Government Operations Committee on April 12th, 2010

[Michelle d'Auray]

Madam Chair, with regard to the earlier part of the member's presentation, I think there is a responsibility on the part of all public servants to be effective stewards of the resources we have. The responsibility to be as effective and efficient as possible is in fact an ongoing duty and responsibility, as it is for the deputy ministers to manage effectively and efficiently within the resources they are provided.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That isn't new, Madam d'Auray; that's a given.

[Michelle d'Auray]

But that is part of the responsibility that is ongoing. So it isn't new. It is what we are mandated to do and what we are responsible for.

With regard to the deputy minister responsible for the administrative review, that is a position that has been established within the office of the Privy Council. The appointment was made by the Prime Minister. It is for a fixed-term period so that the results of that administrative review can be reported in time for the 2011 budget.

The purpose of the review is to examine the way in which, across government, we can be as effective as possible in the administration and operation of, if I can put it this way, our internal services and activities.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Fair enough. Thank you.

I should note that the PCO is not on the list of agencies and institutions that have had their budget frozen. In fact its budget is increasing dramatically, from what I understand. That is perhaps a subject for another line of questioning.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Perhaps just on that, Madam Chair, I did say explicitly in my remarks that any measures that have been approved in the budget or that were covered in the main estimates were also included, so if they had been approved by cabinet and had found their way in...just as some measures in Budget 2010 will find their way in, for example, through supplementary estimates, which will go towards increasing the operating budgets of a number of departments. So in this regard, you will see the increases not just in the main estimates but also in the operating budgets of a number of organizations as the supplementary estimates are likely to be tabled, because they will be reflecting the decisions and the proposals that are in the budget.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Okay. I don't pretend to understand that, but I'll ask a different question.

Deputy ministers will now.... If you're offloading this obligation to the public service to find its own efficiencies, again I am suspect and worried about that. It does smack of the old scientific management gimmicks that were tossed out by human resources programs decades ago. Has the Treasury Board Secretariat given any directives to deputy ministers as they go about that work of finding these efficiencies--guidelines such as who is ultimately responsible for maintaining certain levels of service to the public? If the deputy minister has to find these efficiencies and be the one cutting and hacking and slashing and recommending these cuts, who is ultimately going to be the watchdog to make sure we're not dramatically losing the quality of public services? Who gets to review or even have the veto over the deputy ministers' new authorities?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Madam Chair, I do not consider this to be offloading onto deputy ministers. This is what deputy ministers do on a regular basis. This is part of what we are mandated to do. This is part of our responsibilities. It's part of our responsibilities under the Financial Administration Act to manage our resources effectively. This is not offloading on us. This is part of our job.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

So deputy ministers are involved in budget making, and really what we see now is that deputy ministers will be solely responsible for making these budget adjustments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Your time is up.

[Michelle d'Auray]

If I may say so, Madam Chair, deputy ministers are responsible for managing the budgets, and the budgets are recorded to them through their ministers by Parliament as voted by Parliament. This is something we do on a regular basis. We manage those elements. I do not consider a freeze on operating budgets to be cutting and slashing. It is in fact an opportunity for us to look at whether we are managing effectively and efficiently within what I also mentioned are some of the highest operating budgets we have seen in almost a decade. So this is not a cutting and slashing exercise; it is a good management exercise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

With that, I would like to take it to the second round of questioning for five minutes.

Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for being here today.

In your presentation you stated that $28 billion went to personnel and $26 billion in consulting professional services and other. How much flexibility does this government see in that $28 billion? Where exactly do you see it coming from? How much of it will be coming from attrition, through non-renewal of temporary workers? My concern is that we see this coming down. As Mr. Martin said, how is this going to affect the services we get, and what can the average Canadian expect from these cuts?

As far as services go, I do not necessarily mean the dollar amount, but the real services. An example is a passport. That's something we do through our office quite often. We don't have any passport offices in northeastern Ontario. Someone comes in. They know they have a certain cost for a passport. They know it's going to take five to six weeks. How is that going to affect them?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Each organization will have to examine the decisions and how they will make those determinations. What we have given you are the global numbers. In each instance, each organization and department has its own operating budget. It can move money from operating administration to salaries and from salaries to operations. There is a huge amount of flexibility in each of the vote 1 operating budgets for each organization.

Within that, it is not significant for at least the first couple of years' reduction. We know what we have to absorb, as you will have seen in the budget documents for 2010-11. We have to absorb $300 million within an overall budget of $54 billion. That is something we can easily do within our existing operations by looking at whether or not we can manage through attrition, whether there are more effective and efficient ways we can deliver services internal to the government.

I think we have an interest in looking at whether we are as effective as possible in our internal operations and activities. That is an area where we know we have grown significantly and where we can make some significant changes to the way in which we operate, without affecting services to Canadians.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

It's interesting you mention that we've grown considerably. From what I understand, in the last four years the total growth has been 6.1% of total per year.

[Michelle d'Auray]

The growth in employment from 2005 to 2009 has been about 12.4%.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

The total I've heard is that number. We won't argue that, but you mentioned something about effective stewards of the resource we have--in this case government. One of the things you mentioned was wanting to cut duplication. I would imagine that duplication is across departments and not just in one area. So you would have to encourage different departments or ministries to work together to achieve those savings.

I don't see any guidelines. You're leaving it open to them. You're asking them to cut back, yet you're saying we're good stewards. What are the guidelines, or what are you doing to help these ministries to consolidate these services so they can be effective?

[Michelle d'Auray]

In response to an earlier question, I mentioned the review of administrative services and operation costs of the government being led by my colleague Daniel Jean. The purpose behind that is to do exactly what the comment raised: look at this across the government, as opposed to just looking at it on a department-by-department basis.

The purpose of doing it during this fiscal year to report in Budget 2011 is to be able to provide guidance to departments on the efficiencies and effectiveness measures that can be taken across the government, as opposed to only on a department-by-department basis. That is the purpose of our review. In the meantime, for 2010-11, departments will be applying the freeze to their operating budgets and will be able to do so within the existing frameworks.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

So in the first year you're saying, “Okay, guys, see if you can cut whatever you can and do whatever you can, and we'll come back a year from now and tell you how you can undo everything you've done the first year without really having much direction. In the first year, do what you can and go in any direction you want, because we just want you to cut. Next year we'll give you the rules and tell you how you can really cut and work together.”

Am I correct in thinking that?

[Michelle d'Auray]

I think a better way of explaining it is that departments, deputy ministers, and ministers will be managing within their envelopes. They will be making some decisions on internal efficiencies. They will be doing so primarily to absorb the increase in salaries that has already been negotiated at 1.5%. The total amount to be absorbed is $300 million. That does not necessarily reflect all the increases in the operating budgets that will also be attributed to organizations as a result of decisions that are made in the budget.

On the ability of deputy ministers to share information and be able to make decisions in full knowledge of what they are doing in other organizations, we do that effectively on a regular basis, without having to impose guidelines and strict rules.

Again, the whole trend we have been undertaking for at least a few years now is to be clear about the responsibilities the deputy ministers have in managing their organizations. It is well within their areas of responsibility to do so, and they do not need rules and specific guidelines from us to tell them how to do it. They're quite capable and competent individuals; otherwise they wouldn't be deputy ministers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I think where everybody is coming from is that there's an umbrella and they want to know where you're situated in terms of their ability.... I think the question being asked is, what is your situation? You are the chief and you're giving guidance to the deputy ministers. That's why there's confusion. What is the guidance you're giving them to make it more effective?

With that, I'll go to Monsieur Nadeau to see if the same line of questioning is coming.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Good afternoon, Ms. d'Auray. How many departments are there in total?

[Michelle d'Auray]

There are about 60 departments, but several organizations are affected by...

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

You say there are 60 departments in Canada.

[Michelle d'Auray]

I am talking about departments.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

There are not 60 departments, there are not 60 ministers in the House of Commons!