Government Operations Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

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

More witnesses are waiting. So we could give two and a half minutes to each party.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. You have two and a half minutes, and I will be ruthless, Madam Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I'm going to pick up on what some of my colleagues have been talking about. I like numbers. I like stats. If I understand this correctly, the operating freeze is $4.1 million in 2011-12 and $5.2 million 2012-13, and the attrition of 3,000 has nothing to do with the operating freeze.

I would ask that you table with this committee the numbers for the 950 retirements and 750 in attrition, what the technology is, and what the savings are going to be with regard to travel and conferences. I'd like to see those numbers and a real breakdown of where those savings are coming from.

The next thing I would ask is that you please table with the committee what the attrition rate has been at HRSDC over the last five years. I would also like to know how many of those positions were actually replaced.

Going forward, I will ask whether you are delaying the replacement of positions that become open through attrition.

[Ian Shugart]

Chair, we will endeavour to provide those numbers.

I have to say with respect to the first set of numbers—the 950 and the 750 that you referred to—that is, I believe, a forecast, what we anticipate. I will not be able to provide you with numbers on which of those will be replaced. That's a decision management has yet to make, but those are the numbers we forecast in consideration of attrition. I can give you the attrition rate over the previous years, and we can give you the ins and outs in hard numbers.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

If that's the forecast, what are the numbers associated with that?

[Ian Shugart]

We would only know whether in fact our forecast was absolutely accurate at the end of the fiscal year, but that is our current forecast. So I identified those numbers not as hard numbers but as what we anticipate to be the case, and that will give us some management flexibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm running a hard clock here, unfortunately.

Can those undertakings be fulfilled in a timely sort of way?

[Ian Shugart]

Yes, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Monsieur Vincent, go ahead for two and half minutes.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Shugart, you didn't answer the three questions I asked you earlier. I'll rephrase them so that I can get a response.

We know that, in the ridings—and my colleagues confirmed this for me—when people go to the passport or employment insurance office, which also takes care of passports, they are told to go to the MP's office. Is this a roundabout way of saving money and getting rid of positions? I don't see any other reasons.

[Ian Shugart]

Mr. Chair, passing the responsibility of meeting the needs of Canadians off to the offices of MPs is in no way our policy. Canadians have a number of ways—

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

You answered my question, and that's good, but people are not using the ways you mention. When they come to the employment insurance offices, they're told to go and see their MP. They aren't directed elsewhere. Go see the MP, that's the easiest. Could you talk to these people, so that you take more responsibility for these things and we have more time to spend on other services to the population.

You said that you want to save $4.1 million, but as I told you earlier, you are going to save $5 million. An amount totalling $59 million was spent on travel, hospitality and conference expenses. Don't you find that a huge amount? You want to save $5 million to get to $54 million. I don't see how it is relevant to cut positions when you've already managed to reach your goal of $4.1 million by cutting travel and hospitality expenses.

I would like to know if you are still going to reduce the number of employees or if you are going to keep employees to do the work that is currently being done by the offices of MPs.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Vincent.

You've got ten seconds if you wish to respond, Mr. Shugart.

[Ian Shugart]

I said that $5.2 million was planned for next year. Actually, it's $4.1 million for this year and $5.2 million for next year. I said it once and I'll say it again: the individual amounts, particularly for conferences and travel, are one element of our budget, but it is not an overall amount. There are still funds that need to be allocated to organizational operations. Employee spending is one specific element, but there are a number of others. It is up to us to manage the overall amounts in the context of our operations budget.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Merci, Mr. Shugart. That was a little bit more than ten seconds.

Mr. Calandra, two and a half minutes.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming. It's very interesting. It's shocking to learn today that the Liberals and the NDP don't support the stimulus package that we brought forward. I remember when the coalition was struck, this is what proposed finance minister, Jack Layton, had to say. He said the accord's proposed multi-billion dollar stimulus package for the economy was prompt, prudent, competent, and, most important, effective. That's what he said at the time when the coalition was striking. That was proposed finance minister Layton.

I recall that when the Liberals were in power, HRSDC, unfortunately, had the billion dollar dilemma, and I remember the AG at the time said that some 459 projects were in controversy and that the reporting was done really poorly. I suspect that if we found some of that money it would go a long way to helping you, or perhaps some of the $40 million that still is outstanding from the sponsorship scandal. That would certainly help us out a bit.

Let me ask you this. Can you meet the requirements the government has asked you to do to find spending efficiencies in your budget that will allow us to bring the entire government's budget back into balance? Can your department do that effectively over the time limits and with the constraints that we've given you?

[Ian Shugart]

We can do our part, because that is our obligation as public service managers, to use our reference levels for the benefit of Canadians and no more. We will work within that reference level, and we will do it to the very best of our ability to provide services in a timely fashion to Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have 30 seconds.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I just have a quick question.

Thank you very much. Coming from the Okanagan in the interior of British Columbia, I know we've been able to service rural areas more efficiently using technology. Can you just expand on how you're using technology to ensure that the service levels are maintained?

[Ian Shugart]

We have, Chair, been on a strategy to provide Canadians with access to Service Canada through what we call Click-Call-Visit, and increasing numbers of Canadians are taking advantage of the Internet for online application management of their claims, particularly employment insurance, and in the longer run, we have strategies to expand that to the income support mechanisms as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan. Thank you, Mr. Shugart.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I have a point of order--you have Mr. Martin next, but after that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes, after that a point of order.

Mr. Martin for the final two and a half minutes, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Let me simply say then, in summary, we believe the public has a right to know, especially before the next federal election, what the government's plan is to pay down this monster deficit. They refuse to tell us, and you and other deputy ministers from other departments give us pretty much lofty platitudes. It reads like the preface to the total quality management book about excellence in management, etc., but it doesn't give us any clear idea.

I have to ask, were you advised to stonewall this committee in your deputy ministers' meetings? Is there some conspiracy of silence so that you are not allowed to divulge what you know about the government's plans to balance the budget and how they plan to find $57 billion?

[Ian Shugart]

Certainly not, Chair.