Government Operations Committee on May 27th, 2014

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Order, please. Good morning, everyone. Let us start our meeting.

Today, we are examining the supplementary estimates (A) 2014-15.

The witnesses appearing before us are: Mr. Matthews, Mr. Samiotis and Ms. Santiago, from the Treasury Board Secretariat. They will talk about vote 1a specifically and the supplementary estimates in general.

They will give a presentation and then members of the committee will be able to ask them questions about the supplementary estimates.

My thanks to the witnesses for appearing before the committee in order to clarify the budget.

Mr. Matthews, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

Mr. Chair, as you have already said, two colleagues are here with me this morning to help me answer any questions members of the committee may have. However, we will first give a short presentation to highlight the broad strokes of the supplementary estimates (A) 2014-15.

We are going to give a government-wide overview of the supplementary estimates (A) this year and to hit the major items for you, which is where I expect most of the questions will come from, and then we would be happy to take your questions.

Maybe I could start here, Mr. Chairman, on slide 3. There's nothing really new here, but it's a reminder of the organization of the supplementary estimates, just to reorient everybody because I know that some of this stuff is a little complex and doesn't stay with us.

The basic introductory section of the document, which includes general information, is still there. The document for supplementary estimates (A) does go through the major items, which I will speak to. It also highlights major changes to individual votes on a percentage basis, so you will see the big changes there.

You will see a section on new votes and statutory authorities. I will highlight for you a new organization appearing for the first time in supplementary estimates (A), the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority. It's a new organization that's looking for appropriations for the first time.

Then we get into the details by organization, the biggest part of the document, going department by department for those requesting funds in supplementary estimates (A). As usual, if an organization is not receiving funds in supplementary estimates (A), it will not appear in the details section. Only those that are actually receiving money are here.

And then there's a reminder that there is substantial additional information online, if it's of interest to members. That includes, as always, statutory forecasts and our strategic outcome and program level information. You will see the budgetary expenditures by standard object and then transfers between organizations and allocations from Treasury Board's central votes. That is all available on the Treasury Board Secretariat website, if it's of interest.

If I could take you to slide 4, there are 16 organizations presented in these supplementary estimates (A). We have both budgetary and non-budgetary items. I would remind members that non-budgetary items are things like loans, which, if all goes well and all goes as expected, will get paid back and eventually have no impact on the fiscal framework. So we have $44.4 million in non-budgetary items voted in these supplementary estimates (A) relating to loans to aboriginal claim groups, for them to participate in existing negotiation processes. So the loans are for $44.4 million.

The balance consists of budgetary items, which is more the norm for us. So we have $2.4 billion in voted items and $11 million in statutory items. I will go through in some detail the $2.4 billion in voted items. The statutory items of $11.4 million relate to contributions for employee benefits. It's a small amount, so I won't say anything else about that unless there are any questions.

Turning to slide 5, we do like to offer up a comparison against previous years, just to situate ourselves. You will recall we were before the committee for main estimates not that long ago. We had statutory expenditures of $149 billion and voted expenditures of $86.3 billion. Today is mostly voted expenditures. Some $2.4 billion in additional authorities are being requested or discussed. If you do compare the $2.4 billion to previous years, or to last year in particular, you'll notice that it's bigger. Last year's supplementary estimates (A) was for only $1.1 billion. I will state that 2013-14 supplementary estimates (A) were unusually low, so you are seeing a return to more normal levels here. That's really a direct link to some of the items that were in budget 2014, as well as some budget 2013 items that are coming through. So supplementary estimates (A) is normally very small, and this is still small but higher than last year. I just wanted to flag that for you.

We are expecting to come back again for supplementary estimates (B) and (C). I anticipate it would be the normal pattern where supplementary estimates (B) is the largest of the three.

If you're curious about the amounts of the statutory votes and why they are going up, we've discussed this many times at this committee. It relates both to the health care transfer and to some of the increases in our programs related to elderly benefits. So those things are going up, and we've covered that off in the past here.

Slide 6, for those of you who prefer pictures rather than tables, is the same sort of thing. It compares the 2014-15 main estimates and supplementary estimates (A) versus the 2013-14 total estimates, just so you can see where we are. You'll see that transfers represent the biggest part. It is up over last year, as I've already mentioned. Operating and capital is lower versus last year at this stage, which makes perfect sense. Public debt is sitting at about the same amount as the previous year. We'll update this as we proceed throughout the year, but it's just a quick snapshot of where we are at the present time.

On slides numbers 7 and 8, we have the major voted items, which are contained in the supplementary estimates (A) document itself. I will not walk through each one of these, but I'll hit a few highlights for you here.

The first one on this list, Employment and Social Development Canada, jobs, is $499 million. That is replacing the labour market development agreements. That's a multi-year funding allocation that goes out to 2019-20: $500 million per year. You're seeing that for the first time here.

Second on this list, we have some funding for the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated, $253.7 million in supplementary estimates (A), to supplement their main estimates amount.

We have funding for PPP Canada of $200 million, which relates to a budget 2013 announcement. This is for the sixth round of PPP Canada applications, so they're proceeding with those.

Then lastly on this page, I'll highlight two items for you, both of which are related to atomic energy. The first one is $195 million, and it relates to the operations related to the production of isotopes, as well as some of the Chalk River infrastructure refurbishment. Then right underneath that, you'll see amounts for Natural Resources Canada's nuclear legacy liabilities program which relate to atomic energy as well. It is about liability cleanup or contaminated site cleanup. I'm just highlighting it for you because they're both $195 million. It's not a mistake. They are two separate amounts. It's a little strange that they are the exact same amount. Those both relate to AECL, but are for two distinct purposes.

Lastly on this page, at the bottom, you have Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and an item you've seen before related to water and waste water action plan. That is $136 million. That is to continue ongoing work related to the development of protocols and standards related to waste water and drinking water, as well as some ongoing work to put indoor plumbing into some communities in northern Manitoba.

On slide number eight, we have the continuation of the major voted items. Again, members, one you have seen before is Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development relating to the High Commission in London. You'll recall that Macdonald House was sold for roughly $565 million, and as part of that process they're consolidating facilities in London. These funds that will be spent relate to the renovations for the High Commission and the official residence, as well as leasehold extension for Canada House. This work itself is being funded by the proceeds from Macdonald House, but the way that parliamentary authorities work, the proceeds from Macdonald House go into the consolidated revenue fund and we have to vote funds for the department.

Second, on page 8, we have another item for Indian and Northern Affairs. This one is specific to the remediation of federal contaminated sites. Indian and Northern Affairs is actually responsible for 112 contaminated sites, but the funds here are specific to two large contaminated sites, the Faro Mine and the Giant Mine. Then you have some funds for Infrastructure Canada related to the new bridge for the St. Lawrence. There is VIA Rail funding for incremental pension requirements, which you have seen before. This has been a recurring item. Then, lastly, there is the final piece of the decontamination cost for the Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, disaster, of $95 million. That's the federal contribution there.

Changing gears, on slide nine, this committee has discussed something numerous times called the expenditure database, which we are still quite proud of. We have renamed it to the Treasury Board Secretariat info database. The reason we renamed it was that it became quite popular and we had requests to add things in addition to expenditure data, so things like HR data are now on that database. Given that we were putting human resource-type information on the database, we thought we should give it a more general name rather than the expenditure database. It has been renamed the Treasury Board Secretariat InfoBase. You will now see on there people management information for the federal public service, by organization, for the years 2010-11 to 2012-13. It shows it by province, by age, and by tenure, so there's a lot of detailed information there. We're continuing to increase the data available on this site, but I did want to flag the change in name for you, in case some of you were having trouble finding it.

In the upcoming years, we hope to continue to improve it. The planned improvements are around the ease of use, hopefully to make it easier to search things.

As well, we will continue to add quarterly financial information as it becomes available, and public accounts information when it's available as well.

To conclude, let me say that supplementary estimates (A) 2014-15 present the requirements for 16 departments and agencies.

Hopefully it will support the appropriation bill for the first of three planned supplementary estimates in 2014-15. Again, I can't promise you what will happen with supplementary estimates (B) and (C), but we are, at this stage, planning on visiting you at least two more times and we'll look forward to that.

That being said, I'm happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Matthews, thank you once again for joining us this morning and for clarifying these pages and numbers.

Mr. Martin, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

And thank you, Mr. Matthews, for a very clear and concise presentation. It's very helpful to us. This is our opportunity as a committee to drill down a little bit further into the estimates and get down to some of the specifics. I hope we have the time to go through some of these subjects in more detail at subsequent meetings even.

My first question is about something you didn't raise in your briefing and that's $74.9 million for vote 1a in relation to an out of court settlement under the category “People Management”. Is that the Royal LePage envoy relocation court case?

[Bill Matthews]

No, it's not. It does relate to a court case as it says. That item is still before the courts, so I can't really offer up much detail at this stage on that because it is still before the courts—but I can you it's not related to that. At a subsequent meeting, I'll be able to offer up additional information on that front.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

But you're asking us to approve the expenditure for it and you're not even going to tell us what it's for?

[Bill Matthews]

It does relate to an out-of-court settlement that is being negotiated, but it still has to be ratified by the courts, so I believe it's inappropriate for me at this time, Mr. Chair, to talk about what's there.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think it's inappropriate for the government to come to Parliament to ask permission to spend this money before we even know the details. I mean, talk about a pig in a poke. I was here ready to argue about the Royal LePage settlement because I assumed that's what it was. We've examined that in great detail over 15 years, but if we don't even know what it is, I think that's a weakness in our system if you're coming for the approval of the appropriation of the money before we have any information whatsoever to go on.

[Bill Matthews]

Maybe, Mr. Chair, if I could suggest that if there's a need to go into greater detail, we could potentially go in camera to discuss it. Because it still is before the courts, it's not for questions....

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We'll leave that for the time being then.

There are a great deal deal of items here that are of interest to me. Of them, can you explain—and I don't know if you're even able to defend the government's proposal here—the Public-Private Partnerships Canada investment fund of $200 million. I thought the whole idea of public-private partnerships was that they didn't cost the government any money. Why is it costing us $200 million to let somebody else assume the risk of these infrastructure projects?

[Bill Matthews]

Public-private partnerships are not about not costing the government money; they're about sharing the risk. So if you do look, it is indeed a public-private—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It's about contracting out the risk. It's an enormous markup, something like a 30% to 40% premium to assume that risk.

[Bill Matthews]

If you actually speak to various.... British Columbia has far more experience in public-private partnerships than most provinces. That's the debate around public-private partnerships. Yes, you're contracting out the risk. What's the cost? So PPP Canada has their sixth round of competition open. It's a merit-based award. The way the PPP Canada fund works is that the federal government cannot contribute either through PPP Canada or other direct funding any more than 25% of the direct contract costs. That's the actual contribution cap of the federal government through that program. The debate about sharing the risk and at what cost is one that accountants have been batting about for a while. That's the key question: with any PPP deal, what's the cost for that risk?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Fair enough....

As for Atomic Energy Canada, I understand that it's a coincidence that these two figures are exactly the same. But regarding the liability, I thought that when SNC-Lavalin essentially repaid them to take over the burden of responsibility for atomic energy, it wouldn't still be a cost for us. Why is that still costing us money?

[Bill Matthews]

Well, there are a couple of pieces here.

Mr. Chair, SNC-Lavalin took over the CANDU reactor business. So that piece is gone, but there remain the facilities at Chalk River and the ongoing medical isotope production work that AECL is still performing. The operating budget that they get through the mains is not sufficient to carry them through the years.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Is it up and running and producing isotopes now?

[Bill Matthews]

As far as I know, it is. So that's to continue that work.

The other piece there is that the facilities at Chalk River themselves are still in need of some upgrades to meet standards, so that work is continuing.

So that's the piece directly related to AECL.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I guess it's along the same—

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Can I have one more question?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

I am sorry, Mr. Martin, but your time is up. You will probably have a chance to ask other questions later.

Mr. Trottier, you now have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Matthews. And thank you to our officials from the Treasury Board Secretariat.

It's very helpful to get this broad overview, and I'd also like to drill down on just a couple of things.

On slide 6, you talked about the 2014-15 estimates coming in at $67.3 million for operating and capital expenditures, compared to $71.5 million last year. I know it's impossible for you to predict exactly, but once the supplementary estimates (B) and (C) come in, are we likely to come in below what we were at last year, at $71.5 million? We're talking about nominal dollars, of course.

[Bill Matthews]

Thank you for the question.

I can say the trend we've been seeing the last couple of years is to have an increase in statutory amounts, for the reasons I mentioned around the health transfer as well as programs for the elderly, and to have decreases in voted amounts. It's too early for me to say whether that trend will continue exactly this year, but if we have $67.3 million at this stage—supplementary estimates (B) are typically our biggest amounts and supplementary estimates (C) are generally quite small—it looks as though we'll be in line with last year's numbers. Whether we're slightly above or slightly below, I can't say. It depends on the—

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

Can you say, across all these departments and agencies, whether that is an actual real reduction in spending when it comes to operating capital? Is that the result of some of the actions that were taken under the deficit reduction action plan?

[Bill Matthews]

Yes, Mr. Chair, it's an accumulation of a few initiatives. You can look at the deficit reduction action plan as being a big part of it, and even before that, you saw reductions in strategic review going back from 2007 to 2011. The biggest chunk of that is the result of actions under the deficit reduction action plan and some continued measures that the government has put in place. The operating budget freeze is in place for the current year. So you have measures like that to control the operating spending of departments.