Government Operations Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[Patrick Borbey]

And yet we have saved approximately $7 million. That is our contribution. This money has already been taken from our budget envelope. We achieved the savings by cutting expenditures as much as possible here and there, by saving on management services and by ensuring more effective use of technology.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

So in your opinion, there's nothing surprising in having the Treasury Board transfer several millions of dollars to these departments and agencies, and for this transfer not to result in any efficiency savings?

[Patrick Borbey]

I think that this will happen eventually, but within those departments. They will review the structure and adapt it. You must remember that salaries and benefits represent the vast majority of our expenditures. We did not want this to become a way of cutting staff. We wanted to ensure that there would be the salaries and benefits for transferred employees.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

We are talking about efficiency savings. Yet, after the major staff cuts that occurred in 1996-97 to the entire public service, the goal of which was to cut approximately 15,000 positions, we now see, 10 years later, that more than 15,000 positions we recreated.

Is the reaction of the Privy Council one of surprise or concern?

[Patrick Borbey]

I don't have access to that information. I apologize.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

No problem.

[Patrick Borbey]

Perhaps you could ask official representatives of the Treasury Board Secretariat this question.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Right.

To come back to the transfers, there is no expectation that there will be a cut. Nor do you expect that this will cost any more, correct? The danger may be that the organization receiving the transfer will then say that the transfer did not include x and y. Let's suppose, to illustrate my point, that we were talking about a $9 million transfer. This $9 million would not be sufficient. Those individuals might, in reality, need $12 million. You don't expect the organizations that received transfers to do this. Once we have conducted the follow-up and seen how the situation has evolved, over the next few years, within the organizations, there should be no surprises with regard to the figure I see here, correct?

[Patrick Borbey]

I hope not. After all, we're talking about small amounts. As you said yourself, in the major departments, it should be easy to absorb a dozen or some 30 such employees. We expect them to do this. This could also lead to internal efficiency savings.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

On page 227 of the English copy of the Supplementary Estimates, under "Voted Appropriations", reference is made to the commission of inquiry into the investigation of the bombing of Air India. Mention is also made of an amount for $6,268,000 under "Operating budget carry forward (horizontal item)".

Could you briefly tell me what this refers to?

[Patrick Borbey]

It is a Treasury Board policy that allows all departments automatically to carry forward 5 per cent of their operating budget.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Oh, very well.

[Patrick Borbey]

In fact it is not quite automatic, since it must be voted on.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I understand. So this includes the carry forward. This is quite telling.

Under "Funds Available", an amount of $780,000 for "2005 Expenditure Review Committee Savings—Procurement".

What does this refer to?

[Patrick Borbey]

The budget reduction exercise that took place two years ago included various measures to ensure savings in the area of procurement. All departments were given a quota. This represents our quota. It is based on the analysis done regarding procurement and contracts within the department.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Does the amount of $5,333,000 under "2006 Expenditure Restraint" correspond to the fiscal year that just ended?

[Patrick Borbey]

These are savings associated with the change in size of Cabinet and the available resources for the establishment of ministers' offices.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

With regard to your obligations, meaning the commission of inquiry on Air India and the commission of inquiry on the Arar affair, savings, transfer payments and so forth, could you explain to me once again to ensure that I have understood correctly, how is it that your total is $149 million rather than $146 million? We're talking about $3 million more than anticipated.

[Patrick Borbey]

There is an increase of approximately $13.5 million related to the commission of inquiry on Air India. There is another increase that corresponds to funds carried forward from last year in the amount of approximately $6.3 million. There was a slight increase of approximately $2.7 million related to the commission of inquiry on the Arar affair. We then need to deduct the $13.4 million transferred to other departments, amounts will then be reflected in the supplementary estimates of those departments. There was an amount of $5.3 million related to budget cuts to ministers' offices. Finally, an amount of $800,000 represents procurement savings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Ms. Thibault.

We will go to Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

The library has prepared an excellent paper with some questions that we can refer to you, and some of them deal with the Federal Accountability Act. The act is very extensive. It's a very long bill dealing with a whole range of issues that affect elected officials, members of the public service, and lobbyists.

My question is, what plans are made by the Privy Council Office—or perhaps directives to other ministries—to brief members of the public service, elected officials, and others affected by the Accountability Act? Or are there any at this stage? The reason I raise this is that you briefly referred in your presentation to the Accountability Act. I can only assume that the cost to the Privy Council Office will go up somewhat because of the Accountability Act.

[Patrick Borbey]

Maybe I can address the cost first, and then I'll ask Maître Roy to address the issues relevant to the Federal Accountability Act. That's really his domain.

In terms of the costs, we have not yet established the additional costs. There may be some minor costs associated, for example, once the public appointments commission is established or the secretariat is formally established. There's a small cost associated with that. But those costs should be very minimal for PCO.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I threw the question out. It may be that you just haven't gotten to that yet, and I understand that. It's just that I assume that, somewhere down the line, we'll all have to be briefed on some of these issues, particularly members of the public service. The act will have a profound effect on members of the public service.

[Yvan Roy, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Legislation and House Planning and Machinery of Government, and Counsel to the Clerk, Privy Council Office]

As far as a communications plan following passage is concerned, Mr. Tilson, if there is passage of Bill C-2—I know you will voting on Bill C-2 later today, and then it will go back to the Senate—then once passed, it is clear that there will be a large effort in terms of communications so that the whole of the public service is aware of the obligations.

PCO does not have a direct role in directing how these communications will take place. It is the part of the government that is responsible for the employment of public servants that has that responsibility, and that happens to be Treasury Board Secretariat, together with what we call PSHRMAC, the human resources group within Treasury Board. They have that responsibility and are in the process of putting that kind of communications package together, with the purpose of ensuring that everybody is aware of the new obligations that are created by Bill C-2.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

That really does lead, then, to a question that was prepared in the paper. It was whether the Federal Accountability Act alters the role of the PCO.