Government Operations Committee on June 20th, 2011

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I understand. We thank you for attending and answering our questions.

If I may say this as a wrap-up—and it is a chair's prerogative to make a comment in conclusion—you can understand some of the questioning associated with the legacy fund funding.

In hosting previous international forums, legacy funds were often $1 million, $3 million, and I think $5 million for Halifax. This one was $50 million. If the general public or if Parliament knew that there was a $50 million plan embedded in the border infrastructure fund vote, do you think Canadians would have approved a legacy fund ten times any other precedent?

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

In answer to your question, Chair, I would say that if you actually review Hansard, you will see that this was a topic of some discussion in the House of Commons over the last two years. It's not as if this was a revelation that occurred as a result of the Auditor General's report, and indeed we were not hiding it. In fact, we were proud of it. This legacy fund, like the 28,000 other projects across the country, created jobs, created needed infrastructure, and is ultimately defensible.

So I see this as no different from many other funds that were utilized by every riding around this table and all 308 ridings in Canada.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

In closing, could I remind you that there was a request for the production of papers associated with the criteria evaluation and any detailed notes associated with the allocation or distribution of those funds?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Point of order, Chair, on that.

Do you not need the committee's official request for that, or can any member ask for anything? Do you not need to have an official motion to that effect, to see if it passes the committee?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Excuse me. I am going to consult with the clerk.

Mike, you probably heard that answer. As of now, it's a request from a member. For there to be a formal production of papers, it would require a motion and a vote. Seeing as the minister has left, you can predict how this will play itself out.

Thank you to the rest of the officials who are willing to stay and answer more detailed questions regarding the main and the supplementary estimates. I don't think we need to adjourn or to suspend and reconvene. We'll just carry on with the order of questioning, I suppose.

Next is going to be the Conservative Ron Cannan, if you have any questions, or Mike Wallace, then. That's fine.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you for staying. I have a few questions for you.

You were here earlier last week to give us an education on this, and I really appreciate it. I have a question for reviewing these estimates that come after the supplementaries this year and so on and so forth.

I have 2010 because I have the public accounts for 2010 that are published. When I look at the mains for 2009-2010, I see they were at $7.7 billion, and then the next year, in 2010-2011, you asked for $4.9 billion, which was a 36% decrease. But then when I look at what you actually spent at Treasury Board, it's half of that, when I look at what's in the public accounts books. Why do you ask for so much and then why does only half of it get spent? How am I supposed to follow that bouncing ball?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Mr. Chair, I'll take a stab at that, and then if I'm not successful I'll turn to Bill Matthews.

A number of the votes that we request in terms of main estimates are central votes. They're attributed to the Treasury Board Secretariat, but they are actually expended by other organizations. So for example when we look at the operating budget carry-forward at $1.2 billion, while it is attributed to the Treasury Board Secretariat, it is actually expended and disbursed in the course of the year to a raft of departments and agencies. So the actual expenditures related to that are reflected in their own expenditures. That's why there is a difference in terms of the spending authority that we request and the actual expenditures, which are made by organizations once we distribute the funds.

The same thing happens with, for example, the paylist, which is vote 30. We request funding and the spending authority on behalf of the government as a whole, but then we redistribute those depending on the need and use by departments. So it is reflected in each one of those organizations.

Is there anything you'd like to add?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

How do I follow that?

[Bill Matthews, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Perhaps I can just elaborate. The secretary gave two examples, and there's one more coming this year. There's a new vote, vote 33, for the capital budget carry-forward, so you will see this practice for yet another vote.

The best way to follow it is to actually go through departments. When you look at volume II of Public Accounts of Canada.... I suspect that's what you have in your hand.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes.

[Bill Matthews]

Okay.

When you look at volume II, what you will find in there is authority granted through the main estimates and then through other means. If you see a vote transfer or something allocated from the centre, you will actually be able to follow departmental spending.

My suggestion is that when you're evaluating spending for Treasury Board Secretariat as a department, you distinguish between central votes and then the operations of the department. If you're looking for spending of the operations of the department, that's a separate discussion from the central votes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

I know the President of the Treasury Board said he's looking for input. I will have input on the estimates, from somebody who's trying to use them, in the fall. I'm going to be working on this all summer long. We'll see if it helps or not; I have no idea.

Let's go to vote 33, the new vote, just for example. It will enable departments to carry forward up to 20%. This is on top of the 5% carry-forward that they don't spend, is that correct?

[Michelle d'Auray]

It is in fact a separate allocation for capital only. It's only capital. In the rest of their operating vote, they have a 5% carry-forward. For those that have a separate distinct capital vote, it will allow them to carry forward up to 20%.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I believe some departments have the operation and capital amalgamated.

[Michelle d'Auray]

That's correct.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Are they going to be forced then to pull that out, to keep that separate, so they can understand this?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Mr. Chair, those who can take advantage of the capital vote are those that have a distinct and separate capital vote. Those that have capital under $5 million, for example, embedded in their operating vote are limited to 5%.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right.

What is stopping a department from saying, oh, well, if we don't spend, we can carry forward 20 points, so let's overestimate what we need and hopefully carry some forward? What are the checks and balances to make sure that people aren't loading up in their capital budgets because they know they can carry more forward?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

This is the last question. We're over our time now.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The departments are set in their votes by the main estimates and by the allocations and the authorities that are provided to them, either through statute or by authorities established by the Treasury Board. Once those are set, they can only move money around from one vote to another by coming to the Treasury Board for approval.

So there's a fairly rigorous system of checks and balances. With the operating budget freeze, departments can move money into capital, but they cannot move money from capital into operating in order to increase their operating vote unless there's a really significant reason or justification for it.

Really, those votes, when they are established, are pretty well...I wouldn't say entirely locked in, because there is some flexibility, but there is a process whereby they have to come to the Treasury Board for approval.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Madame d'Auray.

John McCallum, it's your turn next, my friend.

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

Thank you.

Perhaps I could return briefly to where I was before: computer issues. I find it not very satisfactory when everybody I ask says the same thing, whether it's you, Madam Secretary, or the minister, or Dean Del Mastro. Everybody says they take this matter very seriously. Well, I should hope we take this seriously, but that's not the question.

Can you guarantee the security of Canadians' private information? What is being done to fix this? How long will it take to fix it? What will it cost? Those are the questions. I assume you take it seriously.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you for the question.

We have taken a number of measures to reduce, for example, the number of connection points to the Internet. This is across the government. We have in fact streamlined and solidified those connecting points. We have also established a greater number of monitors that are essentially technical monitors that allow us to detect any elements of penetration or attempts at doing so.

In terms of the databases that hold the personal, individual information of citizens, those are kept well away from Internet access points. They are in fact quite layered within very structured networks, if I can put it that way, and databases. Very few people have access to them. There are no interfaces between those databases and the public-facing Internet. They are completely.... I mean, we talk about firewalls, but these are kind of lead walls. They really are not connected. There are very limited access points.

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

So that means you can guarantee the security of Canadians' private information?

[Michelle d'Auray]

What I can do is guarantee you that we take all the steps necessary to make them as secure as possible.

Every time there is a change, an innovation, we take steps to protect, to retrench even further. Is there a 100% or a 110% guarantee? Even the most secure corporation will say “We will take every step necessary”. Is there a blanket guarantee? It's difficult to say in this environment.

Can I assure you that Canadians' information is safe and secure? To that, I can say yes.