Government Operations Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2009

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

You have no qualms about this whole situation. You've just asked us to approve $13 million more for approximately 3% additional requirements under the stimulus package, yet you're able to hold back for the RCMP as well as for the Public Service Alliance. I'm pointing out that this is difficult to do when we're looking at this.

I'd like to ask you a second question, and this goes to our public service health care plan. Do the moneys you're appropriating go at all for the pay direct card? You committed to implementation in 2008; we're nearing the end of 2009. I'm wondering where that is. And is it under your appropriations as well?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Before we leave any false impressions on the record, the Government of Canada, the taxpayer, is spending $735 million more on collective agreements. So to leave the impression with taxpayers that there is less money going into collective agreements and wages is wrong.

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

As you said in your remarks, you had an expenditure restraint act for responsible spending during the crisis—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Ms. Coady, that's it.

Mr. Minister, you can respond briefly.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

All I would say is that I think this was a very balanced approach to dealing with the public service. My colleague Mr. Martin indicated what the prior government did with the public service in 1995, not to mention what they did to the provinces. We think we've taken a balanced approach.

Do I have any qualms? One always has qualms about dealing with people's livelihood or delivering services. These are difficult decisions, and Canadians expect us to make those difficult decisions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Minister.

Monsieur Nadeau, cinq minutes, s'il vous plaît.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon to you, Mr. Minister, and to your colleagues.

There are two issues. First, there is the funding to increase the hiring of students within the public service. We know about the demographic situation, and the fact that the public service is being hit hard. It is not only the case with the federal public service, but also with other public services at provincial and municipal levels. Even in the private sector, head-hunters are actively searching for people to replace those who will be retiring.

We see $7 million in one place, and $4 million in another. However, overall, what efforts are currently being made in terms of recruitment? What kind of bridges are built between universities and the public service? What efforts are being made? Where are the funds being spent to recruit young people and create stable positions for them soon after having joined the public service?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I think you're asking a very good question. The Government of Canada recognizes that there are a lot of good, young, bright students out there. We want them to be interested in a career in the public service given that so many senior public servants are retiring.

When those senior public servants leave there will be all kinds of pressures on the public service, and we want to be in a position to respond to that. This is an issue that I've raised with my department, and my department is taking measures to ensure that we recruit some of these students on a more timely basis.

Perhaps Ms. d'Auray could respond to that.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you for the question. In the budget measures, an additional $20 million has been allocated to accelerate and increase the hiring of students within the public service. Those are the amounts you see here. Some departments may take more because this is an increase that goes beyond the number of students that these departments will normally hire. These amounts are allocated for that purpose.

We have launched several initiatives to facilitate the transition between university and the public service. We recruit on campuses. For instance, this year we held eight job and career fairs in universities. We do this in person and we also do a great deal electronically. We have transition programs, that is, we can have bridging and some programs allow for that. We also have programs with universities and with co-op programs so that students can come and work for us for four months and then bridge in after graduation if they are interested in working in the public service.

We are extremely aware of the situation. We have introduced and continue to introduce a number of measures to address this problem. As the minister has indicated, this is an issue that is a great concern to us. We want to ensure continuity in recruitment in order to take into account those very demographic pressures that affect the public service, like all other sectors of activity.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Given that so many public servants will be retiring soon, is there any economy of scale when it comes to salaries that would enable us to have a larger number of recruits in the public service? In other words, when someone retires, they are theoretically at the top of the salary scale whereas a new recruit starts at a lower salary. Is this economy of scale dedicated to recruitment or is it allocated elsewhere in the budget?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

Ms. Laurendeau.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Yes, there is some marginal saving there, but it really is marginal when you look at the figures. Since this is a system based on positions, we calculate an average per-employee cost. So since there are more senior employees leaving their position and being replaced by younger ones, the savings at any point in time, so to speak, are not captured in real terms, since we operate on average salaries between the minimum and the maximum.

In reality, you are right, there is a marginal saving there, but it remains in the operating funds since our estimates are based on averages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you. Merci.

Mr. Holder, you will be our last questioner.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I appreciate that you've saved the best for last, Madam Chair. Thank you. I'd also like to thank our guests for attending today.

In our most recent meeting, the procurement ombudsman stated that we parliamentarians don't always acknowledge the hard work of our public service. He stressed that, and I agree with him that the work of the public service is significant. I'd ask you officials to take back to your staff this committee's appreciation for the work you all do. I know I can speak for all members.

I was pleased to hear Mr. Martin, whom I'm growing quite fond of, acknowledging the success of the home renovation tax program. I was delighted to see that.

I wanted to clarify one thing. You suggested that there might be a couple of months left, Mr. Martin. Is it not considered spending until the end of February 2010? Am I wrong on that?

[Michelle d'Auray]

That's correct.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

So in fact—

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

All winter.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

So spending goes right through until the end of February. This is key. I thought I heard you say, Ms. d'Auray, that people will then say to folks that they have to submit and that they shouldn't forget to do it. I think that's important.

I'm new to this committee, and I'm particularly interested in this whole process of strategic review. This is the third year of our four-year review. When this is done—presumably next year is the fourth year of our four-year review—will it happen again? Is the intention that we do this all over again? Is it an ongoing process to take a quarter of these various departmental programs and review them?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Absolutely, Mr. Holder. It's not simply the $100 billion that we will be reviewing over the four years—the one coming up and the one that we're now in.

We believe this is something that should occur on an ongoing basis, whether the economy is strong or not. This is important to assure Canadians that their tax dollars are being used appropriately and that the programs the Government of Canada administers on their behalf are still aligned with their priorities. It is important for this to be done on an ongoing basis.

In the course of these strategic reviews, I hear over and over again from departments that this has been a good exercise in re-examining what they do on behalf of the people of Canada. I have found the response to be positive. Public servants, like any other Canadians, want to ensure that the government is getting the best value for its dollar. I see this as a permanent, ongoing function that will produce not only tax savings but also better programs aligned to the changing priorities of Canadians.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

So in this spirit of continuous improvement, which is what I've heard you say, while you review, if I've understood, the 5% of the lowest performing programs, that has some broader impact among all departments, not just those bottom 5%, as I call them.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Absolutely. Departments understand that while certain departments may be on the agenda in terms of those strategic reviews in any one given year, they are already looking at their own budgets to make sure they are ready for when strategic review comes to examine their books and their programs. So it's been very, very positive.

What I'm finding is that departments are making changes even before they come into strategic review, and that is a very encouraging sign, that the public servants themselves recognize the need to do this without being told on a top-down basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Very brief.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

As I thank our guests for attending, I have just a last question tied into strategic review. How do you define the lowest performing programs so that you can take those and assess them? How is that determined by a department?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It's not so much how I define it as how the departments define it. But there are certain criteria. For example, it includes why a program was initially established and if that purpose is still relevant in today's economy and today's society.

If we are assured that this is a program that still meets the goals of Canadian society, then we ask if we are spending the dollars effectively. So we look at these various criteria, and if it doesn't meet the goals of Canadians, if we're not doing it effectively, the departments then come to the conclusion themselves that this particular program is not working particularly well. They therefore bring it forward to strategic review. Treasury Board can then look at it to see whether that money should be reallocated inside the department, whether it should go back to general revenue or what other action should be taken in that respect. So it's a very encouraging and productive process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you very much.

Madam Coady.