Government Operations Committee on May 12th, 2021

[Sonya Read]

The performance standard we expect from departments is they are meeting the legislated timelines at least 90% of the time. That's our performance target.

Of course, we would always strive and we encourage departments to meet the legislated timelines 100% of the time to the best of their ability. A significant proportion of departments actually do respond to all of the ATI requests—approximately 84 departments, I think, in the last year met their timelines—90% of the time.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Would your department maybe submit to the committee what actions the TBS is taking about the laggards? If 84% are meeting the legislative timelines, what are we doing about the ones that aren't?

I want to move on. It's on the same page.

The percentage of departments that maintain and manage their assets over their life cycle was 73% last year, and for some reason, we're dropping to a goal of 60%. In the departmental plan, it states that, I think, 11 departments make up the majority of the assets that have to be maintained. I don't expect an answer right now. You can get back to us on this one. What is the value of those assets of which you've stated 11 departments make up the majority? What is the value of those assets? These are assets owned by the Canadian taxpayer. Why is it that the government is setting a goal of just 60% of these valuable assets to be maintained?

I would think that if it's billions of dollars' worth of assets—again, respecting our taxpayers and their rights—we would have goals set at, if not 100%, at least an increase over last year's results. Instead, our goal is at least 60%.

I'll be honest. I do not accept this argument that it's a floor. The Treasury Board framework lays out very clearly the purpose of departmental plans, and it states priorities and purposes. Departmental plans aren't where you put in minimal expectations. They're your priorities.

The government is prioritizing 40% of departments not to maintain or manage taxpayers' own assets. Why?

Okay, maybe get back to us.

I'm looking at the departmental plans and the Treasury Board departmental results. With regard to percentage of departmental results indicators of which targets are achieved, they've stated achieving 71% of their targets: 71% last year and 71% this year. When I go to the open.canada.ca website, it actually shows 38.7% achieved. Why is there the discrepancy between what's tabled in the House of Commons, to Parliament, and actual numbers on the website? There were 75 indicators, and the website said that 38% were achieved. However, the departmental plan and the DRR both show 71%.

Again, maybe get back to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. McCauley.

If we can get an answer back to the committee, it would be appreciated.

We'll now go to Mr. Drouin for five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today.

The white paper was published by the department responsible for official languages. For several years, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, or FCFA, has been calling for a central agency to have greater responsibility for the Official Languages Act so that it is stronger.

I don't know who to direct my question to.

Could one of you explain how the Treasury Board can act as a central agency to strengthen the Official Languages Act?

[Tolga Yalkin]

Thank you for the question.

The public document submitted by Ms. Joly sets out the government's vision. It outlines changes the government is proposing as part of the modernization of the act. The document contains several proposals in this regard.

I'll focus on the proposal to increase the responsibilities of the Treasury Board to ensure compliance by federal institutions. The Treasury Board must review cases where permissive provisions have become mandatory.

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

Thank you very much.

I want to come back to the issue of statutory items. I don't know if that's what my colleague was referring to earlier, but since the emergency wage subsidy is considered a statutory expenditure, there are no controls. That's also the case for EI, but audits are still done by the department.

Can you explain briefly how the statutory expenditure process differs from the supply process?

[Karen Cahill]

I think Mr. Greenough can answer the question.

[Rod Greenough, Executive Director, Expenditure Strategies and Estimates, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Yes, I'll start, and we can follow up in writing, if there are additional details that Glenn could have provided.

In terms of what's in the estimates and what's not in the estimates, as Glenn explained, voted authorities are within the appropriation act that the estimates support. That's the key piece. In addition, for information, statutory items that are tied directly to a department are also included in the estimates, on a for information basis, to provide a more complete picture.

In terms of tax measures, they're not tied to a specific department. They're under the Income Tax Act, and they're reported separately in the tax expenditures report. The majority of tax expenditures are revenue changes, for example, tax credits that lower revenue, but there are some that are reported in the public accounts as expenditures. These are also reported in the tax expenditures report, not through the estimates. That's the main dichotomy.

The EI and tax measures aren't tied to a particular department. They're reported elsewhere, but the statutory and voted spending tied to departments are reported through the estimates.

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

Thank you very much.

It's true that, in the case of the emergency wage subsidy, there was an application process. Just because a company or an organization applied and qualified doesn't mean the government will simply believe it. The Canada Revenue Agency has implemented measures. On its website, I see that this income is taxable. These businesses or organizations could be audited by the Canada Revenue Agency later, even if they've already received this subsidy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

We will now go to Ms. Vignola for two and a half minutes.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask another question out of curiosity. I'm not sure which one of you will be able to answer it.

I read in the estimates that $104 million was set aside for administrative leadership. I, for one, come from education. In that field, administrative leadership is the duty of the school principal or department head, whose role, among other things, is to lead the team to excel, both pedagogically and administratively. This also includes the secretaries.

What does “administrative leadership” mean for the government? Why is $104 million needed for this? How will this money be spent?

[Karen Cahill]

Thank you for the question.

First, let me clarify that administrative leadership encompasses many of our programs. We're not just talking about people in leadership roles here. There are many applications, government-wide programs. For example, the Office of Public Service Accessibility falls under administrative leadership. We have a number of programs, such as the Canadian Digital Service, that fall under it as well.

To summarize, this is a cluster of programs that will provide services across government, so to all departments.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you for the clarification.

As you know, access to information is important, not only for MPs, but also for journalists and the general public. The Information Commissioner told us that, before the crisis, the access to information system was in a critical phase, on the verge of being irreparable.

What steps is the Treasury Board Secretariat taking to improve this system? When will these improvements be available to users?

[Sonya Read]

We value very much the Information Commissioner's input and her views in terms of the performance of the access to information system, and recognize the pressure that the system has been under over the past number of years. TBS has been working directly with institutions to identify strategies to improve their access to information performance both in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. This includes many of the areas that the commissioner has noted in her submission.

Included in this, we've been issuing guidance to support institutions. We've been working with them to ensure that they are aware of best practices and have the tools they need to be able to deliver access to information requests electronically during COVID.

In terms of other initiatives beyond the COVID-19 response, we have undertaken a procurement exercise for request processing software. That is nearing completion, hopefully this spring, over the course of the next couple of months. That will help improve departments' internal processing for their software. We continue to....

Oh, I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you. I hate to interrupt you, Ms. Read.

[Sonya Read]

No problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

If you have anything further to add, please do.

I see that Mr. Purves is back. Hopefully, he'll be able to communicate in some way, should that be a need.

We'll now go to Mr. Green for two and a half minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I tend to stay on topic, and now that we have Mr. Purves back, I have a question for him. His staff answered it in ways that I think were adequate for his staff, but I just can't let go of the fact that the Treasury Board is not consulted on contingent liabilities. I'll put the question one more time and allow Mr. Purves to go on the record and describe the process to those who might be tuned in.

Is he aware of, or is the Treasury Board...? Is he in his capacity and is the Treasury Board consulted on contingent liabilities as it relates to indigenous land claims and, I will throw in there, the Black class action lawsuit?

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. Purves, I realize you're using an iPad and buds, but hopefully you can answer that question. If you would speak slowly and clearly, it would be greatly appreciated.

You're on mute, Mr. Purves.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to intervene. I believe Mr. Purves is still having some issues with his sound.

Perhaps it may be worthwhile to come back to him. Our technicians are still working with him. He was back, but I think his sound is still giving him some problems.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Maybe what I will do—notwithstanding the fact that we will have Hansard and that his staff will pick up this question—is borrow a line from our good chair and ask, through you, if he could provide in writing his direct statement from the deputy minister on whether or not the Treasury Board is consulted on contingent liabilities.

Mr. Chair, by way of comment, I'll just share with you that it's disconcerting for me that significant potential outstanding liabilities don't seem to have a place that is front and centre in the minds of the Treasury Board. I thought, maybe wrongly so, but it was my understanding from this committee for public accounts, that the Treasury Board ultimately had at least some kind of cursory process obligation for approval. It would have some kind of high-level understanding of what's coming and going out of all the departments.

I'm hearing today that this might not be the case in a practical way, as it relates to the questions I'm asking, so maybe I'll get that in writing at a future date.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

We will now go to Ms. Harder for five minutes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'll come back to you, Mr. Yalkin.

Thank you for explaining the departmental plans. Of course, I understand the nature of them. They are to set priorities. They are to set strategic outcomes, to set programs and to set expected results covering the next three years. That's the description that accompanies them, anyway, so thank you. I'm aware.

When we talk about goal setting, we shouldn't be talking about setting a goal that puts us behind from the year in which we're setting them. Goals should be about making things better.

You talked about a goal being the floor and then trying to exceed that. I understand, which is why I'm confused. Your numbers, the numbers in the department for those who belong to minority groups and those who are women were actually decently high in 2019 and 2020. For minority groups it was 11.5%. For women it was 51.1%. Then the targets that were set for the next year were actually lower than where they were at, and then lower yet. The benchmark continues to be dropped rather than heightened, rather than set higher. I'm confused by that.

[Tolga Yalkin]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to speak a little bit about it, given the fact, also, that benchmarks are amongst the precedents of five priorities on diversity and inclusion, including revisiting them as part of that work. The benchmarks that exist are, as I mentioned before, workforce availability. Legislatively prescribed benchmarks are the minimum that departments should be aiming for, the floor they should be aiming for, ensuring that their workforce represents the available labour in the market.

As is indicated in the departmental plan, this is not a ceiling at all, by the denotation at least. As part of the process of reviewing these benchmarks we will be considering, for example, whether it would make sense to consider an alternative that perhaps results in higher benchmarks being set. It's something that we're currently working on and considering as part of our work on D and I.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I don't understand why there is the goal to have a lower percentage than where you are currently at.