Evidence of meeting #4 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michelle d'Auray  Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
Alister Smith  Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Welcome, everyone.

Welcome, Minister.

We have with us today Minister Day, and we will be reviewing supplementary estimates (C). Everybody knows that supplementary estimates (C) will pass tomorrow and that our deadline has passed, but we had to do this as a formality. Therefore, there will be leeway on the questioning.

We are also doing the main estimates. We had discussed, as a committee, that the main estimates will be discussed further when the RPP is out. So, Minister, we hope we can call you back then.

With that, Minister, I understand you have a few minutes of opening remarks. I'll give you the floor.

3:30 p.m.

Okanagan—Coquihalla B.C.

Conservative

Stockwell Day ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Friends and colleagues, it is an honour for me to be here today to discuss the expenditures of the Government of Canada.

I will just make a few opening remarks. I'm looking forward to your questions and your insights, and I'm sure your positive criticisms and guidance, as we move ahead.

One of the things that's interesting about responses to the budget, and I say this with some self-admission here, having also served in opposition, is that right after the budget comes out, many times--and I'm sure present audience excluded--the response from the opposition, and again I'm talking from painful experience, having been there, is that there is nothing in this budget. I just want to assure members...as you know, there is about $280 billion in this budget. Now there may be disagreement on how it gets spent and is dispensed, and I accept that, but I do think it's important to let Canadians know there is a lot of money in this budget. Some people may like that thought, some may not.

When it gets drilled down on the critics' side, someone will say, for instance, that there is nothing in the budget for seniors. There is actually $36 billion in the budget for seniors. People say there is nothing for agriculture. Just for the Department of Agriculture alone there is $2.9 billion.

So I think we can have agreement. Certainly there is a partisan nature to what we do, but I hope we all agree that there is a lot of taxpayers' hard-earned money that goes to running this government day to day, which is about $34 million a day just to keep the basic operations going.

I'd like to reflect on the fact that we hear concerns about a deficit, and quite rightly. This budget, as we indicated before it came out, was going to have the initial steps of a road map to get us back to a balanced budget. Just over two years ago, recognizing that we were moving into what has been seen largely as the worst global downturn probably since 1929, we said, “We're going to take on some deficit; we're going to intentionally, temporarily, go into debt so that we can provide some stimulus to the economy in this down time and in this downturn.” I'm sure there will always be debates on whether there was enough or whether it was too much, but this was an intentional move. We knew we would be moving into a deficit situation. We also said that at the end of this year that deficit spending will stop.

We now have a deficit, as you know from the figures, of about $53 billion. That means we're borrowing about $53 billion to complete all the spending to keep things moving day to day in government. And we have said we're going to get to a basically balanced position--almost all of that $53 billion taken care of--by the year 2014-15. People have said that's a gigantic and improbable--and some are saying impossible--task. It's a matter of how you break it down, and that's what this year's budget is about. First of all, we've sent the indicators, but you've seen many areas of increase in this particular budget. In the years following this budget, of course, the actual increase in spending itself is going to come to an end. We have debt charges that will continue to go up for a while.

With this budget and the numbers that are before you, people are quite rightly asking, how do you get rid of that $53 billion? Actually, we're trying to break it down into three large bite-sized pieces. The stimulus spending, which includes infrastructure, is about $19 billion. That's over at the end of this year.

If this glass of water represents let's say $50 billion plus.... Any time I round off a billion, please don't think I don't think a billion dollars isn't a lot of money. It's a pile of money. But for rounding purposes, if you look at this glass of water as representing about $50 billion plus worth of deficit, once we take out $19 billion, which will end this year, that part of the deficit right away in one year is going to shrink by about 40%. So for the purpose of illustration--and Paul is catching on--the deficit is going to go down about 40% just in one year along that pathway.

We also said we're going to put a lid on departmental spending. Departments spend about $54 billion, all added together, to run their operations. We've said there's going to be a lid on that $54 billion. The 2010-11 lid you have in front of you will continue for the next two years. Just doing that stops the increase we've been seeing in our budgets, which we take full responsibility for. Just by doing that, by the time we get to 2014-15, that's about a 37% reduction, which takes us down to about there.

The final portion of what we are going to be embarking on, and what we've been embarking on over the last three years, is strategic reviews of every department and agency. About a third of those come before the government each year. We say to the department heads that we want them to take responsibility for this, and we want them to find approximately 5% of their overall budget that they would classify as low priority, things that if they didn't get done...and we'd like to get it all done. We don't want people programs hurt, and we're not going to reduce the transfer payments to provinces. We're not going there, but we want them to help us find 5% in each department and agency. That, combined with what we think will be some upward movement on income revenues to the government, which basically means taxes without raising taxes, is the remaining approximately 23% or so. It will not be as easy as drinking a glass of water, but I wanted to show you the three main approaches we're taking to get there.

I know there has been some speculation as to whether we are being overly optimistic on the revenue side. In other words, are we really going to see an increase in economic activity that can help make up that remaining 23% to get rid of the deficit? I believe we will, obviously. We're already hearing from around the world signals about how this government has been handling its economic matters. The manager of the largest bond portfolio fund in the world out of the United States, Pacific Investment Management, a trillion dollar fund—a trillion takes a long time for my brain to compute—said not long ago that he's directing major institutional investors to Canada. A week ago, in a financial report, Russia said they want to strengthen their currency reserves by buying Canadian dollars. So already we're getting signals that internationally we're becoming more and more attractive on the investment side. Of course, when people invest in businesses here in Canada, that means more jobs, more people working, and more taxes without raising taxes.

The chair is giving me a signal. I will happily conclude my overview, and I'll look to you for your questions, direction, and insight.

Thank you.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Thank you, Minister.

I will start with the first round of questioning.

Ms. Coady, you have seven minutes.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Thank you very much.

I appreciate the minister coming here today. As the chair indicated earlier, this is the first step towards reviewing the main estimates as well as finalizing the supplementary estimates (C) review. We appreciate your taking the time to come here today.

Listening to your analogy of the glass of water, I thought of the Parliamentary Budget Officer when you were saying that. He's still thirsty, thinking there's a structural deficit and that we're going to have some time to work our way through that. I also note that you talked about taxes without actually raising taxes. I find that an interesting turn of phrase, especially having been a business person. We do see some tax increases throughout this budget.

I turn first to something this committee has actually studied, and this is concerning the departmental budget freeze. The main estimates show that this year the PCO will get just over $13 million over last year's budget, and that's for the Prime Minister and portfolio ministers' support and advice. I heard you in the House stating that this increase was for the upcoming G-8 and G-20 meetings. You used that as probably the foundation for having that increase. We do know that the G-8 and G-20 meetings will be over by this summer.

My question is very simple. It's a simple and direct question, and I'd like a succinct and direct response, if you can, knowing that I have only a few minutes. Will the PCO departmental budget be frozen at the 2009-10 level or at the inflated 2010-11 amount?

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Thank you for your request for being succinct. I will try to be. I'm just jotting this down here.

All budgets are going to be frozen at the 2010 levels. As I'm sure you're aware, that includes all spending. From year to year, PCO has any number of issues that they deal with. As I'm sure you're aware, it's not just the Prime Minister's Office; there are also four other departmental offices, or portions thereof, that get funded, and situations can cause that funding to increase. You already mentioned a couple of those: the G-8 and the G-20. One of the particular ministerial assists to the Prime Minister has significant travel implications related to his abilities, and that quite rightly requires some extra attention. There have been a number of issues that the PMO has had to engage Canadians on that required extra attention, extra dollars, extra resources.

When we say we're looking at a departmental freeze, keep in mind that if there are extraordinary situations that come along, that could result in a request for an increase. Basically we're saying it's frozen, but there could be extraordinary situations that would require an increase.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Thank you very much.

Just going back to that point, you said frozen at 2010.... For clarity, is that 2009-10 or 2010-11?

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Thanks for asking that. It's 2010-11.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

So it'll be frozen at this budget cycle.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

That's correct.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

With the increase retained in it.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

There will have to be allotments made to compensate for the fact that the G-8 and the G-20 had certain increases. If PCO is looking at an increase in their spending, they're going to have to put in a request to justify that, because just as there are certain increases related to the Olympics, we don't allow that simply to carry forward.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

That's why I sought clarity on that question, Mr. Minister. If you're going to freeze it to 2010-11, there actually is a $13 million plus increase in the PCO budget built in that year for those, as you've said, extraordinary circumstances. I note it in the supplementaries as well as in the main estimates. For example, in the main estimates there's an additional $78.5 million for activities related to the hosting of the 2010 G-8 summit in Muskoka, at Foreign Affairs. I noted that the 2009-10 supplementary estimates (C) included, I think it was, $179.4 million for funding, planning, and pre-event operations related to the policing and security of the 2010 G-8 and G-20 summits. I want some clarity around the fact that those are extraordinary circumstances, so you'll be going back to that pre-extraordinary event in order to ensure that you have no major increases in that area.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Yes. When a department comes forward, they have to justify or request what exactly their spending is for. If they had a certain element of spending that took place the year before, whether we're talking about G-8 or G-20, or whether we're talking about the Olympics, and they're justifying some added expense for that, the next year, if that event is not taking place, then there's going to have to be justification for all the remaining expense.

I just want to say I think you actually said “billion”.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

No, million.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

I think you recognize that it's millions that we're talking about here. When we talk about Privy Council for 2010-11, that's $143.9 million. I just want to clarify. I knew you meant million.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

I did say “million” actually.

I do want to go back to these extraordinary circumstances, because this budget is quite strong in suggesting that the department budget freeze is just that. It is a freeze for the next number of years at the current level. What you're telling me, then, is the freeze for the PCO will include the money that was for extraordinary circumstances and that other departments, if there are extraordinary circumstances, could make petition to you for that very circumstance.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

They could. We've indicated that. It's going to have to be pretty extraordinary, but you are correct. The budgets going forward for Privy Council are going to be net of those extra expenditures for the G-8 and the G-20. We're making ourselves clear on that to departments, including the Privy Council, coming forward.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Thank you for that. We'll probably come back to that whole notion for clarity.

I'm still on this budget freeze and some of the changes that you're doing, but I noted when you announced the 245 board job cuts, you also talked about 17 departments or agencies that will be identified to find 5% of spending that could be trimmed. Which departments? Has there been an analysis done, and what is the impact?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

I'll get you the actual list.

This isn't the first year we've done this. Last year there was about a third of departments and a number of agencies—I'll send you the list—and actual hard cash savings on that were $286 million to $287 million. That's money that's off the top, that's no longer being spent.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Siobhan Coady Liberal St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL

Which, at the time, was going to be reinvested.

I just want to give a specific incidence. Under the strategic savings, they were going to be reinvested in various programs. I'm thinking about science here. It was going to be reinvested. You were looking at the granting councils and you were doing a full analysis of those, and that money that was going to be saved was going to be reinvested in science. Are you saying that, for example, those types of strategic savings will now be cut?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Once a saving has been achieved, it will be left at that level; it won't be reinvested.

Our estimate for this year and for next year will be savings of about $1.3 billion. That's what we hope to see saved as we go through that strategic review.

Madam Chair, we'll send the list of agencies and departments that will be going through that exercise this year.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Thank you.

We go now to Madame Bourgeois for huit minutes. I was thinking that it was seven, but it's eight minutes.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Minister. Thank you for making yourself available for nearly two hours.

My first question is about the main estimates. Regarding salaries, departments and agencies need to be able to pay their employees. Of course, this also has to do with parental benefits, separation pay and other types of benefits.

However, the 2010-2011 main estimates contain exactly the same amount for salaries, mainly $500 million, as did the main estimates of 2009-2010. I would therefore like to know how the Treasury Board Secretariat determines the amount at vote 30.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

For clarification, if you look at your notice of meeting, the minister is here for only one hour.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Thank you for that clarification. I love the thought of spending two hours with you, but I was told it was one hour.