget and move it to cover an operating deficit.
The Chair: In the same year.
Senator Gerstein: In the same year.
Senator Chaput: Very good question.
Mr. Matthews: They can do that with Parliament's approval. What you are dealing with is a vote transfer. Again, let us say there was money in their capital vote in Main Estimates and Parliament approved the Appropriation Act and they came along in Supplementary Estimates (B) — again, I am making this up — and said we will not spend that money on capital, we will spend it on operating, that would have shown up as a transfer. It is a transfer between votes, and Parliament votes on that.
When you see transfers, it is in the Appropriation Act.
The Chair: It might have even been a $1 item.
Mr. Matthews: Yes. To move money between votes, you need Parliament's authority.
Senator Buth: That is what they were doing, then. They were showing the re-profiling. The comment was made that they did not have to come back for approval of the capital money that they had transferred over, but that is not the case. They must come back for spending in the following year.
Mr. Matthews: If they want to move that money into operating, whether it was new money or money from another vote, that would have been in the Appropriation Act and they need Parliament's approval to do a vote transfer.
Senator Buth: Even DND?
Mr. Matthews: Even DND. Here is the complex part of the explanation: DND is managed on a different basis than other departments. This is an internal structure I need to speak about now.
For most departments it is straightforward; they have capital. Put on your Minister of Finance hat. You are very interested in managing the bottom line. National Defence has acquisitions of assets, and if you think back to the period of time where they were investing significantly in military assets, it will have an impact on the bottom line for years to come and will be depreciating tanks and planes.
When you buy a plane this year or next year, the depreciation on that plane hits the bottom line for the next 20 or 30 years. It is the same with trucks and ships.
The way Finance and central agencies manage National Defence is on a different basis. They basically say to DND, we need to know what your cash requirements are this year, how much you will spend, like any other department, but we also want to manage you because we need to understand the depreciation impact in future years. If you go buy a bunch of equipment this year we will be paying for that for the next 20 or 25 years through depreciation. Finance likes to understand the ongoing profile of that spending. DND has additional hurdles to go through.
The other thing I will mention about DND, just before I close off, is I mentioned the capital budget carry forward where departments can carry forward 20 per cent of their unspent capital. If you think about National Defence, that is a large amount of money. The Department the Finance would have a tough time managing the bottom line if National Defence was carrying forward 20 per cent every year. That 20 per cent does not apply to National Defence. It is just too big a number.
The Chair: They have some carry forward?
Mr. Matthews: They have some, but not 20 per cent.
The Chair: It is 5 per cent?
Mr. Matthews: That is right.
Senator Moore: In relation to that transfer example is it shown as $1 or is it the actual amount?
Ms. Thornton: In that instance it would depend on whether there was any other dollar value attached to the bulk being transferred. The dollar has to be attached to the vote in the bill. If there were any other dollar changes to that vote in the bill we would not have to have a dollar value. We would not have to have $1.
Senator Moore: You would not know?
Ms. Thornton: You would in the explanation of requirements, yes. You have to.
Mr. Matthews: The key is to look at the explanation of requirements to understand what is going on. The basic premise is money cannot be moved between votes without Parliament's authority.
The Chair: We were somewhat confused because that was the understanding we had. However, National Defence, when they were here, I guess we were not asking the questions in the way they would understand, so there was some confusion left. They promised to get back to us, and we look forward to their response in due course, then we may be back to you.
Senator Buth: Treasury Board central votes, that is just Treasury Board voting? That does not come to Parliament.
Mr. Matthews: No, it comes to Parliament when it is allocated out to departments. Treasury Board central votes, and Ms. Thornton could dig out the full list, is money we hold, Treasury Board has it centrally but it does not spend. We allocate it out to departments. When it is allocated from the Treasury Board central vote out to a department, it is a vote transfer and comes here like anything else.
Ms. Thornton: It is not quite ``like anything else.''
Mr. Matthews: Thank you, Ms. Thornton.
Ms. Thornton: What happens is, at the beginning of the year through the Main Estimates, we come and ask for monies to be put in the Treasury Board central votes. They are cleared depending on the vote wording and that is approved by Parliament.
We report, for information purposes, on the disbursement. The approval is up front in the Main Estimates, and the understanding is explicit that we will be disbursing it. We report at each supplementary estimates period on those allocations we have put out. That is one of the reasons the numbers never look the same, because you have Main Estimates of departments and then throughout the year we are giving them allocations from central votes, as needed. They are reported on in every Main Estimates, but for information.
Senator Buth: Are they reported on in the department that receives the money in addition to Treasury Board?
Ms. Thornton: They usually show up in the quarterly financial reports of those organizations, which is why it can be so hard to map the numbers.
The Chair: The quarterly financial reports we have only had for a couple of years. Before that where were they?
Ms. Thornton: Before that they would have been in their subsequent Main Estimates, basically.
The Chair: The way they still are?
Ms. Thornton: Yes.
Senator De Bané: On slide 3 we have the list of key documents. Those documents are not tabled in Parliament. With the parliamentary association we may travel abroad. The first thing we do when we come back is table a report, et cetera.
Here we are talking about documents like revenues foregone that can be $10 billion, $20 billion or $30 billion. You say they do not have to be tabled. What is the rationale behind why such important information like the monitoring of the cash, treasury, et cetera, every month, does not have to be tabled? Every day I see all sorts of documents tabled which, of course, are not of equal importance. What is the rationale behind that?
Mr. Matthews: The quarterly financial reports and the monthly Fiscal Monitor are not tabled, that is correct. I believe the other two are tabled. I will have to confirm that, but I believe the debt management strategy and the tax expenditure report are tabled.
The rationale for the quarterly financial report in the Fiscal Monitor was around timeliness. It takes time to get something tabled.
I will start with the Fiscal Monitor. There are actually bond-rating agencies that rate the government's debt. The government has made promises to release this information on a timely basis as soon as possible after month end. By releasing it on the Internet, on the website, the Department of Finance can release that information more quickly. Therefore, that is a timeliness issue.
Quarterly financial reports are the same issue: We wanted to give parliamentarians information to help them in assessing the estimates, but they are not actually studying the quarterly financial reports. It is another tool available to parliamentarians, but Parliament does not approve them.
Publishing them on the Web is a more efficient way to make the data available. For those who are interested, it is there, but there is no legal requirement for our committee to look at that information; it is just additional information available for its use. The logic is around timeliness.
Senator De Bané: I think that I would like to make a suggestion to you to look at the list of documents required by the two houses that should be tabled to be in the archives, et cetera. I think your documents are so central that they have a lot more importance. That does not prevent you, of course, from publishing them on the Web, but they should be.
Mr. Matthews, tell me about the first supply period from April 1 to June 23. That is to cover what period?
Mr. Matthews: That covers two things. The committees are looking at two documents there. One is the Main Estimates, which is to cover the entire fiscal year. When you see interim supply — which is the previous piece — and then what is called full supply. That is the balance to get Main Estimates funding to departments for the entire fiscal year. Supplementary Estimates (A) is for any new items. Again, it is to cover money to be spent during the fiscal year.
Just because something is approved during the April to June 23 period, it is money that is available for the whole fiscal year. The Main Estimates is the department's estimate of what it needs for the entire fiscal year, and Supplementary Estimates (A) would add to that. However, that money is available for the whole fiscal year; it does not lapse on June 23.
Senator De Bané: Okay. In order to understand the Supplementary Estimates (B), (C) and (D), depending on circumstances, we need to have the estimates — first blue book — because by themselves they are just modifications, adjustments and increases to another document.
Mr. Matthews: I am not sure I would agree with that.
There are two pieces here. The Main Estimates contain information that is existing spending. As Ms. Thornton mentioned, there is more detail in the supplementary estimates. When you look at a supplementary estimates document, you see what the department has already approved for authorities before those estimates; you have a starting point. If you are thinking about Supplementary Estimates (B), the starting point for each department is what it had approved in the Main Estimates, plus what it had in Supplementary Estimates (A), and then you focus on the new spending.
If you are interested about the history of the department's spending lapses and things like that, yes, you would need more information. However, to actually study what is in the Supplementary Estimates (B) and what new approvals are being requested there, that document stands alone. There is also more detail in the supplementary estimates to help you study that.
To understand the department, you absolutely need other documents; I do not dispute that at all.
Senator De Bané: You are bringing new expenditures that have to be done because of all sorts of circumstances; I understand that. To have the whole picture, you need the first volume, too. Maybe this is where the idea of the House of Commons to have hyperlinks to jump from one to another will be helpful.
Mr. Matthews: To get the full picture of a department, you would need to look at reports on plans and priorities, Main Estimates and, yes, that online database would absolutely make that easier.
Senator De Bané: The last point I would like to make is that I will be reaching the conclusion of my membership mandate in the Senate in a few months. I must tell you that after many years in both houses I am still unable to understand all that system, maybe because I am not very smart. I suspect sometimes that the people at Treasury Board and Finance must ask, ``How many of those members of Parliament understand the system that we have put in place?'' You must have an idea also of how few of us do.
The Chair: That was our idea and concept for having this meeting.
Senator De Bané: After over 40 years here, I am not sure that I know.
Mr. Matthews: If I may, the House of Commons committee that studied Parliament scrutiny of the estimates, a lack of understanding was the reason for their study. They did not feel like they understood what they were voting on, so you are not alone.
The other thing I will say is that this stuff typically does not stay with people. You might understand it tonight and when we are back in a month and a half, it is square one. You are not alone. That is all I will say.
The Chair: You will forgive us, then, if we ask the same question in a month and a half from now?
Senator Gerstein had a supplementary question.
Senator Gerstein: I am another sure it is a supplementary question; it is a question following on that of Senator De Bané.
The Chair: We will call that a supplementary question.
Senator Gerstein: I apologize. I am behind Senator De Bané and I am still caught up in the supplementary to the supplementary of the supplementary. I apologize for the simplicity of this question.
Ten tanks were purchased for $10 million to be delivered in fiscal 2013 and you have $100 million in capital. Let us assume there were 10 tanks to be delivered in 2014 for $100 million. We are now in 2013 and there is a $50 million deficit in the operations of DND. Therefore, we delay five tanks until 2014 and we take $50 million from the $100, apply it to the deficit and it is even.
However, we now have $150 million that we have to spend on the tanks in fiscal 2014. However, as I understand it, we have approval for $100. What do they have to get approval for?
Mr. Matthews: We will speak about the whole process. That is a very good question — not that the others were not good questions.
You start with the budget and the cabinet process and getting to Treasury Board. Presumably, at some point, National Defence, through a budget, got authority to buy new tanks. The process starts in the budget. It got through cabinet and Treasury Board and now we are at this stage. It is entirely possible for that to happen; they could move money to fund a deficit in operating from capital, if there was a delay in the capital.
Senator Gerstein: Do they have to get approval?
Mr. Matthews: They would have to come here to get approval. It is a vote transfer, so they are moving money from capital to operating, so they would need parliamentary approval. They would also likely have to talk to the folks at the Department of Finance Canada, because they have now created an obligation that has a different timeline on it than initially intended.
Senator Gerstein: Exactly.
Mr. Matthews: The Minister of Finance as the person managing the bottom line of government, if I may, would want to say, ``Yes, I am okay with that.'' Therefore, there is a discussion with central agencies, as well. Before the other got here to do the vote transfer, there would have been a discussion to say, ``Here is our new profile on spending; are you okay with that, Finance?'' That is the conceptual illustration of what would happen.
Senator Gerstein: My memory is not as good as it used to be but I must say that is not what I understood.
Mr. Matthews: This is where it gets back to my point about how National Defence is managed in a special way where we want to understand the long-term impacts of their decisions. However, if it were any other department, that is exactly what would happen.
The Chair: Could I ask a supplementary to his supplementary question? The $100 million each year is in the contract over two years of $200 million. Estimates come for the first year at $100 million. The contract has been signed for $200 million but Parliament, from the estimates, has not spoken on the second $100 million. Maybe we do not want to approve it. How do you guard against that?
Mr. Matthews: There has actually been a long discussion about it. It is one of the weaknesses of a single-year appropriation system in that you have multi-year commitments and funding voted in a single year. I am not a contracting expert, but most of our contracts actually have clauses that say ``subject to funding availability'' or something along those lines.
The Chair: That is very interesting. Thank you, Senator Gerstein, for asking that question.
Mr. Matthews: The department must pay the money when the goods are delivered. That is the beauty of the cash system. They are not on the hook to pay anything until the tank is actually delivered. That is the year they need the approval to spend money.
Senator McInnis: My difficulty was with capital, and I had that difficulty when the defence people were here. You have a capital budget and the capital budget is amortized over a period of time — 10, 20 years — and my difficulty is in operating, whether it is salaries or current fiscal expenditures, how do you take funds from capital and transfer it into operating?
Mr. Matthews: You are absolutely right, that changes the fiscal impact of the decisions because the $50 million on operating is a hit to the bottom line this fiscal year. The $50 million on capital would have been extended over a number of years depending on whether they were buying a tank or a ship. From a bookkeeping perspective or a financial forecasting perspective, we would change the forecasted financial results to reflect that. The profile of their spending has changed. We are now taking a $50-million hit on expenses this year, when the original plan was that that would be extended over a number of years.
Senator McInnis: That would have an effect on the bottom line of the budget.
Mr. Matthews: Yes.
Senator McInnis: In this instance that would be huge sums.
Mr. Matthews: That is why it is important, when as part of the process in going for a vote transfer there are discussions internally to say what that does to the financial forecast. There would be a discussion with Finance if the numbers were significant.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you for all the information. A lot of it is pretty confusing. On page 3 you talk about a lot of different documents. My understanding is the Reports on Plans and Priorities are not tabled and Departmental Performance Reports are not tabled.
Mr. Matthews: Those two are tabled, yes.
Senator Callbeck: They are tabled?
Mr. Matthews: They are available online but they are also tabled. The President of the Treasury Board tables those on behalf of other ministers.
Senator Callbeck: Do we get a copy of it?
Mr. Matthews: Yes, you do. I think last year they actually used USB sticks but there was a tabling in Parliament.
Senator Callbeck: They actually did that?
Mr. Matthews: They used an electronic tabling, but there was a tabling in Parliament.
Senator Callbeck: In other words, a tabling so you were aware that it was there.
Mr. Matthews: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: What documents are not tabled?
Mr. Matthews: The documents on this list that are not tabled would be the quarterly financial reports and the monthly Fiscal Monitor. Those are the two that would jump out that are not tabled. What I am not clear on, Mr. Chair, is the economic and fiscal update in the fall. I do not believe that is considered a tabling but I am not certain. There is certainly a lot of discussion around that document but I am not sure it is officially tabled.
The Chair: What about the annual tax expenditure report?
Mr. Matthews: I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that one is tabled.
Senator Callbeck: That is tabled. Do we actually get a paper copy of it?
Mr. Matthews: I believe so, yes. That is a Department of Finance publication and that is why I am not 100 per cent certain but I believe that is tabled.
Senator Callbeck: How long after the year end do we get that?
Mr. Matthews: I am not sure of the timing. My recollection is it is attached around the same time as that the Departmental Performance Reports are tabled, so I am guessing the fall would be when you are looking for that, but I am not certain.
Senator Callbeck: Does that give a lot of explanation? You mentioned the Child Fitness Credit. Would that tell us how many families are taking advantage of that?
Mr. Matthews: For the tax expenditures it would tell you the dollar amounts involved. I am not sure you would get a sense of how many families but you would certainly get a sense of the dollar amounts.
I must admit, if you are looking for a good explanation of that report, a representative from the Department of Finance would be a better witness than I would be on that report itself.
Senator Callbeck: Okay. When would we receive the Departmental Performance Reports? You say we get those at the end of year. Is that for the previous year?
Mr. Matthews: The Departmental Performance Reports you would receive roughly around October for the year ended the previous March 31. What you will find happening in the fall time frame is the Public Accounts of Canada will get tabled and then typically, right on their heels, Departmental Performance Reports.
Senator Callbeck: You said the estimates come out and then you get the Reports on Plans and Priorities. Would the estimates be based to a large extent on the plans and priorities?
Mr. Matthews: The Main Estimates and the Reports on Plans and Priorities definitely have a very strong link. There is a legal requirement to table the Main Estimates on or before March 1, and the Reports on Plans and Priorities we do as quickly as possible after that. There are no dates set in law, but the Reports on Plans and Priorities are clearly a key document to help parliamentarians understand the Main Estimates. They are tabled as quickly as possible after the Main Estimates.
Senator Callbeck: Okay. That is it for now, Mr. Chair.
Senator Chaput: My question is supplementary to Senator Callbeck's questions. My question had to do with the performance reports. You said they were tabled.
Mr. Matthews: Correct.
Senator Chaput: Are they required by each and every department?
Mr. Matthews: Yes, they are.
Senator Chaput: Is there a time limit for them to be tabled? What happens if you do not get the report?
Mr. Matthews: I cannot speak to whether there is a time limit.
Ms. Thornton: They come out in the fall, shortly after public accounts.
Mr. Matthews: I am not clear on whether there is a legal requirement. I do know every minister tables one. The President of the Treasury Board tables on behalf of other ministers, but I am not clear on whether there is a legal requirement.
Senator Chaput: Does that mean some departments might not table their report then?
Mr. Matthews: In theory, again, we would have to check that, but I am not aware of any ministers who have not tabled a report.
Senator Chaput: What is the impact of those reports? Are they being analyzed if they are good? What is the impact?
Mr. Matthews: There is no formal requirement for any committee to study those. It is another document that is made available and useful in terms of understanding a department's accomplishments. However, there is no scoring of those reports or there are no implications of those reports, it is just one more document that gets tabled for the information of parliamentarians. It is really just to tie back to the Report on Plans and Priorities.
Senator Chaput: I understand. Thank you.
The Chair: We get the public accounts delivered to us and we do have available to us the Departmental Performance Reports. Am I correct in my simplification of things thinking that the performance report is a report by the department against what its plans were for the year?
Mr. Matthews: Correct.
The Chair: The public accounts are just an account of what they spent, with no explanation as to what their plans were; is it just what they have done?
Mr. Matthews: Yes.
The Chair: From the point of view of the Main Estimates, we should be able to tie in the plans and priorities. Ms. Thornton, is that what you wanted to do earlier but we were so anxious to ask questions that we never got to that?
Ms. Thornton: I will just flag, in terms of the history, the Report on Plans and Priorities used to be a part of the Main Estimates.
The Chair: You still call it that?
Ms. Thornton: They are Part 3 of the estimates. In the Main Estimates there is Part 1, which is government-wide and talks about the statutory spending. Part 2 breaks down by each department at a summary level and talks about their overall spending and highlights. Part 3 is the Report on Plans and Priorities, which is produced by each organization, then followed 18 months later by the Departmental Performance Report that reports against that specific Report on Plans and Priorities. That is the history of the estimates family.
The Chair: Had it been your intention to take us into the Report on Plans and Priorities to show how this would be useful to us?
Ms. Thornton: It is really to let you know it is there. In the Main Estimates you may see changes to an organization and you might want to get more information on what is happening in that organization. You just quickly go to the Reports on Plans and Priorities. If you recall, you have three months to consider Main Estimates before you vote on full supply. We table Main Estimates by March 1. The Reports on Plans and Priorities come out after that and they have more detail on each organization. They talk about it in terms of strategic outcomes linked to actual results. You can drill down a great deal more with the individual departmental plans.
The Chair: I should be looking at things like targets, and that kind of thing, for the dollar figures that will help me tie it into the Main Estimates?
Ms. Thornton: Your dollar figures are in the Main Estimates, in your highest level in terms of what you are approving in the appropriation bill. If you want to understand what the organization is doing, the place to go is the Report on Plans and Priorities.
The Chair: It is words more than figures?
Ms. Thornton: It is, and the figures align. They are set out by strategic outcome and program alignment more than the traditional vote structure. You get more of a sense. As opposed to type of expenditure, Main Estimates is more about the type of expenditure operating capital. Reports on Plans and Priorities are on strategic outcome. They are results, so you can get a better sense qualitatively what it is they are actually doing.
Mr. Matthews: If you are interested in detail about departmental program activities, the Report on Plans and Priorities is the place to go. It gives an indication of how they measure or would like to measure the success of their programs so there are performance targets in there. They indicate how much money the department plans to spend in those programs. I want to flag that is an estimate. What a department is on the hook for from a spending perspective is not to violate the votes, capital, operating, grants and contributions. In here they have broken that down by programs. It is their best estimate of what they will spend on each program. They can move money between programs without parliamentary authority.
The Chair: I had difficulty going from a vote in the Main Estimates to going into these plans and priorities; that is, there is the vote. Let us have some explanation on it.
Mr. Matthews: It is a completely different slice.
The Chair: It would be nice if it were like that. Then you could get some further explanation on it.
Mr. Matthews: That is the issue the house committee studied. When they think of departments, they think of programs. They would like to vote money related to programs. This construct of capital, operating, grants and contributions was not meaningful to them because what they think of a department as related to their programs. It is a different roll up. It is tough to go between the two.
The Chair: Do you anticipate some significant changes once the government comes back with its response?
Mr. Matthews: The government has responded and its response is public. The government is on the hook by March 31 to indicate an implementation plan and what the costs might be. The cost to change the vote structure would be substantial. Every department's financial system would have to be changed. It is a question of is it worth changing the vote structure or can you get around this issue by simply furnishing additional information on programs?
The report of the committee has been sent back to the committee for further consideration after study. We will have to monitor that and see where it goes.
The Chair: I thought the government dateline for implementing was the accrual cash issue.
Mr. Matthews: It had that as well, you are correct, by March 31. Also on the vote issue, the government committed to providing an implementation plan — not saying whether they would do it, but just saying ``Here is what a plan would look like and here is what the cost would be.''
The Chair: The plan could be they are not going to do it?
Mr. Matthews: Or the plan could be that it will take five or six years and X amount of millions. The committee will then have to think about whether it is worth it.
The Chair: You will keep us informed as to developments there?
Mr. Matthews: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: My question is about the concepts of cash, accrual and these accounting changes. Your explanation left me a little confused. If we are looking at the Supplementary Estimates (B), we are talking about the cash method?
Mr. Matthews: That is cash-based accounting, yes.
Senator Bellemare: And accrual applies more to the budget?
Mr. Matthews: The Government of Canada's budget and financial statements.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: You mentioned the 16 recommendations that applied to government and that the study will be done by the end of March. On plans and priorities, where would they put a three-year history of the spending? When will that take effect?
Mr. Matthews: The fiscal year that is coming next, fiscal year 2013-14. The next set of Reports on Plans and Priorities that you see will have the three years.
The Chair: This has been a good class. I thank you very much.
The one other area to touch on briefly is warrants, not to go into detail but to describe to honourable senators what a warrant is and how that fits into this fiscal cycle.
Mr. Matthews: I will turn to my colleague because she is the warrant expert.
Ms. Thornton: Referring to Governor General's Special Warrants, there is a provision when Parliament is dissolved for the purposes of a general election and supply is required. That is, Parliament dissolves before they have approved supply. There is a provision for seeking authority for the government to spend money and it is called Governor General's Special Warrants.
First, Parliament must be dissolved for the purposes of an election, not for prorogation. It used to be prorogation but that was changed. It must be for the purposes of a general election. At that point ministers must review the spending and attest that they need a certain amount of dollars for business as usual — that is, nothing new — nothing exciting — and anything political or truly optional cannot be included. The ministers have to review their spending and attest that they need those dollars for whatever the period of time for the warrant. Warrants are typically 30 or 45 days, but there is no requirement.
At that point the President of Treasury Board must review all the monies available in the system — sometimes there are frozen allotments and Treasury Board central votes — and release any money possibly available for those purposes in the system. If, then, further monies are required, a Governor General's Special Warrant must be done. Basically, you put the minister's attestation together with the president's attestation stating there is no other money in the system and go to the Governor General, who will then authorize expenditures up to a certain amount for that period of time.
Traditionally, ironically, the very first warrant was pre-Confederation; it was 1865. It was for the purposes of arming militia for the Fenian raids and only for ``urgent'' purposes. In the 1890s it was expanded to cover the salaries of bureaucrats so that the business of government could continue. It is now for the normal business of government but nothing exceptional, nothing political, nothing that has been announced but not approved.
The Chair: That is what you mean by ``political,'' some new programs?
Ms. Thornton: Yes, something that hasn't been through Parliament and hasn't had that approval.
The Chair: That is an interesting but complicated area that we promised ourselves to look into at one time but never got there. The issue was with respect to prorogation and whether it was available during that period.
Ms. Thornton: It is no longer available for prorogation.
The Chair: Mr. Matthews and Ms. Thornton, thank you both for being here. It was an interesting evening and very helpful to us. You will probably find that when you come here on the Main Estimates and the supplementary estimates we will have no questions at all.
(The committee adjourned.)