Government Operations Committee on March 14th, 2012

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to return to the subject we were on earlier.

My understanding is that you're saying the details of the cuts will be in a combination of the spring and the fall budget implementation bills. In addition, one of your officials—it might have been one of the people at this table—I understand, said at the Senate committee that not all of the budget cuts will be necessarily in the supplementary estimates (A), but that some of them would be in supplementary estimates (B), which come also in the fall.

I just want to see whether we agree that the detailed information will be out and available to the public in a combination of the spring and the fall of 2012.

Is that right?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Well, obviously there is going to be information in the budget on March 29.

In terms of the granularity that you're looking for, not all of it will be satiated by the budget. So yes, Budget Implementation Act 1, Budget Implementation Act 2....

Don't forget that it's a three-year plan. Some things will not really get going until year three, so it will take a little bit longer for those kinds of details to be accurate and in a form that I think is presentable as something for Parliament.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

That leads me to my second follow-up question, because you're the chair of this committee seeking out these savings. When I chaired a committee not unlike yours, we were able to put all of the granular details of the cuts in the budget, and in your case you have to wait in some cases for six or seven months.

Does that mean you haven't completed the exercise?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I don't want to have a disagreement between us, but I believe that our detail will be much more accurate than what you seem to remember about what you had.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Well, I can give you the website link, if you wish, to look at. But my question is, since it's going to take so many more months, have you completed all of the decisions regarding the operating and strategic review, or is it still ongoing, and is the reason you can't give the information sooner that you haven't yet made all the decisions?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I really can't answer that, because some of it is budget confidence.

What I can say, again to repeat and make clear, is that we will give to the best of our ability information that is accurate and as timely as possible—when that information is available. Some of it will be available in the budget; some of it will be in the Budget Implementation Act in the spring; some of it will be in the Budget Implementation Act in the fall. Some of it is a more ongoing activity, which means that next year's main estimates will have some more information.

So it really is an ongoing process, which means that there will be an ongoing dialogue with you and with our colleagues in Parliament as these details become available. I think that's the fairest and most accurate way that is consistent with our past practice and consistent with our responsibilities to report to this Parliament.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to come back to the question of AECL that was raised by one of my NDP colleagues.

The estimates indicate that “government contingencies” are supposed to be appropriations to provide the government with sufficient flexibility to meet urgent or unforeseen expenditures. May I ask you to give a little more detail on what was urgent or unforeseen about that expenditure?

[Michelle d'Auray]

The access to the contingency vote was essentially to deal with the upgrades that needed to be done to the Chalk River laboratory. Some of it was in remediation and some of it was for the winding down of the isotopes facility.

It was a question of timing for the Chalk River labs to be able to undertake the work and therefore for access to the contingency funding. The replenishment will be done through the supplementary estimates.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay.

Let me ask one last question.

Last night you told CBC that the public service's collective agreements have been in place since 1999.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Well, Work Force Adjustment has been.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

But I wasn't quite clear on the relevance of 1999, other than that it was a Liberal year, because you've had many collective agreements. Everything has expired since 1999.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Yes.

No, the collective agreement is one thing. The exoskeleton of Work Force Adjustment has been in place since 1999.

The Work Force Adjustment is about what you do, when there is contraction of the public service, with people who are being laid off. There's a whole structure around it.

Because we have 11,000 a year leaving because of attrition, we have openings in certain departments, whereas other departments are contracting. What we try to do is match people and their skills to openings within the public service, so that they are guaranteed a job offer, if there is one there.

Certain people may not be guaranteed a job offer, so they're in another stream, and there's training and there's counselling and all those kinds of things. That's what I was referring to, the Work Force Adjustment.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

I think my time is up.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Yes, it is, John.

Thank you, Minister.

That concludes two rounds. I notice you're here longer than the one hour we thought we would have you for. We appreciate your staying.

Thank you, and we thank your officials from the Treasury Board Secretariat for a very useful presentation and review of supplementary estimates (C) and the main estimates.

I will suspend the meeting briefly, and then I'd like to reconvene in camera to discuss two brief items.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Are we not having the officials any longer?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Actually, I suppose we could. Why not?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

We have bells at 5:15. We can let them go. Treasury Board we can invite back any time. They're happy to come.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

We do have bells at 5:15.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I didn't say you, Minister—them.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Oh, them.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I like their answers. Not that I didn't like yours; I like your answers.

That's fine with us.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Can we confer on this, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Yes, we could excuse the minister and thank him for being here, and if the officials—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Why don't we suspend for five minutes?