Government Operations Committee on Nov. 1st, 2018

[Gérard Deltell]

We completely agree with the policy and the approach taken, and the amounts to be paid out, but we are surprised to see a $3-million vote multiplied by 80. We are surprised to see that this was not planned out better. I am not talking about an estimate to the last cent, but we are talking about an amount that is 80 times higher.

[Brian Pagan]

The issue here is simply the amount that will have to be paid out as a result of this action.

The settlement is expected to cost up to $110 million. It's not clear what the exact amounts will be, so we're holding that money in vote 10 and we will allocate it out. Anything that is not used for that purpose lapses in the vote and will be re-profiled.

The other element is for the indigenous early childhood learning. This is a framework that is being co-developed with the Assembly of First Nations, with the Métis National Council, and with the Inuit Council. Once the parameters of those programs are known, the monies will be distributed to the appropriate programs within the Government of Canada.

It is not a Treasury Board expense. In fact, central votes will be used until the amounts are determined and the conditions of the programs are know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. McCauley, go ahead.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I have a couple of quick Phoenix questions for you, following up Mr. Brison. The National Joint Council had a meeting about compensation for those who've been Phoenixed. Is any of that money set aside, or will it come out of the vote 40 under stabilizing Phoenix? Has it been looked at yet?

[Brian Pagan]

No, that is a compensation element that will be addressed separately—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Just a no is fine, thanks.

Repeated throughout the estimates, there's $99,196. Why that number, and specifically what for?

To follow up on Phoenix, on the online allocation TBS votes, there's $7 million for 25 full-time equivalents for Phoenix stabilization. That's like $250,000 a person. What are they going to be doing for $250,000 a person?

[Brian Pagan]

On your first question, Mr. McCauley, budget 2018 allocated funding, one year only, for departments to hire temporary support to help process and deal with the Phoenix backlog. Our formula was simply based on the size of the department. It was pro-weighted.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Was that solely for Miramichi departments, or for those still in-house?

[Brian Pagan]

It was for Miramichi departments.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay.

What about the $7 million for the 25 full-time equivalents on page 24 of your online allocation?

[Brian Pagan]

I believe we're talking about more than FTEs there. There are professional services and contracting elements to that, I believe.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Should that not be identified in the online allocation, then, for the sake of transparency and everything?

[Brian Pagan]

This is the system fix. We're working with PSPC on some of the business rules that are driving some of the Phoenix challenges, trying to standardize some of the different classifications.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Should that be identified, then, as full-time equivalents and outside consultants?

[Brian Pagan]

In fact, it's more than just consultants. We're looking at regs and some of the legal issues.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I think I'm out of time, but thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Our final intervention will come from Mr. Peterson.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Pagan and everyone, for being with us this afternoon.

I want to talk a little bit about the Gordie Howe bridge, because it's important for where I come from, Newmarket—Aurora. Obviously, auto sector manufacturing is very important. Much of the trade that crosses the border either originates or ends up near that part of the province of Ontario.

The supplementaries are $283.6 million, I think. Why is this number in the supplementaries, and what's changed that this wasn't in the main estimates? This project, of course, has been ongoing for a long time, and it's really starting to pick up speed now. Some hurdles, such as litigation, have now been removed. Construction is now under way or very close to being under way. Was this a timing thing, or was the cash flow not there to start the construction?

[Brian Pagan]

Thank you, Mr. Peterson.

This is a regular occurrence with estimates when we are in a world where we are voting appropriations annually, and we will only seek the appropriations once the parameters of a program are known.

The Gordie Howe bridge was planned many years ago, and there was money set aside in the budget, in the fiscal framework for that expenditure. There have been some appropriations over the intervening years to support the procurement process to develop an RFP to purchase some of the land, etc.

The construction of the bridge, the selection of the consortium building the bridge, was finalized this past spring, and a contract was signed with that consortium, I believe, in September of this year. It's a $5.7-billion project that will run until 2024. These supplementary estimates (A) are the first opportunity to bring forward for Parliament's approval the cash requirements of that contract. It's $5.7 billion between now and 2024, and Parliament will see the request for that money. Specifically in these supplementary estimates (A), the $283.6 million is being used to acquire the final properties on the Michigan side of the border and to prepare both sides, the Canada and the U.S. side, for construction, which began last month. Construction began in October.

There will be significant expenditures in the main estimates next year for this department, and then, as the project unfolds, if there are any deviations from the contract and the initial profile of the funding, those would be reflected in supplementary estimates. If the monies requested this year are not utilized, then those will be brought forward in a future year, and we would explain those requirements.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

That's very helpful. The money couldn't flow or couldn't be requested until the contract was finalized, effectively.

[Brian Pagan]

That's it.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you for that.

Just a little bit on the process here.... You state in your deck, on page 9, two significant changes to the supplementary estimates: “A reduction in the number of Supplementary Estimates from three to two”—that's self-explanatory—and then, “A significant reduction in funding from the most recent federal budget in the Supplementary Estimates. The bulk of the funding for Budget 2018 initiatives will be allocated directly from the centrally managed Budget Implementation vote introduced in the Main Estimates.”

Why is that a good thing? Can you quantify that? Is that the vote 40 we've always been talking about?

[Brian Pagan]

That's correct.

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

This is an interim measure, correct?

[Brian Pagan]

The changes to the Standing Orders that allow us to table the estimates after the budget are valid for the duration of this Parliament, so a future Parliament will determine whether this is progress to be continued or not. In terms of the budget implementation vote, if we didn't have that mechanism to allocate money as initiatives are approved, then we would have seen that instead of a $7.5-billion supplementary estimate, we would have taken all that budget implementation money and rolled it into this first supplementary estimate, and so you would have had supplementaries of over $10 billion.

We believe it's a good thing because it enhances transparency and it allows a more timely allocation so that departments can get on with delivering the program and service as identified in budget 2018.