Government Operations Committee on March 10th, 2015

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

You do not know the details.

[Brian Pagan]

I don't have the exact details, especially regarding the number of police officers deployed at this time.

What I can say is that the funding requested in supplementary estimates (C) is for continuation of the global peace and security fund and the stabilization and reconstruction task force that was created in 2005. This in fact is an example of the questions to the minister earlier about sunsetting programs and the renewal of these programs as we get some experience and can apply some lessons about the best modalities and operations of the programs. The funding for this was confirmed in budget 2014 and is being presented now for parliamentary approval.

In the past it has included deployment of Canadian police officers in Haiti and Afghanistan and has helped respond to crises around the world including the Haiti earthquake, the Pakistan floods, etc.

Marcia, perhaps you can provide some additional details.

[Marcia Santiago]

I have just a little bit of extra information on the police deployments under this funding.

Currently 90 Canadian federal and provincial police officers are in arrangements managed through the stabilization and reconstruction task force. Eighty-four of these are in Haiti. A few additional deployments are in the process of being considered, including those that may involve regions like Ukraine.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

My last question concerns the cuts to Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Program appropriations regarding temporary residents have been reduced by $6 million, even though we know the waiting lists are difficult to manage. We also receive requests about this in our offices. What is the rationale for making cuts to Citizenship and Immigration Canada when we observe in our riding offices that the wait times are becoming longer and longer?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Give just a very brief answer, Mr. Pagan. I'm sorry to put you in this position all the time, but we're almost out of time.

[Brian Pagan]

Thank you. Again I appreciate the question.

The operating expenditures for Citizenship and Immigration for main estimates 2015-16 are $566.5 million, compared with $556.4 million last year, so there is in fact a slight increase to their operating vote.

I would defer to the department for additional detail on that.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I'm afraid we'll have to leave it at that, Mr. Pagan. You've made your point, I think. Thank you.

Next, for the Conservatives for five minutes, is Dan Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here to lend your expertise so that the committee can understand things better.

I'd like to first follow up with Mr. Pagan, who suggested that if he had more time he would like to talk about the carry forward process. I would like to hear what you were going to say, so I'd like to give you a little time to give an overview of that particular area, please.

[Brian Pagan]

Thank you for the question. I welcome this, because I think it is an opportunity to educate members of Parliament about the process and perhaps dispel some myths and misconceptions.

I spoke earlier about supplementary estimates (C) and the fact that they are tabled according to House Standing Orders at a certain point in the year, leaving just a few weeks in the fiscal year for departments to execute the programs based on the approvals provided by Parliament.

In the past, going back to the early nineties, this timing created a phenomenon known as “March madness”, whereby departments would spend the money available, because if they couldn't spend it, they would lose it. This was a practice that was criticized by the Auditor General and by parliamentary committees, so the concept of carry forward was introduced in 1993. It allowed a bit of flexibility. It simply recognized the reality of providing approval for funding very late in the fiscal year and some of the difficulty in spending this related to contracting, hiring staff, etc.

It proved to be quite successful, I think. The Auditor General supported an increase to the carry forward. It was increased to 5% in 1994-95 and has stayed at that level ever since.

A more recent development in 2007 was the creation of a central vote to provide more transparency to Parliament in terms of the use of that vote. Right now Parliament, through these main estimates, is creating a central vote for administration by Treasury Board, and we will report back—that central vote is worth $1.6 billion—at the conclusion of the fiscal year on how that $1.6 billion was allocated, department by department, in accordance with their carry forward needs and entitlements. There is a very strict process by which we determine whether they are eligible or not for that carry forward.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

So that's a new process, and it helps parliamentarians understand, particularly late in the fiscal year, the allocations. Is that correct?

[Brian Pagan]

That's correct.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Okay.

Just on this whole topic, because criticisms are raised in this place quite often, and sometimes it's good to check in with them, would you say that you're well acquainted with the supply process and the need to check in with parliamentarians throughout?

[Brian Pagan]

Absolutely. This is a process that we take quite seriously. The sector exists to support the expenditure management system, and we appear regularly before parliamentary committees. We take this quite seriously.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

With that in mind, because it was raised earlier that we have only this much time at this committee, I was left with the impression that people at home might think we spend only an hour reviewing these particular things. I know you probably spend much more than just that.

Besides this committee, what other opportunities do individual members of Parliament have to hold the government to account when it comes to its spending, both informal as well as formal methods?

[Brian Pagan]

Thank you for the question.

Transparency and accountability for the moneys provided to departments again are something that we take quite seriously. We have, I think, worked very constructively with this committee, with the Senate Committee on National Finance, with the Office of the Auditor General to listen and hear their needs and make real improvements to the information provided to Parliament, not only in the estimates but in a range of other documents. The quarterly financial report provides in-year reporting on how each and every department is progressing against the authorities provided to them by departments.

In just a week or so the President of the Treasury Board will table departmental reports on plans and priorities, which provide a great deal of detail by department for the moneys requested in these supplementary estimates. We have worked with departments over the last several years to improve the transparency of their documents by identifying strategic outcomes and program activities that allow parliamentary committees to better understand the aggregation of programs and how those fit with departmental mandates and government priorities.

I think that provides just a very brief summary of the work that we've done, and I can assure you it is an ongoing exercise. I think Canada can be very proud of the way its public finances are managed, but we are always striving to identify and implement improvements, and we would welcome recommendations.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mr. Albas, I'm going to have to stop you there. You're over five minutes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I just want to clarify. The reports on plans and priorities I think was what you meant to say, not the departmental reports. Is that correct?

[Brian Pagan]

There are two documents that comprise part III of the estimates. The report on plans and priorities is tabled in the spring to support main estimates, and then at the conclusion of the fiscal year a departmental performance report is tabled, which provides that backward-looking view.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I appreciate the extra courtesy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

Just to take a second, I think it would be useful for new members of the committee to see the helpful chart that Mr. Matthews put together for us to help us understand the continuity of the flow of supply, which included everything from estimates to budget to DPRs. It helped me at least to have that graphically illustrated to understand that flow of supply.

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Would anyone at the table be able to offer the committee a discussion about best practices for the conduct of cost recovery measurements and analysis? Mr. Pagan, would you be qualified, would you like to step into that territory?

[Brian Pagan]

I will start.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

My question is that there's a particular crown corporation that offers two services, but they're identical. One's a core service; one's a seasonal service. It's a transportation company. The transportation company has a constitutional mandate or an authority with Canada and has an obligation to provide the transportation service. So it has boats, it has docks, it has ferry terminals, it has staff, it has various expenditures that it must make to meet that constitutional obligation. But it also offers a seasonal transportation service, which is ancillary to the constitutional obligation.

In terms of cost recovery measurements, because the constitutional obligation, the year-round service, already has the boats, the docks, the ferry, the ferry terminals, and the staff in place, when analyzing whether or not the seasonal service is meeting a certain cost recovery measure or target, that particular crown corporation suggests, because there are already certain capital assets and personnel in place, that when they do a cost recovery analysis on the seasonal service they don't have to include any of the costs of vessels, terminals, staff, anything like that. Is that a best practice? Would you encourage Canada Post to do the same thing, for example, in terms of measuring cost recovery for regular letter mail versus its courier business, or anything like that?

[Brian Pagan]

Thank you for the question.

I'm not aware of the details or the example that you're providing, but what I can say is that we do have, at the Treasury Board Secretariat in the Office of the Comptroller General, a centre of excellence on costing, and resident in that program as well is the policy centre for cost recovery and implementation of the User Fees Act. So there's always a bit of tension in programs as to whether to appropriate from Parliament or to charge the users, and we work with each and every department to understand their program, their client base, and then work with them to identify what the cost recovery elements of the program are.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

That is fantastic information.

Mr. Pagan, would you undertake to offer the committee a description of the services of that particular centre?

Would you be able to ask them to provide an analysis of Marine Atlantic's operations, the North Sydney to Port aux Basques services versus the seasonal North Sydney to Argentia services: analyze how Marine Atlantic conducts its cost recovery measurements and reports, provide the committee with that information as to what their findings are, and then determine whether or not they meet the best practices of the Treasury Board Secretariat?

Could you do that?