Government Operations Committee on April 19th, 2016

[Brian Pagan]

That's an interesting question. I wouldn't want to speculate on the disposition of any organization. This isn't a fund. It's a stand-alone organization. There's a machinery-of-government issue here, which is the Prime Minister's prerogative. I think we heard clearly from the minister this morning that, although this is no longer a mandatory screen, the numbers suggest that there has been value in using P3 as a tool in specific instances. I think the government would want to look carefully at making sure that it uses that tool to deliver infrastructure projects in the most cost-effective way possible.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

On the theme of infrastructure projects, I note that the main estimates refer to the termination of the gateways and border crossings fund. One of the things that was funded by that initiative was the Global Transportation Hub, which is a logistics facility just west of Regina. They also spent millions of dollars in suspicious land purchases. When I asked the president of the Treasury Board about this at his appearance before this committee prior to today, he said he would look into it. When I asked him about it again in the House of Commons, he said that he didn't really need to look into it, because the provincial auditor was going to be examining it. The answer I got from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport was that the federal funding would have been only for transport infrastructure, and not for land purchases.

It came out earlier this month that one major piece of that infrastructure, an interchange that was opened in 2013 to accommodate truck traffic to and from the Global Transportation Hub, at a cost of $43 million, is going to be ripped up and rebuilt in order to connect to the new bypass being built south of Regina. There are a number of flags here about how federal money was used, whether it was in the land purchases or whether it was used to build this interchange that is now going to be rebuilt. At what point might the Treasury Board step in and investigate this matter?

[Brian Pagan]

I'll try to get into this in as much detail as I can, and perhaps that may generate a second question from you.

First of all, this Global Transportation Hub, as you noted, is an intermodal transportation facility designed to support the rapid transfer of shipping containers and international trade between road and rail transportation. This includes activities and transportation links with Canadian Pacific Railways and the Loblaw group of companies and their western distribution centre.

The transportation hub itself is the responsibility of the Province of Saskatchewan, but the federal government, as you've noted, is contributing up to 50% of eligible costs for the project through the gateways and border crossings fund. Now, it's quite clear in the gateways and border crossings fund that land acquisition costs are not covered. They are not eligible for federal reimbursement. The Department of Transport and the Treasury Board Secretariat do have the ability to go in and audit to make sure that our funds have not been used for that purpose.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Have you done such an audit in this case?

[Brian Pagan]

We have not, at the Treasury Board Secretariat, done that. We have not been asked to do that. In checking with Transport Canada, we have been told that they themselves have looked into this and they've established that their funding has not been used for the purpose of purchasing land.

What it has been used for, as you've noted, is upgrading the existing Pinkie Road alignment, including an intersection and the construction of a short section of the west Regina bypass. If that has since been ripped up or revised, that is a question for—

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Yes, that's the question. Clearly, there's federal money in this Pinkie Road interchange. It's come out earlier this month that the province is going to rip this thing up and rebuild it to try to connect to the new bypass south of Regina.

I wonder how it can possibly be considered good planning or a proper use of federal money to have built something that now needs to be torn up and rebuilt. It may be bad planning by the province rather than the federal government, but surely the Treasury Board would want to look into this.

[Brian Pagan]

It is a provincial project, and my understanding here is that for the realignment of Pinkie Road and the construction of the short west Regina bypass, that work is intended to increase safety, reduce traffic delays, and increase the processing efficiency with respect to the international and inter-regional transportation activities. My understanding is that the work under way is scheduled for completion in this fiscal year for March 2017 and that it supports the original design of the project.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much, Mr. Pagan.

We'll go to the last seven-minute intervention, with Monsieur Ayoub.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am probably going to share my time with Mr. Whalen, depending on the answers I get to my questions. They will deal with two specific subjects, the Canada School of Public Service and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

First, according to what I read, the Canada School of Public Service is asking for $62 million, an increase of 28%. The increase is in connection with a new funding model. I would like to know about the reason for that new funding model, if you have any details about it.

In addition, what does the Treasury Board Secretariat have in mind in terms of new directives as a result of the new funding model?

[Renée LaFontaine]

I'll start with the Canada School of Public Service.

On the new funding model they're referring to in their notes here, the Canada School of Public Service used to be on a cost recovery basis, and what they found was that the change in policy was related to wanting to use it as a campus and a school to further good, solid public service training and to actually ensure that we have talented people and a lot of executive leadership training and all of that sort of thing.

What has happened over the last two years in their budget is that they've now transitioned to where actually we're allocating them funds to deliver these programs, as opposed to them being subject to whether departments would use their services or go somewhere else. That's the model they're transitioning to, and it's going to be a fully funded, appropriated model.

Does that answer your question?

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Yes, I think I understood. However, with this new model, is the school assured of balancing its revenue and expenditures? How will it be able to fund itself, which is what I understand, and maintain the same quality and relevance of its programs? We are still talking about an increase of 28%, which is nothing to sneeze at.

I assume that the decision to move towards this new funding model was studied and that other options were considered. Why was this model chosen?

[Renée LaFontaine]

I think the reasons were the same as I previously mentioned. In terms of the departments, we wanted to take a lot more leadership and set up management training programs, management leadership programs, that are focused on the talent gaps in the areas that we wanted to address, as opposed to a cost recovery model that incented departments to use it or use the private sector. This training is also coupled with the fact that it needs to be mandatory for certain positions, certain communities across government, certain senior executives, etc. That is my understanding of the general model.

There is a chief financial officer who works for that organization. Perhaps for any further details, we could go back to them to provide to you.

[Brian Pagan]

I could give you a specific example about the type of training that the school provides.

Public service executives have to have a certain level of skill in areas like ethics and values, service delivery and staff management. Different skills are required at each level, including some that are more detailed and more focused. The school undertook a review of the various departments to better understand their needs for training. It prepared a course that is offered to all public service executives so that they all have the same understanding and skill levels in those areas.

That approach is based very clearly on consultation with departments to understand their learning needs. We heard this morning a question regarding the public service survey and our work on prevention of harassment and violence in the workplace. These are examples of how we use the surveys to design the training required and then consult with departments to make sure that training responds to their needs.

It is client-driven. There are surveys done after the training to confirm with both the participants and the sponsoring departments that the training has met a need or satisfied a gap. There will be continuous learning and improvement to make sure those skills are passed on.

We also have very technical training related to IT security and financial management. For the most part, our finance professionals in the public service have professional designations, CAs, CPAs, etc., but they also need to be schooled in the management of public finances and our requirements on TB policies. The school has worked with the Treasury Board Secretariat, with the office of the comptroller general, to make sure our finance staff are getting the appropriate training on the audit function, on preparation of invoices for payment, etc. We do that with different functional communities across the public service.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I think we are out of time.

We have two more five-minute rounds for the government, so you might be able to get your question in there.

Mr. McCauley, you have five minutes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks for joining us today.

On the parliamentary protective service, $62 million.... How are we evaluating the efficiency? I don't want to say “effectiveness”, because obviously we are all still here breathing. How are you evaluating the efficiency of this money that is getting spent? It is all anecdotal, of course, but I can't walk two steps in any building without tripping over someone sitting and reading a newspaper.

[Brian Pagan]

This in fact came up in a tangential way this morning, during the minister's appearance, and I think it is important to reiterate this point.

The estimates present the aggregate of the appropriation requirements of all entities in the Canadian public service, but with respect to Parliament, and that is to say the House of Commons, the Senate, and the protective service that is co-managed by the two offices, the Treasury Board Secretariat has no line of sight and no authority over those requirements. Requirements from the Senate, House of Commons, and the protective service are determined—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

You just show up asking for the money on behalf of others.

[Brian Pagan]

They respect our timelines and our requirements in terms of reporting, but the actual details around their requirements—unlike everything else presented in the estimates—those are not presented to Treasury Board ministers for review or approval, and therefore we have no insight.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Why don't we move on if you don't have an answer for them.

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, which I think is a great idea, protecting whistle-blowers, etc., gets an amount of $5.5 million every year. I'm just curious if we're tracking how many people we are serving or protecting with that, or processing, and again, the efficiency, if it's 10, 20, 500. Are we getting the word out properly?

[Brian Pagan]

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, like every other organization in these main estimates, will produce results, objectives, and indicators in support of their program. Typically they would set targets for the timeliness of their response. Obviously, they don't have a target for how many complaints they want to receive, but they are responsive to those complaints and would generally commit to resolving those within specific periods of time. I don't have their—

[Renée LaFontaine]

I don't have their RPTs with me.

[Brian Pagan]

Okay.

Marcia is also reminding me that this office also reports directly to Parliament so again it's not possible for me—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

That's okay, we'll move on again if you haven't got an answer.

Just going back to the public service—and I'm sure I'm almost out of time—I understand it's maybe just paperwork, it's not on a cost recovery anymore. Have you gone back to the other departments where it was on a cost recovery but is now not transferring over? Do you know if that money is reduced from those departments or if they're just given that money to spend elsewhere? Because if there was $20 million, for example, coming in from, say, Industry on a transfer for cost recovery, is that money just left for them for other uses?

[Renée LaFontaine]

Let me see if I can clarify what I think you're asking. The Canada School of Public Service used to cost-recover some of its courses. It did have a base budget as well to deliver government-wide programs or training programs.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

We're not doing cost recovery anymore.