Finance Committee on March 29th, 2007

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You would effectively sit on the law societies' shoulders and look at all transactions over $7,500?

[Mark Potter]

We wouldn't directly do that. The law societies themselves would be self-regulating. But with the Department of Finance, we are looking at what sort of mechanism should be put in place via an MOU, let's say.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Law societies are not intelligence organizations. How would they know whether one transaction is of intelligence interest and another is not?

[Mark Potter]

It would be more a case of ensuring that some of the provisions in Bill C-25 related to client ID, to knowing your client--due diligence measures--are done. That is a requirement flowing from Bill C-25. That's a new element in the regime, and that's one of the key things they'd be looking at and auditing as law societies, to ensure that this is actually happening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

So what you're suggesting is that there isn't an effective mechanism in place at this present time to ensure that such a general requirement might be adhered to by a law society despite this bill. Is that what you're suggesting, that there's additional work required to make that effective?

[Yvon Carrière]

Provincial law societies now are well equipped to police their members, to verify what their members are up to. They do audits, as I'm sure the member knows.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

But money launderers are at least as well equipped not to be policed effectively, obviously.

I'll let Mr. Wallace go ahead. We shouldn't be interrupting his time.

Over to you, sir.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kindness.

I actually agree with Mr. Pacetti--I know, I'm not feeling well--in terms of more information when it comes to estimates, or “budgets”, as I like to call them. The book with the main estimates has been tabled--we all get it, or we all have access to it--and it actually has categories that everybody adheres to, strategic outcomes and program descriptions.

In my previous life as a city councillor, the departments would give us budgets. If there was a change, they would give us what that change was and what the potential outcome might be. It might all be included.

Now, I don't know the process here that well. I know it's from Treasury Board. You submit for Treasury Board approval and it ends up getting printed in here. Is it possible, from a timing perspective, that if you knew, for example, that you needed a new audio system and you were going to build that into your capital side...?

I also would like to see capital separated from operating. We don't do that here. I would prefer to see this so that a capital change doesn't necessarily increase staffing levels. And in actual fact, your staffing levels look like they're going down, based on the number you've provided.

At any rate, is there time for you as an organization to provide in your submissions to Treasury Board what the changes are going to be, with a brief description? As members of Parliament, when we're reviewing estimates, we could actually look it up and see, for instance, that part of the change was an audio system.

Could you explain to me the timing? Is that an actual possibility?

[Sylvie Mercier]

With respect to the audio system, we drew up a business case, and the monies were earmarked following a presentation made to Treasury Board. When we produce our main estimates report, we group the amounts that are part of our reference levels. There isn't necessarily a detailed description similar to the one you are suggesting, only a general one.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. That's what you submit that ends up in here.

[A witness]

Yes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Do you do the wording or does Treasury Board do the wording on the strategic outcome and the program activity sections?

[Pierre Gosselin]

We submit it, and Treasury Board may edit it.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

May edit it.

You could technically then, if you know you want more money for a particular item...and I'm not picking on you, you just happen to be here.

For example, last year there was another commissioner--not a department but a commissioner--who wanted another million dollars for staffing, but didn't really list in there that this was what it was for. I'm interested in having that available to us. We make the decisions; we have to approve these.

Could you as departments provide the information that could be included in the main estimates book that would indicate what the changes are, if they're major? Let's assume you have some major changes. Could you list what they are so members of Parliament could at least look at them, and even possibly question them before the actual estimates get here? Is it possible from a timing perspective?

[Sylvie Mercier]

The review of programs and activities is usually carried out in April and May. This information is used to prepare the main estimates. When we receive funds from Treasury Board, and reference level increases are specified, the program and activities description has already been submitted to Treasury Board. Therefore, it is impossible to add anything. If those people want to change procedures, I think they will have to put a request directly to Treasury Board.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I don't want to get into an argument about it, but when you submit that, is it in a format, when Treasury Board produces it for us, that shows that, yes, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal is asking for a 6% or 8% increase—I think it's 8% minus the 1.5%—and here is the change? Part of that change in your case was the...but in your case there were three other items. They're not listed in here as three items of change.

Is there time for you to do that when you make your submission?

[Mark Potter]

Yes. I think there's a bit of an unfortunate timing issue from the perspective of our report on plans and priorities, which is also a Treasury Board requirement. It has just been released or is being released and made public today. That contains considerably more detail on our business, on our budget, on planned and growing expenditures, where they are, and what performance results are associated with them. That's just available in the public domain today, so unfortunately I don't think you would have had the benefit of being able to see that.

There are other documents, such as our annual report that was released last fall, that contain comprehensive financial information, and our departmental performance report from last fall, so there are other documents we produce.

But I take your point. Certainly if we had been given some guidance in advance for additional information that was required, we would have been very happy to provide that.

[An hon. member]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Yes. I'm just going to offer some clarification.

I don't think what Mr. Wallace is asking for, and prior to him, Mr. Pacetti, is that the books be changed or the process be changed. That's not the role of our witnesses. What two committee members have asked for, and I would tend to agree, is this. They simply would like to see us copied on the degree of detail that is included in the Treasury Board submissions.

When do you make the Treasury Board submissions? Is it in February? Prior to coming here, certainly, right?

[Alfred Tsang, Assistant Director, Finance and Administration, Strategies and Partnerships Sector, Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada]

The due date of our submission to Treasury Board Secretariat is in the month of October.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

October? Way back.

So what you're really looking for is the detail that is included in those submissions.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I think that at the finance committee we could look at recommending to Treasury Board--I know they don't report to us--that they look at the opportunity, when they are producing this book, of having another section of description of change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

That's a separate topic for another day, certainly. You can raise that or—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I was just bringing it forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

That's good. You can do a notice of motion on that.

Mr. Pacetti has a point of order.