Government Operations Committee on April 24th, 2013

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

So that's confirmation that you will be looking at....

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

I will say it for the record: absolutely, we'll be looking at that.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mathieu. Your time has expired.

I don't know how the minister's time is going, but the Conservatives have one more speaker they would like to get in.

Minister, do you have five more minutes?

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

Sure.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Okay, there you go—all kinds of bonhomie.

Bernard Trottier.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for coming in.

When we undertook this study last year looking at the estimates process, it was not the first time that the government operations and estimates committee had looked at it. In the past, I think it was 10 years ago, and yet again, I think it was 17 or 18 years ago, the committee looked at that, and there were some recommendations made. But things weren't implemented. It's very encouraging to see the government now actually implementing some changes to the estimates process and the supply process to make things more accountable.

One of the witnesses came in at one time and showed us a book of main estimates from the 1880s, and they looked very similar to what the main estimates look like today. In other words, we've been dealing with the same system in place for about 145 years. So it's very encouraging. It's a series of small changes that collectively you'd call a transformation.

Can you maybe talk about some of the behaviours that would change in Parliament, and then what this means for Canadians, things like putting in three years of history, three years forward in the RPPs, the move to the program activity view of the estimates? What will that change in Parliament?

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

Let me give one example that springs to mind, just because the scars are almost healed, but not quite. It has to do with the traditional thing that happens around here. We have the estimates process, and those have to be tabled by March 1. Then typically—not always, but typically—the budget is after that date.

So in that period of time between the estimates and the budget, not everyone, but some people run around with their hair on fire because, oh my gosh, the estimates, they have a cut on this and it means the government is making massive changes to this program or to that program, and then that all dies down because when the budget happens, it actually has the funding that people expect for those particular programs. Because what we call sunsetters, those programs with specific time-limited funds, are not included in the estimates process until the funds are renewed.

So I really do believe that with the changes, with this online database where you can see year to year, program to program, it gives you a better context of how budgetary decisions are made. You can follow the thread of the funding of particular programs over a greater period of time. You can compare similar activities, department by department. I think that's going to be an important tool as well as you seek to make sure departments are being efficient on the common activities that they have.

All these things will provide clarity and maybe reduce anxiety in some cases, and maybe also create legitimate questions that the government will have to answer. I think that's all part of it too.

I'm not saying this is going to create world peace in our time, but I think it will be a substantive improvement from the status quo.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

I want to follow up on some of the big picture numbers that you presented when you talked about the voted amounts, that they're decreasing from last year, at least the estimated amounts, from $91.9 billion down to $87.1 billion for this year.

On the other hand, the statutory amounts are going up by about $5.5 billion. So there's a whole shift in the profile. I know you were once a health minister in Ontario. A big part of the statutory amounts is the transfers to the provinces.

Could you talk about the relationship that the Government of Canada has right now with the provinces when it comes to those statutory transfers, which are a big part of the commitment in the estimates?

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

We've been true to our word. We have been increasing statutory transfers to provinces, including the 6% increase per annum, which of course, becomes compounded on the health transfer. So the provinces have had the ability to count on that money.

When you look at other transfers, such as what budget 2013 is doing for the gas tax money that goes to all of our municipalities in all of our communities, where that is now being indexed, I think that gives the ability to our transfer partners to plan downstream in terms of the obligations they have for our common citizens.

So yes, I think that is what you're seeing there, and I think it's important.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

You were a health minister once, so did you experience—

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

Oh, I experienced the opposite. I experienced cuts in transfer payments from the Liberal government of the time. We were loud about that, because we felt that was not in the interests of our citizens.

We are obviously, as a government, doing something very different from that era.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Bernard, I'm afraid your five minutes is up, and I'm afraid that is pretty much the time we have set aside to have the President of the Treasury Board with us.

We want to thank you, Minister, for being with us here today.

Let me just say in conclusion that I firmly believe that the work we did at your request, the examination of the estimates, which resulted in the seventh report of this committee, might be one of the most meaningful things to come out of the 41st Parliament. If we can render the estimates process down to plain language so that the public can understand it, that will enhance the public's right to know what their government is doing with their money. So I think, in all modesty, I can say that this committee has done some very good work in that regard, and we look forward to its implementation.

Thank you for being with us here today, Minister.

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

We're going to suspend the meeting for a minute or two while the minister excuses himself. I believe other Treasury Board officials will be joining us for the next panel.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

We'll reconvene our meeting then, committee members.

We welcome some of the same officials from the Treasury Board, as well as some other officials who will be joining us, including Sally Thornton.

Welcome, Sally. I know you are a regular visitor to our committee.

I don't have my glasses on, so I can't read everybody's name.

I'm going to let you introduce yourself, Bill, perhaps when you get going here.

Is everyone ready? We're going to ask Mr. Matthews to open with some remarks.

First of all I have to ask, committee, whether you would you like to carry on with the rounds of questioning as they were or you wish to begin a new round of questioning on the docket. Continuing on would be my instinct.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Okay, very good. It doesn't make much of a material difference, because the next round would go to the NDP anyway.

Mr. Matthews, would you like to open with a few remarks?

[Bill Matthews]

Thank you, Chair.

As you have already said, I am accompanied by several colleagues today. You already know Ms. Christine Walker and Ms. Sally Thornton. To help us with today's presentation, I am also accompanied by Ms. Marcia Santiago and Ms. Grace Chennette.

I have a couple of quick comments before we get back to questions.

I was just reflecting on the four or five things I would notice in these main estimates from a government-wide perspective. Some have already been touched on so I won't spend much time on them.

Voted numbers are down, and statutory numbers are up, as we know. We had a quick discussion as to why the statutory numbers are up, and that's largely related to two payments related to elder benefits, as well as to EI and the health transfers.

The second thing I would mention—which the chair already covered with his question—is the non-budgetary spending related to CMHC. That's something that stands out in these estimates and it was already picked up on.

In terms of trends, typically at this stage we're about 65% statutory and 35% voted. We're about normal again on that number, so there is nothing too significant there.

The split among transfer payments, operating and capital, and interest is largely unchanged from previous years in terms of percentage breakdown of the $250 billion.

There is additional information for members, which I would flag. If you're looking for a great summary of departments, I would take you to the first section of the estimates. It's on page I-10 in the English version—

It is on page 11 of the French version.

That's where you will find some of the new information that was flagged earlier in terms of a listing of all departments, what they actually spent in 2011-12; the estimates they had in the main estimates for 2012-13; and their estimates during 2012-13 at the point in time the estimates were prepared; as well as their estimates for 2013-14.

That's a new addition and I think that information should be quite helpful to members when looking for their questions.

Then I would quickly flag the largest increases and decreases by departments. The large increases, if you're interested, were for Public Works and Government Services Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and RCMP.

On the decrease side are National Defence, Infrastructure, and Transport Canada.

If it's of interest to members, we're happy to talk about why those changes have occurred.

The only other thing I would flag for the committee members, Mr. Chair, is that we do have this book organized in alphabetical order, as was mentioned. That means the order of the departments is different in English and French, so do give us a moment to find for everyone the proper page reference in both languages if we get into detailed questions about the page numbers.

That's all I would leave you with.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You raised some good points, Bill.

I do notice on page I-10 the helpful way this is laid out with actual expenditures and then 2012-13 and then 2013-14 estimates. That stems from one of the recommendations of the seventh report.

[Bill Matthews]

Yes, and you can even say it was a pet peeve of Mr. Wallace, actually.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I wish Mike were here to see his peeve remedied.

Okay let's go then to Mathieu Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

The first thing I'd like to say is that if the minister is serious about looking at program activity, my suggestion to you—and it's really just tabled as a helpful suggestion—is that you have to do something about disciplining departments on the basis of their program architecture. The program architecture renewal has to be looked at at the same time, because the quality of information we'll get and the way it matches will be very weak. You know more than I do that departments position themselves strategically by using their program architecture as a tool. This is just a suggestion, but I think what we would need to do is address rules surrounding program architecture renewal at the same time.

I'd like to go on to another question, concerning public service cuts. As you know, there has been a lot of difficulty tracking exactly what is going on with cuts to public service jobs. A report was put out by the Centre canadien de politiques alternatives or Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Their calculation is that there are probably about 28,700 cuts of permanent jobs. The figures from Treasury Board are more on the order of 19,200.

Can you tell me why there's a difference in these calculations? What is the real figure?

[Bill Matthews]

Thank you for the questions, Mr. Chair.

If I could actually comment on the first suggestion, it is a helpful one. Then I will answer your question on FTEs.

I think the member has a very good point about program activity architecture. When we started with program activity architecture information, it was new. No matter what vote model we end up with, it's very clear that program information is more important now than it used to be. It's only fair that we give departments a chance to rethink their structures and get them adjusted, as they would need to be if we were to actually move to a voted structure by program, because programs clearly have taken on increasing importance over the years.

So we'll take that suggestion. Thank you.

The reason for the difference you have flagged in the FTE numbers.... I didn't see the methodology from the policy centre, but they looked at reductions over a broader period of time. Their period of time included strategic reviews, operating budget freeze, and some other measures to reduce spending. The 19,200 number that you hear from the government is directly related to Budget 2012: 19,200 is the number of positions that were to be eliminated as a result of the strategic and operating review of Budget 2012. The policy centre was looking at a bigger period of time.

I can tell you that in Budget 2013 the government provided an update on the 19,200. Initially they were forecasting that of the 19,200, roughly 12,000 would have to use workforce measures to be transitioned out, and they were hoping for 7,200 through attrition. The trend appears to be slipping. As of Budget 2013's December numbers, 16,220 of the positions have been eliminated—not quite the full 19,200, but certainly on track. Of those, 9,300 were through attrition and roughly 7,000 through workforce adjustment measures.

So the initial forecast is proving to have overestimated our reliance on workforce adjustment, and we have been able to make greater use of transition to achieve those reductions. But the 19,200 is directly related to SOR.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I think you said 9,300 were by way of attrition. Is that correct?