Government Operations Committee on May 4th, 2020

[Evelyn Dancey]

The government's response has been iterative, and so it is believed that these instruments will be very relevant, again, for the vast number of companies in the sector. These are mid-sized companies with larger financing needs than had previously been addressed under BCAP.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

When he said “hours, possibly days”, he's referring now to the April 17 announcement. Thanks.

Let me just ask you, please, to Finance, with the recent drop of interest rates and obviously the change to the discount rate, how much higher are we going to see the deficit this year because of the change for the discount rates with the public service pensions?

[Alison McDermott]

As mentioned, we will be providing a fiscal update at some time in the near future, but we can't give you details on that yet. At that time, when we come out with either an update or a budget, you'll have detailed information on those forecasts.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay. Has finance looked at the issues of the unfunded liabilities of any of the public service pension funds, for example, the public service investment board or Canada Post, the issues with their unfunded liabilities? I'm sure they're going to get slammed even more with the drop in the equity markets.

[Alison McDermott]

Yes, many of those have been affected by equity market changes recently. I don't have that at my disposal, but we have been in touch. My understanding is that we are not doing too badly. We'll see if we come back with information for the [Inaudible—Editor]

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

You're breaking up too much. Could someone else answer the question? Is that something you can get back to the committee on?

[Alison McDermott]

Yes. We'll see if we can come back to you with some more details on that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay.

As for the hidden, so to speak, debt of the Crown corporations, which is generally not announced when we talk about the overall public debt, how is that changing from pre-COVID to the current situation? Obviously, they're getting hit, whether on pensions or VIA taking a big revenue hit. How large is the increase in the Crown corp debt that we're seeing year over year?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I apologize. It seems that we never have enough time to fully get questions and answers on the record, so we ask whoever wishes to address Mr. McCauley's question to provide an answer in writing to our clerk so that we can submit that answer to our committee members.

With that, I will now thank and excuse all of our witnesses while the rest of the committee sticks around to deal with some committee business. I remind all committee members that we will be in public.

Once again, to the TBS and Department of Finance officials, thank you very much. You are excused.

Colleagues, the purpose of this, is to talk about the witnesses coming the week of May 11, which is next week.

May 11 from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. will be the first meeting

Friday, May 15 from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. will be the second meeting. All times are eastern.

I would ask Raphaëlle—if you want—to start with a précis of the work plans that we have established so far, and then we can ask committee members if they have any additional witnesses they wish to suggest.

Raphaëlle.

[Raphaëlle Deraspe, Committee Researcher]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

What we suggest for next week is the fifth meeting on the delivery of emergency benefits, and that would be with both Minister Qualtrough and Minister Lebouthillier.

Then, for Friday, we suggest meeting number six on the national emergency strategic stockpile and federal procurement. That would be with representatives from PHAC and PSPC.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Now we'll just go straight into comments or observations from any committee members.

Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Raphaëlle. I appreciate that.

For the one with PSPC, is Mr. Matthews included in that? I know we requested to have him back.

[Raphaëlle Deraspe]

Yes, there will be Mr. Matthews and also Ms. Arianne Reza from PSPC.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I think we should also ask the minister to come back to answer these pressing questions in regard to some of the issues with Amazon and Canada Post, as well as the flip-flopping of the department on some of the PPE issues that were answered here and then contradicted in the House, contradicted by Mr. Matthews, and then contradicted again by her press secretary.

[Raphaëlle Deraspe]

If I may, Mr. Chair, I would just like to clarify that Mr. McCauley would like the Minister of PSPC, Minister Anand.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

That's correct, thank you.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

How is this supposed to roll out, Chair? I know that Minister Lebouthillier is coming. What do the next three or four meetings look like?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

The work plan has been submitted to all committee members—

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Yes, I apologize; I know it has. I'm staring at your face as opposed to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Oh, that's why.

As we all know, the committees are masters of their own agendas. Should there be subsequent or additional witnesses we haven't even considered yet that the committee would like to invite, based on testimony that we're about to hear or yet to hear, we can certainly continue the study as long as we wish.

I'm just suggesting that at this point in time at least, if there are no objections, we'll continue with the meeting work plan that Raphaëlle and the other analysts have suggested. Should a committee member want to take 10 or 15 minutes at the end of a meeting to discuss additional witnesses and future work and studies, we can certainly do that. I look at this as a very fluid, ongoing study that may have several other elements the further we get along into it.

At this point in time, I think all that we have to go on, colleagues, is the work plan that has already been presented to all of you. If there are other comments on that, or suggestions on how we can proceed, I'd love to hear them.

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

Chair, I have a quick comment on prioritizing our witnesses. I don't have an issue with reinviting some of the witnesses, but I would first like to hear from those we haven't had the opportunity to hear from. Then, if we do feel that we need to hear from other witnesses for a second time, and perhaps a third or fourth time, we can surely send out another invitation.

My second comment has to do with the work that other committees are also doing. I think all of us here have expressed some concerns. We just don't want to be redundant in terms of what the other committees are doing. I would defer to the analysts to say which particular witnesses have been heard at some other committee, unless it was a month and a half ago or something. Then, perhaps there's value in having them in front of our committee. However, in the spirit of redundancy, I would say, let's hear from those who haven't had the opportunity to come forward yet.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Francis, I agree, particularly with your initial comment about prioritizing those ministers who have not appeared before this committee yet. With regard to those committee members who wish to see a minister reappear, we could perhaps put those appearances off until further down the line.

I also agree with your comments.

Raphaëlle, this is perhaps dumping a bit much on your plate and Ryan's plate, but could you take a look at some of the other committees that are currently meeting and do a quick overview of the witnesses and some of the people they're bringing forward, and recommend to our committee, then, if there are any witnesses who would perhaps be redundant? We don't want to have meetings just for the sake of having a meeting. If we don't have to hear witnesses who have already provided testimony in other settings, I think that would probably be the wise course of action. Having said that, if there are witnesses we have not heard from yet and committee members think they would be vital to our study, let's get those names in as quickly as we can to our clerk and our analysts.

Mr. McCauley, go ahead.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I appreciate Mr. Drouin's comment; I don't want us to meet just for the sake of meeting. That being said, I would like us to take a look at it before we zap anyone as duplicating.

We saw today in committee that Ms. Ratansi brought up great questions about the CEBA that had been brought up repeatedly at other committees where they've just been sloughed off.

Even if they've appeared in another committee, I think it would still be valuable to have them before us to explain what they're doing during this crisis, hold their feet to the fire if necessary. I'd hate to dismiss anyone just because they've appeared somewhere else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

That's a point well taken, Mr. McCauley.

From my observation, I guess it's simply that if we have witnesses who can add something and provide new testimony to this committee, I'm all for it. If we're hearing the same old same old testimony, having the same answers we've heard in the finance committee or perhaps other committees, then I'm not sure how productive and useful that would be for this committee.

Again, I'm certainly at the will of this committee as it sees fit.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'd like us to have a look before we decide to scratch someone's name off just because they've appeared elsewhere.