Evidence of meeting #34 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was main.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
The decision that was made was to transfer the responsibility of providing second-language training to each individual department. So it was decided that a limited and decreasing number of instructors would be kept at the Canada School of Public Service for a specific period of time. That period is now over. The decision was made based on language schools being able to increase their capacity while meeting standards during that period of time, and that is what happened.
The school, together with the Public Service Commission, also established standards for training, instructors and testing, to ensure that public servants could meet the requirements. So standards have been established, the private sector can take over and departments have the necessary funding. The decision was made in 2006 and provided for a gradual reduction. The decision has now been fully implemented.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Denis, I'm afraid your five minutes are up. Thank you very much.
We'll now go to Scott Armstrong for the Conservatives.
Conservative
Scott Armstrong Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Thank you, Minister, for being here, and also thanks to your officials.
Could you please take us through the agriculture and agrifood department to explain the estimates presentation and process to us?
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I could, but my officials are well briefed on this, so if you don't mind, I'll pass it along to them.
Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
Perhaps Sally should do that.
Sally Thornton Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Certainly. Are you referring to supplementary estimates (C)?
Conservative
Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Let me ask you to turn to page 20 in your supplementary estimates (C). You see the ministry summary for Agriculture and Agri-food. You begin by looking at the departmental votes on the left-hand side. Those are your controls.
You'll notice that vote number 1, your operating expenditures, is followed by a little “c”. What that means is that some place in this document, supplementary estimates (C), there is a change to that vote. Typically we will underline if it's a change to vote wording.
You will also notice that along with the description of the vote there is an addition of some wording that is underlined. In this instance what we're adding to that vote authority is “the provision of internal support services to other organizations”.
Now, you are going to see that change in more than 20 organizations in supplementary estimates (C). What that change reflects is an amendment to the Financial Administration Act last June that allows departments to provide internal services to other departments—finance, HR—to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of delivery of those services.
The departments did not have the mandate to recoup moneys and then spend those moneys for providing that service, so we have had to change their vote wording to ensure that they have the mandate, not just to deliver those services for another organization but to receive moneys and then reuse those moneys.
You are going to see that change in more than 20 organizations. It is also reflected in one of the annexes, when we talk about dollar votes. A number of organizations have $1 items so that they can have that change to their mandate.
That's a consistent approach to vote wording.
Another area in which you may see a “c” can be seen in item 10 or vote 10, which is their grants and contributions. In that case, there is no underlined wording: we aren't changing the terms of that vote. But you will note that we are changing the dollar amounts.
In this amount, what you will notice is that we have a transfer in—it's not in brackets, so it's a positive transfer—and we actually have two transfers of grants and contributions. Both of these can reflect back to vote 1, where you see a transfer out. That's your third column.
So transfers from an organization to another are bracketed, because money is going out; transfers in either from another vote or from another organization are not bracketed, because they're in. There's always a net balance throughout the course of the estimates.
Those transfers may be within one organization from one vote to another—because as you know, the vote is your control function and an organization can't move money between those votes without getting parliamentary approval—or it may be from one vote in an organization to a vote in another organization.
On the corresponding page, page 21, you will see some transfers in to the CFIA that also total up to the vote out.
We have the distinction.... You will also notice a number of items in the ministry summary that have an “(S)” beside them. Those are statutory items. Let me remind you that while we present statutory items in the main estimates and supplementary estimates, they are there for information purposes. The actual expenditures are predetermined by other pieces of legislation, such as the Employment Insurance Act and other acts, but they are here for information. Generally, the distribution of statutory expenditures is about two-thirds of your government-wide expenditures. Out of your $251 billion, only $90 billion are voted.
What we show, again, is your vote descriptions, your authorities to date—and these include your main and supplementary estimates, (A) and (B) in this instance—and then transfers and adjustments, which are changes that are being made through this supplementary estimates (C), and your totals to date.
That's your overview for each ministry.
Let me ask you then to flip to page 22. This is where you get your more detailed explanation of requirements to support that ministerial overview.
Your ministry summary is really what is reflected in the legislation, in the vote wording, and in the dollar amounts. Then you get more explanation provided by the department, which breaks down the specific requests and shows the voted appropriations and exactly where they're going.
For example, you can see the “Funding to support a profitable and innovative agriculture and an agri-food and agri-based...”, and which vote it is—it goes into vote 10—and the total amount.
You will also see a number of transfers. This is where you see transfers between votes. Again, this is just more detail than was provided earlier. You'll see that we're transferring money for “Internal reallocation of resources”; we're transferring money from vote 10 to vote 1. That has to be clear in the legislation, which you vote on.
Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
Sorry.
NDP
The Chair NDP Pat Martin
Thank you very much for that.
I don't know where you would be, Minister, without these unbelievably competent women you surround yourself with.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
I know exactly where I'd be, Mr. Chair—up Beaver Creek without a dam.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Mr. Minister, a bit earlier, you said that your policy was to provide detailed information when it was available. I want to continue along the same lines as my colleague Mr. Blanchette.
According to the Canada School of Public Service's report on plans and priorities, an evaluation of its language services was scheduled for 2010-2011. The internal audit report exists but has not been made public. Jobs were cut and instructors were laid off. Why keep the report secret if it exists? The reason is that the report contradicts the decision that was made and shows that the training courses were actually effective and efficient and produced good results. Is it not? Why not make the report public?
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
There is no contradiction. The secretary told me there were some reports, but no final report at this time. Once it has been finalized, however, the report can be published.
Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
Yes, precisely.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Do you know how long that could take? People have already lost their jobs here.
Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
Allow me to answer.
As I explained earlier, the decision goes back to 2006. It was based on the idea that departments should take responsibility for their employees’ language training to better meet their needs.
When all the funding used to be centralized, language training was not necessarily related to needs stemming from departmental business or activities. We realized that some people were taking language courses even though they may not have needed them. With decision-making decentralized and each department responsible for the area itself, language training can be much more needs-based. In addition, more effective use of funds is possible.
A language industry was then created to respond to a new need. The school continues to administer tests and standardize training. It will continue to do so.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
You will still agree that it would be somewhat strange if the report indicated that the service that was provided was efficient and affordable.
I could go over a number of other issues, but as I have only five minutes, I will discuss the Disclosure and Reprisal Management Program provided by the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada for protecting whistle-blowers.
Although a new commissioner has taken office and some real investigations are being conducted, that program is supposed to be reduced by 22%. Shouldn’t public servants be worried about being less and less protected when they blow the whistle on questionable or fraudulent activities?
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Yes. I can tell you that the 2011-2012 estimates have increased by $1.2 million for a new system for....
Secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada, Treasury Board Secretariat
The $1.2-million difference you are seeing in the main estimates comes solely from money allocated for creating a case management system. That system is supposed to allow and facilitate request management and the processing of submitted cases. That's all the money was intended for. Now that the system has been set up and is operational, the money has simply been withdrawn. So, it’s not an actual reduction.
