Government Operations Committee on June 8th, 2017

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I agree that it was a big mistake, and I'm disappointed your government rushed ahead with it as well, but in terms of the costs of fixing Phoenix, now we are in this mess.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I want to address—

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

One item that we haven't talked about too much is the cost of compensating—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Weir, may I? You said something, and I just want to address that.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Okay. Go ahead.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

At the point of going ahead with Phoenix, the decision by the previous government to lay off 700 pay professionals created a situation. We did not have a legacy system. It was the date to start Phoenix. It was not a case of our being able to continue with the legacy system or—

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Sure. Your government decided to implement Phoenix. You had a problem with phase one, and you had an option.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

There was no legacy system. One of the lessons for any future government—you never know, maybe even an NDP one some day—would be to maintain the legacy system.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

I wish your government had done that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Unfortunately, Mr. Weir and Minister, we're out of time, fascinating as the topic is.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

One of the things, Erin, I found as an opposition member on these committees is that it's a good practice to keep your questions short because it gives people like me less time to think about what I'm going to say, but when you preamble yourself to death, what you do is make it very easy for me to think of what I'm going to say, and then you answer your own questions. Just keep them short.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Well, thank you for the advice, Minister. I'm sure it will be well taken by all members of the committee.

We will now go to Madam Shanahan for seven minutes, please.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you very much, Minister. We appreciate all the advice you can give us.

Just to continue and finish off Ramez's line of questioning about the supplementary estimates (A) and the $625 million allocated to the pay list requirements, to get it on the record, can you explain why this money is necessary in these supplementary estimates (A), when we already approved the same thing in February?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I will ask Brian to speak to the sequencing of it in these supplementary estimates (A).

[Brian Pagan]

What we're doing in the estimates process is seeking approval from Parliament to have authorities available if an obligation, a contract, or a requirement comes due. At the time of supplementary estimates (C), which would have been finalized in January, we had just come through a period in December and January when tentative agreements had been reached. It was impossible at that time to know for certain whether they would be ratified and implemented before the end of the fiscal year, so what we did in supplementary estimates (C) was bring it forward for Parliament's transparency to get the authorities. In the event that the agreements were ratified, we would have the funds available to make the payment.

As we know, the agreements were not ratified by the end of the fiscal year and the money was not required. It lapsed, and what we are now doing in supplementary estimates (A) is to take that original amount plus some additional funds to reflect additional agreements that have been negotiated. We are presenting this to Parliament as our best understanding of the costs due at this time as a result of the bargaining process.

There will be additional funds sought in subsequent supplementary estimates as further agreements are reached. There are 27 bargaining agents; we have ratified 18 agreements, and there's a 19th that is pending ratification, so we have eight to go.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Okay. It's not new money, then; it's money that was already approved and now has to be—

[Brian Pagan]

The funding, to respond to Mr. Ayoub's question, is coming from two sources. Because of the operating budget freeze, departments have been aware since 2013 that they were going to have to pay a portion of collective bargaining. They put money aside, and it has been continuously reprofiled.

About $390 million of the $625 million you see is money that was appropriated in previous years, was never used, was put aside, and is now being brought forward for the departmental portion of the obligation. The balance—I think it's about $235 million—is funds that are coming from the central fund to reflect the costs going forward. That will be the pattern for subsequent agreements as well.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much for that.

Minister, you know I have a personal interest in the realignment process, so I'd like to ask you something about it.

According to the report by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, page one, these estimates cover 19 of the 94 spending measures in Budget 2017. The report states as follows:

The Government has proposed improving the alignment of the budget and the main estimates by delaying [the tabling of ] the main estimates until May 1 and revising internal processes. Given the limited number of Budget 2017 measures that are included in these supplementary estimates, this proposal may not result in [a] meaningful improvement in the alignment of the budget and the main estimates.

When will the other 75 spending measures announced in Budget 2017 appear in an estimates document? Since only 20% of the measures announced in Budget 2017 are included in supplementary estimates (A), how would delaying the tabling of the main estimates have improved the alignment of the two documents this year?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

There are a couple of things. One is that last year the number was better in terms of the number of budget items in supplementary (A)s. It reflected fewer items of larger amounts. This year we did not achieve the same percentage.

With a permanent or more rational sequencing of main estimates after the budget, we believe that the working relationship between Treasury Board and Finance on budget and estimates processes will deepen and strengthen. As main estimates follow the tabling of the budget, each year you will see progress made in the percentage of budget initiatives that will be in the main estimates. That has been the experience in other countries. In fact, in some jurisdictions they come out almost simultaneously—a lot of the work of budget and estimates is done and announced concurrently or shortly after. The Australians have, in my opinion, one of the better models of how this works.

In Canada, there's the budget process of approving budget initiatives and then the Treasury Board process of submissions to Treasury Board that lead to the actual expenditure approval. I believe that aligning these processes will strengthen budgeting activities and expenditure approvals, which will mean that funds will flow more quickly and that the rigour of public expenditures will be increased.

This is going to take time—and I've been clear about this whenever I met with this committee—but it's a significant step. I believe The Globe and Mail editorial has called the current situation absurd, where main estimates precede the annual budget. I agree with that, but it will take time to change. I'm not underestimating the fact that it will take time to accomplish this. Some years we've done better than others, but the permanent sequencing of main estimates after the budget will really take us much closer to what we want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

Mr. Clarke, you have five minutes.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello, Minister Brison.

In February, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance shared a concern with you. I don't think you were there, but your senior officials were there. The committee was concerned about the recurring practice of using supplementary estimates—what we're studying today—to pay the salaries of certain ministers, ministers without portfolio. These include the Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, the Minister of Science, the Minister of Small Business and Tourism, the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities, and the Minister of Status of Women.

Your department responded by specifying that the increase in the salaries of ministers without portfolio was part of a practice established in 1995. That said, the practice violates parliamentary rules.

I have a quick and easy question. Why do you want to increase the salaries of ministers without portfolio?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Each minister in our government has responsibilities. For instance, the Minister of Science, Kirsty Duncan, works closely not just with the ISED department but also across government in a horizontal approach on all matters related to science.

These are ministers with responsibilities. Whether it's the status of women minister or our minister for sport and persons with disabilities, they reflect our government's priorities—science is one, and the advancement of women in the public service and throughout Canadian society is another.

As to the three additional ministerial positions, I think you will see that Bill C-24 would authorize payments to all eight positions under the Salaries Act.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Exactly, yes.

First, I would say that those ministers without portfolio don't have to take care of a ministry, so their workload is much less for sure, so I don't understand why we would increase their salary.

But the other question is—

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

But I would—

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

—why didn't you wait for royal assent on Bill C-24 to go forward with the raise in their pay?