Government Operations Committee on June 12th, 2019

[André Fillion]

There was a significant gap between the end of production of our Arctic offshore patrol ship and the start of the surface combatants. There have been a number of measures to close that gap, all of which together are such that we are at a point now where there will not be massive layoffs of blue-collar workers simply to then rehire them, plus more for the surface combatants.

The three measures were the slowing down of ships three to six, and the addition of four and six and seven.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

What was the general cause of the production gap? Was it just this delay in getting the decision made on the CSC? This is quite significant, having to throw in three extra ships and $150 million on top of that.

[André Fillion]

There is a cost avoidance associated with.... There are three benefits for Canada. First of all, there are six Arctic offshore patrol ships for the Canadian navy. It also brings two ships to the Coast Guard earlier than any other way we could have made possible, but there's also a cost avoidance to Canada for not laying off workers, from not having the shipyard laying off—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm not sure I understand that.

[André Fillion]

Also, I would like to add that the costs associated with the delay to the surface combatants are also quite significant. There has been an investment of cash for those decisions, but there's also a significant cost avoidance by not having layoffs and with the delay of the surface combatants.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Blaikie, you have five minutes, please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

I want to follow up on some of the comments the minister made in her opening statement about the integrity regime and putting changes to the integrity regime on hold. In particular, I think the way the minister more or less phrased it was that a lot had happened since the initial consultation on, and changes to, the integrity regime, so I guess she's going to take some time to digest what happened.

In the department's view, what has happened that would change the outcome of the consultation on how the integrity regime should be structured? What are the factors or variables that have changed that would lead to a different integrity regime policy?

[Bill Matthews]

I would make a couple of points. You characterized her remarks quite accurately. What has happened is that there's been lot discussion, I would say, in various forums, including Parliament, the media and online, and a lot more engagement by people who may not necessarily have been interested in the first round. We heard a lot of consultation in the first round. The formal submissions in writing that we got were very useful, but I wouldn't say they were numerous.

The discussion that we have heard and that is of interest covers a wide spectrum, but I'd say the most important ones are the range of offences. Under the draft policy, there are ranges of offences being added. There has been discussion about maybe some additional ideas on that front, and then some discussion around the length of time in play. Right now the current policy is 10 years, with a possibility of reducing it to five, I believe. Under the draft policy, you're looking at a regime that is up to 10 years in the way it has been drafted. Is that the right approach? There's lots of discussion on that front as well. Those are the first two off the top of my head.

Michael, is there anything you want to add to that list?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Go ahead.

[Michael Vandergrift, Associate Deputy Minister, Public Services and Procurement Canada, Department of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Chair, we also look at the transparency provisions and how the regime is administered, including the rationale for decision-making, or what can be made public, in terms of the reasons for the decisions made by the registrar. We also look at the independence of the registrar and making sure that that is—

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Are these considerations that weren't foreseen by the department in the draft they were preparing initially?

[Bill Matthews]

I think that some of them are re-visitable ideas with some new input. But in terms of the ideas around transparency, and what could potentially be made public around decision-making, my recollection is that is a new discussion that has taken place. I didn't hear a lot about that in the initial go-round.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Madam Ratansi.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I thought it would be Mr. Drouin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

It can be whoever you wish.

Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I actually don't have a lot of questions, but I do have one question for Mr. Linklater dealing with the pay system. But perhaps Mr. Matthews will direct the traffic.

I heard this morning that Treasury Board has said they are going to have pilot projects, and one of the things they mentioned is ensuring that we have a parallel system so that we're not left with no system at all. What I'm hearing is that we've obviously learned some lessons. Just from my own perspective, how are you working in collaboration with Treasury Board on this particular file?

[Les Linklater]

Yes, we are working very collaboratively with the secretariat as they work through next generation. My understanding is that Treasury Board officials are also appearing today, and they will probably be prepared to speak in more detail.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes.

[Les Linklater]

But they are now working with three qualified vendors they hope to qualify to be able to then work through the construct and the concept of HR-to-pay pilots, which will necessarily draw on the experience and the expertise of PSPC in regard to federal pay. That is very complex, as you know, and requires a lot of knowledge of how to apply collective agreements, and how to deal with the interfaces with numerous stakeholders, including bargaining agents, insurance companies, the 33 HR systems—although the pilot should look at an HR-to-pay integrated approach.

We do have regular governance meetings where we talk not only about stabilization but also starting the conversations around the next gen and how the pilots can and should be developed. But I would defer to my Treasury Board colleagues for any detail on the next steps.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That's great. Thank you. That's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We'll go to Mr. McCauley, then, for five minutes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I want to stick with the shipbuilding. I saw today that we pulled the polar icebreaker from Seaspan. Is that correct?

[André Fillion]

Do you want me to take this?

[Bill Matthews]

I can start and André can correct me if I misspeak. The polar icebreaker is a one-ship build. It's an extraordinarily complicated build and basically the most complicated build we have in the package. We are revisiting options around the polar, so no decision has been made as to where it will be built.