Government Operations Committee on March 22nd, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

So we're beginning with the 11th question today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Because on our side, we have only been able to ask one question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Unfortunately, if the minister had stayed for two hours, you would have had the rounds. If the witnesses stay for one hour....

[An hon. member]

No, we never did that before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

That is how the procedure has been. I'm not making it up as I'm going along. That's how it goes.

Is that true, clerk?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard]

Yes, you're following the orders written by the committee.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Chair, if you'll reference our last committee meeting, prior to Christmas, you'll notice that when the officials remain, we've just continued with the next in order. I think if you reference our previous behaviour in this committee, that's how we've always done it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

That is if they remain. But when we change witnesses, we come back to the same order again. That's normal. That has been our practice.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Maybe we could allocate the timeframes, then, so that we don't start a round unless all parties have the ability to engage in that round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

We could agree for the next time around that if the witnesses come again or if we have a break in the meeting, we continue on. If that's the will of the committee, we'll do that. We can reduce the number of minutes if you want, but at the moment, you're in the middle of questioning, and you will lose out otherwise.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Chair, these are points of order, so we know we won't lose out on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

That's fine.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I would suggest for the next round that we just allocate the remaining time we expect, then just allocate a specific amount for each party so that the parties--the NDP and us--are not left out again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You will not be left out. I'll discuss that with the clerk.

Thank you.

Continue, Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I will be asking one or two questions and I will share the rest of my time with Mr. Nadeau.

Please explain this to me. I put the question to the minister and I may not have expressed myself correctly. I have trouble understanding why, in the main estimates, $500 million is allocated for paylist requirements, which are the same amounts found in the 2009-2010 main estimates. However, in the supplementary estimates, the amount of $100 million is requested by the Treasury Board Secretariat. It states that this funding is for severance pay, vacation credits payable upon termination of employment, parental benefits and termination benefits for ministers' exempt staff. I would like you to explain what is meant by ministers' exempt staff.

Second, in the definition of vote 30 under Treasury Board, there is no mention of paylist requirements for ministers' exempt staff.

Are they usually included in vote 30? Those are my questions. Please help me understand.

[Michelle d'Auray]

The salaries of exempt staff belonging to ministers' officers are paid out of the departments' operating budgets. The budget allocated to a minister's office is funded by the operating budget.

You referred to compensation paid in the case of parental leave, among others. These people have the same entitlements as public servants, under the regulations and working conditions. When these payments are made, they come directly from the departments' operating budgets. The departments submit their request and we reimburse them under vote 30. This applies to all payments that come under vote 30.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

All right. If I have understood correctly, the amount provided for 2010-2011 in the main estimates should not be $500 million. There should be $100 million more.

[Michelle d'Auray]

For now, we have allocated the same amount for 2010-2011 as is allocated each year, that is, $500 million. If we see that there are more job terminations or people taking leave, then adjustments will have to be made as part of supplementary budgets. This amount has remained stable according to forecasts. If in coming years, we think we will have to spend more, then we will have to take that into account and adjust the vote. For now, we are leaving the amount at $500 million because we think that we will be able to function with that budget. If not, then we will request an adjustment, as we are doing today.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

You are asking us for a supplementary amount.

[Michelle d'Auray]

That's right. We will do so, if necessary, to fund statutory and parental leave as well as retirement. However, this depends on the requests made by the departments under the central vote.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon to all of you.

Earlier with the minister, we discussed the size of the federal public service. Now this question goes hand in hand with that of subcontracting. Subcontracting is not advantageous, in my opinion, because it costs more to pay subcontractors than to maintain a public service staff with permanent employees.

You say that the same amounts will be maintained in each department, but I would like to know how it will be possible to avoid losing staff without being forced to turn to subcontractors. This solution costs more than if we had kept our staff. It is completely illogical, in my opinion. Regardless of the party in power, this phenomenon occurs time and time again.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I would say that it depends on the type of activity. For example, for the implementation of the economic action plan, Service Canada, which reports to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, had to increase its staff fairly quickly, for the very reason that it had to meet the growing demand on the part of people who were unfortunately laid off and who wanted access to employment insurance benefits or training, as well as requests from employers who wanted access to transitional measures.This department succeeded in increasing its staff fairly quickly, but that was so it could cope with a fairly major increase in workload. Now it will have to begin reducing staff. It is possible to deal with these situations by hiring people who are not necessarily subcontractors, but who work on a contractual basis for a definite period.

In other circumstances, for example, when certain agencies were created, it was found to be more profitable to call on more contract workers than full-time employees. It allowed for greater flexibility in situations where the demand for and use of services fluctuated excessively. In some cases, we used the subcontractors because certain activity sectors were transferred. In such cases, service contracts were awarded and the costs were reduced as a result. Depending on the activity, the type of department, and fluctuations in use and requirements, we make adjustments according to specific situations.