Treasury Board president still 'impatient' to fix how Parliament approves spending

One year after pledging to change the way Parliament reviews and approves government spending, Treasury Board President Scott Brison is still trying to fix the problem.

"It's totally irrational,"Brisonsaid this week, as he prepared once again to table a set of main estimates that won't reflect this year's budget.

"I have a sort of deep-seated understanding of the flaws of the current system."

• Nearly $3B approved for 2016-17 to go unspent: PBO
• Brisonsets out to stop the budget's March madness

Brison had hoped2016 would be the last yearthe government would table its main spending estimates for all departments and agencies due by March 1, according to Parliament's rules only to have some of itbecome outdateda few weeks later whenthe finance minister delivers the newbudget.

When MPs vote to approve spending estimates a formality that's necessary to grant the authority for the money to be spent they're voting on figures that represent the continuation of an outdatedstatus quo, instead of the latestdecisions.

The budget and the estimates don't even use the same accounting system.

"The current process is opaque. It's almost incomprehensible," Brison said.

But not everyonehas embraced his enthusiasm for change.

Brisondoesn't understand the reluctance. He believes the changes make it easier for MPs to hold the government to account and force ministers to"be at the top of their game" and defendtheir department's plans.

"I'm impatient because it's very muchthe right thing to do," he said."Sometimes inParliament there can be an obstructionist instinct that can shove out or shove aside a more constructive approach."

Out of sequence

If the budget came out in January or earlyFebruary, the estimates couldinclude budget measures and still meet theMarch 1 deadline.

Five years ago a Commons committee recommended an early, fixed budget date to resolve this.

But thegovernment didn't go for it.

This year'sbudget date hasn't even been announced. So the main estimates due this week (the Commons takes abreak next week) won't reflect the budget.

Supplementary estimates will betabled later andMPs will vote thento approve revisedamounts. Sometimes these votes are manymonthsafter programs wereannounced. Funds lapse because they can't get out the door on time.

Departments are trying to improve.

The first set of supplementary estimateslast spring includedtwo-thirds of the 2016 budget funding.

But 51measures weren't ready for approval until the second set of supplementary estimates seven months later.

A year ago,Brisonpointed to how things work in provinces like Ontario and countries like Australia, where processes are better aligned and spending is approved faster.

But his deputy minister, Yaprak Baltacioglu, told the government operations committee last October "it's a little soon for the whole machine to turn that way."

Stalled at committee

It's unclear why Brison'sdepartment waited until last fall to circulate a policy paper outliningconcreteproposalsfor reform.

As an interim step,Brisonsuggestedthat for at least two yearsthe standing orders of the House of Commons be changed to move the deadline for tabling the estimates back to May 1. That way, when committees called witnesses to review the estimates before voting in June, the figurescould reflect the budget.

But ministers can't change standing orders, only the House of Commons does. The proposal bogged down incommitteeand wasn't approved in time.

"We're working with opposition to get this right, and we have made some progress,"Brisonsaid, putting a positive spin on what unfolded at multiple, drawn-out committee appearances."The timing was the issue."

SomeMPs wanted to call witnesses, including parliamentary budget officerJean-DenisFrchette.

A PBO report last November suggested that based on how long it took for the Treasury Board to work through2016 budget measures, delaying the main estimates by eight weeks might not be enough.

Frchettesaid the2012 committee recommendation for a fixed budget date is a better idea.

"For me, it's the way to go," he said. Although it wasn't unanimous, it expressedwhat Parliament wants.

Changing standing orders is a "huge challenge," he said.

'Fundamental battle'

Brison's other reformsdon't require Parliament's permission.

Spending reports are changing. New reconciliation tables now make it easier for MPs to compare budget figures with spendingestimates.

But there's a fine balance between offering MPs more useful information and just ... more. Too much for any individual parliamentarian to digest without help, perhaps.

Some spending votes are being reorganized, to link up with programs.

Frchettesays MPs like thisidea. But if appropriations get too specific, it takes discretion away frompublic servants and cabinet ministers to movemoney around as needed.

"If you need parliamentary approval every time you want to shift money, it becomes a very heavy system," Frchette said, describing this as a "fundamental battle," since MPs are supposed to holdthe ultimate responsibility for spending taxpayers' money.

And then there's the possibility that if MPs know more about what they're voting on and don't like it, they might vote it down.

The precedents for this are few and far between, but it is possible. In 2003, MPsvoted their displeasure at a large increase in the governor general's budget, for example.

In reality, however, spending votes are confidence votes. If MPs feel frustrated reviewing the estimates, it might stem from their perceived inability to amend anything.

Can Brison's reforms really help then?

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating," Frchettesaid. "It's really still to be seen if it's going to be used by Parliament in a good way."