Government Operations Committee on June 20th, 2011

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you for the question.

The questions you are posing in terms of being able to deploy rapidly are not related to the capital budget carry-forward. Those are two separate initiatives.

The ability for the forces--or for the RCMP in certain circumstances, if that is required--is within their deployment capacity. They have to be able to be ready to deploy fairly quickly. That capacity for rapid deployment was one of the core components of the Canada First defence strategy.

If there is a requirement for additional funds, or for an emergency, or a different circumstance, then the normal procedures would apply: requests going to cabinet would go to the Treasury Board and once approved would find themselves in various appropriations bills, if that is required. Otherwise, organizations generally have a certain amount of flexibility to reallocate within their existing authorities and their votes to meet specific requirements.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

In the minister's opening statement he referred to the fact that 2010 was the last year of the first four years of strategic reviews. I'm of the understanding, in response to a question by another colleague of mine, that the strategic reviews are a process conducted on an ongoing basis and are part of the mandate of the Treasury Board Secretariat. Is that correct?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Yes, it is correct.

The process was launched in 2007, so 2010 is the last year of the four-year cycle during which we covered almost 70 organizations and 98% of direct program spending on a four-year cycle.

We would normally have started a new cycle, but in the current environment we are launching the strategic and operating review that covers organizations in a one-year span. So we have put a hiatus on the strategic review process for the duration of the strategic and operating review.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

I recognize that it has happened as a result of our commitment to balance the budget by 2015 and look for those efficiencies. How did the Treasury Board go about triggering a new process and putting the strategic reviews on hiatus?

[Michelle d'Auray]

The discussions revolved around learning the lessons from the strategic reviews and what was effective and what would work in a one-year cycle or a one-year process. We now have a good understanding, for example, of all of the core programs in organizations, so it wasn't a requirement for us to get a fairly lengthy description of the activities of organizations. This allowed organizations and ministers to focus on the proposals they could bring forward.

One of the elements that is key to this particular exercise or initiative, as I mentioned earlier, is the focus on how we deliver programs and services. Are we as effective and efficient as possible? We have not had an opportunity to look at all organizations at the same time. Is this the best way for us to conduct the business of government? Are there different approaches we can take? I believe the minister indicated that we had not looked at this from a comprehensive or complete perspective for about 15 years, and that is indeed the case. This will give us an opportunity to take stock of our effectiveness. Are we doing things in as modern a way as possible?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Kelly, your five minutes is up.

We're going to have bells for votes any minute, and even though we're only a few steps away from the chamber--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

On what?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

On the opposition day.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

No, it's tomorrow, I thought. There are no votes today.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I understood there were.

Very good. Then we can continue with our rounds if there is a will or an interest.

It's the Liberals' turn. John McCallum. Do you want to speak?

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

Thank you.

Could we go back for a moment to our previous conversation? In terms of the supplementary estimates (C), you said that some of the amounts in those estimates were funded through contingency reserves or other means while others were not. Since the revised supplementary estimates (C) were not passed, is it possible to have information as to what the estimates were in the light of available funding?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you.

I don't think we would be tabling revised supplementary estimates (C) that were not appropriated in previous years, but what I can do is ask my colleague Ms. Thornton to give you an appreciation of what has been covered.

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

Thank you.

[Sally Thornton, Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you.

As you may recall, on March 1 officials were before this committee to present the supplementary estimates (C)--$920 million with the voted appropriations. When Parliament was dissolved on March 26 prior to supplementary estimates (C) being voted on, we were immediately driven by the Financial Administration Act, section 30. That is the section that dictates what we do for supply when Parliament is dissolved for the purposes of a general election.

The first question we had was whether we would need a Governor General's special warrant for the last fiscal year, knowing that if we did need one it would have to be issued by the Governor General no later than March 31. So we very quickly had to go through the material in supplementary estimates (C). We knew we had the $920 million of requests in that. We knew there had been no notices of opposition motions tabled.

We got back to departments. The first thing was, could they defer, and there were certain things that could be deferred--not many. Second, could they manage internally using any appropriation? If you'll recall, the test for a Governor General's special warrant is that it must be required urgently for the public good, which means core operations, but also there must be no other appropriation available from which to make that expenditure. So departments could, within their existing voted appropriations, if they had any funds available that were within that same vote, put those funds towards those needs.

The second test--and after that when departments had done their internal management--was to determine if we had other appropriations in the Government of Canada that could be used to meet those needs. For this I'm moving into the Treasury Board central votes. The central vote that we did have some funds available in was Treasury Board vote 5, which is the contingencies. We were able to administer $519 million from vote 5 to cover specific items in the supplementary estimates (C).

That included, for example, the Nortel purchase--for Public Works to purchase for DND; payment to Veterans Affairs Canada to cover the ex gratia payments for the Agent Orange; and a payment to AECL for their operating pressures.

At the end of the day, we were able to meet the requirements of supplementary estimates (C) by drawing on existing allocations--Treasury Board central votes--so we did not have to resort to Governor General's special warrants for that period.

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

So are you telling me that all of the items in supplementary estimates (C) were able to go through?

[Sally Thornton]

Not all of them. Anything that was an authority and not a dollar vote could not, so you will see this again, as we explain things like the student loan forgiveness for HRSDC. None of those could be done.

There were also a number of deferred authorities--for example, increases to draw-down authority for the translation bureau revolving fund. They were just deferred, and you will see them again in subsequent supplementary estimates.

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

Okay, thank you.

Again, to change the subject, in terms of 2011-2012 estimates, I am just curious why on page 339 there seems to be a 30% drop in expenditures for registration of lobbyists. I wonder why there should be a 30% drop in one year.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Mr. Chair, we'll have to get back to you on that specific question.

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

Do I have a last question?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You have 30 seconds.

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

One of the things in the Budget Implementation Act is to allow government departments to share support services. My question is whether there is information on plans for how this new provision might be used, and whether there was any consultation with public sector unions on this issue.

[Michelle d'Auray]

There are a number of initiatives that could be under way, pending this legislation. For example, could a department offer to provide technology platform services, if I can put it that way, to have the data around human resources run off a single platform or a single cluster, as opposed to having it on two or more departments? So it is really around platform consolidation and being able to offer those services to organizations. I would put it more as a cost avoidance mechanism at this point, rather than having departments having to build or replace their existing systems--which may not be at top performance--and their being able to use the services and systems that another organization could provide. So it truly is a cost containment, as opposed to a cost reduction, if I can put it that way.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you.

Mike Wallace has asked for another round.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I won't take the whole five minutes.

Just briefly, for my New Democratic friends, and for my education also, the word “severance” is often associated with somebody being let go or being laid off because there's no more work. But in this instance, when we refer to it in here, and in our case in the vast majority of the changes, severance also refers to people choosing to sever their employment relationship with the Government of Canada. So it's not that they're getting laid off. It's not that they're getting fired. Because of agreements that have been signed in the past, federal employees, if they decide to leave the federal employ and go to the private sector or to the province of Quebec or Ontario or go work somewhere else, are entitled to a severance payment.

In here we are saying there are no more severance payments in the future for new employees, but for those of you who have qualified for that severance, we are bulk-paying you up front, whether you want to take half or full payment, but we're calling it severance.

My point is this. I think when it comes to language, we need to be careful. I don't know how this translates. I'm not French. I don't have access to how it relates in French. But for here, if we were to go out the door and say that in supplementary estimates (A) we had $1.3 billion in severance package money that we didn't have before, it would sound as though we were laying off a whole bunch of people to pay them out. But that is actually not the case. This is for people who, if they were to choose to leave the federal service, would be entitled to this payment.

Is that correct?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Yes. It's a severance for voluntary departure or retirement. Severance in the instance of a person being laid off would still be paid. So it truly is for voluntary departures.