Government Operations Committee on Nov. 20th, 2014

[Bill Matthews]

Or even before, yes.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

—or even before then.

With regard to horizontal items, are they inherently more complicated to manage because they require coordination between departments and therefore it's more difficult to control expenditures?

[Bill Matthews]

They're not more complicated from a control perspective because we give each department their chunk of money. You may see partway through the year that departments will discuss it and say that they need to move money from department A to department B, and then they come back here for a transfer. We have many examples of that with Agriculture and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They move money between the two organizations to figure out who is best positioned to do something.

They're probably more complicated from a delivery perspective. They're more complex by their nature, and you have more coordination required. Some are like that. With others, every department is off just doing their little thing. If you think about the contaminated sites, National Defence is doing their remediation work and Parks Canada is doing theirs. That's not a coordinated project. With something like CRA and tax measures with Shared Services Canada, they're reliant on the IT services from Shared Services Canada, so you have to make sure that's all coordinated.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay.

With regard to the initiative around genomics research, for example, I count eight different departments doing genomics research: Agriculture and Agri-Food, Food Inspection Agency, Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Health, NRC, Natural Resources, Public Health Agency of Canada.

Operationally, are those departments actually working together, or do they get their separate allocations and then do their own siloed research?

[Bill Matthews]

There's discussion up front when they come forward with the initial proposal, so when they go to cabinet, to say who's doing what and how that fits together. Once that is done, now we're in the stage of departments getting their money and doing their thing. There is ongoing dialogue about whether we are getting results, etc. However, at this stage, it's very much that each department has a role to play; they'll spend their money.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

In the history of the estimates and appropriations, are horizontal items a new development?

[Bill Matthews]

They're not a new development; they're an increasing trend, for certain. The government has moved to things like Shared Services Canada, which is a shared services organization, so we have more horizontals. There are more of them, for sure.

It's also an area where parliamentarians have indicated they haven't been happy in the past with the level of information they were getting. They didn't see the horizontal initiatives, and they liked the idea of knowing that there was more than one department involved in this. It's something that we're providing additional disclosure on as well.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

You're saying it was done in the past; it wasn't necessarily reported and disclosed as a horizontal item.

[Bill Matthews]

That's correct.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Are there more—?

Oh, sorry.

[Marcia Santiago]

Sorry, I was just going to add that the challenge with horizontal types of initiatives is that some are more easily defined than others.

The way we present horizontal items in the supplementary estimates.... Our very specific and practical definition is that these are initiatives where all of these departments show up at the same time at Treasury Board for a very particular initiative. We can isolate them. There are these three departments for commercialization, or these nine for this instance of contaminated sites funding.

What's harder are the broader horizontal initiatives, big things like aboriginal programs or public security. Those kinds of things are much more complicated in terms of coordination and reporting to Parliament.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

What's driving the trend toward more horizontal items that you mentioned, Mr. Matthews?

[Bill Matthews]

There are two things I would highlight. One is just the nature of government and the projects it's undertaking. There are more partners involved. There is more collaboration. That's one thing.

The second, largely driven by some of the efficiencies that we're pursuing, is more centralization and common services organizations. Shared Services Canada is the best example I can give you of that.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Mr. Trottier.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. I'm sure this isn't Mr. Matthews' fault, but it's rather disappointing that we come to this meeting this morning to learn that unfortunately, we won't have him for the full two hours and that he will only be present for one hour, if I'm correct.

The opposition have plenty of questions to ask him. We would like to have had the opportunity to do so. We'd just like to make known our disappointment with that happening. There are very few good reasons to confirm that he will be here for the full time, and then unfortunately not be able to do that.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

That is not a point of order, but I certainly take note of your comment.

I have a question for you too, Mr. Matthews. Let me use my prerogative as Chair to ask my question. On page 10 of your presentation, under statutory expenditures, you mentioned the establishment of a Canadian securities regulation regime and a regulatory authority, in the amount of $115.8 million.

I would like to know why that expense is included under statutory expenditures when it is about establishing a securities regulator. As I understand the estimates process, that expenditure should have been in the voted items, not the statutory expenditures. Is there an explanation?

[Bill Matthews]

Thank you for that question. It is really interesting.

There are two things. First, this relates to payments being made to provinces directly, so it's $115.8 million and these are one-time payments. That's money which is flowing directly to the two provinces. Most of the dollars we flow directly to provinces are statutory in nature. It's right in the legislation, not all, but most.

If we were to ever get to a stage where we had a federal department—I'm being hypothetical here—that was a Canadian securities regulator, which is hard to imagine because that would likely be an arm's-length organization, you would see their operating dollars voted. But the nature of this initiative is that we are paying provinces here, and quite frequently we see legislation that is statutory in nature to flow those dollars. The Canada health transfer is a good example. That is just the background on this.

If there is ever a Canadian securities regulator established, or when it is established, I don't expect it would be a government department. I can't imagine how that would work. I would expect that would be an arm's-length organization from the government.

The reason your question is interesting is that operating dollars for government organizations are voted. I suspect that's why you were asking the question, but it's just the nature of these payments.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

That is why I asked you the question. You are telling me that these are transfers to the provinces. I understand that answer.

Mr. O'Connor, the floor is yours.

[Gordon O'Connor]

I have an indication here that this meeting goes to 10:45. I don't know who is talking about a shorter meeting. Are we having a shorter meeting?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Matthews is available until about 10:15 a.m. or 10:20 a.m. That is why the meeting cannot continue until 10:45 a.m.

[Gordon O'Connor]

Why did we—

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

We only found out this morning that Mr. Matthews would be available until about 10:15 a.m. That is why it says 10:45 a.m. on the notice of meeting.

[Bill Matthews]

Mr. Chair, if required, I can stay until 10:30 a.m. But that is the latest.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you for that offer.

Mr. Ravignat, do you have something to add on that point?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

It is just that we cannot work like that. The committee called Mr. Matthews for the entire duration of the meeting. So it is Mr. Matthews' responsibility to make himself available. This is a matter of parliamentary privilege.

The opposition is very disappointed to find this out at the last minute. It would have been more acceptable if we had known beforehand. We could have prepared ourselves accordingly. I also see come consternation among other members who cannot ask all the questions they would like to have asked either. I do not know why Mr. Matthews cannot stay until the end of the meeting, but there are very few good excuses for his agreeing to be here for the whole time and then leaving 30 minutes before the end.