Government Operations Committee on June 16th, 2021

[Karen Cahill]

We tried all kinds of things to get in touch with them, including social networks, regular mail, or through the Association of Public Service Alliance Employees. When all is said and done, that's how many claims we've received so far.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

To your knowledge, are there any other agreements that have not yet been signed for this portion of the compensation, or have all the agreements that could be signed with the bargaining agents been signed already?

[Karen Cahill]

The two agreements in place have, to my knowledge, been signed.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

My other question is about Phoenix pay system stabilization.

We know that it's going to be expensive. On April 1, 2020, to be precise,^x the NextGen team was transferred from the Treasury Board Secretariat to Shared Services Canada, whose mandate is to test solutions that would provide the Government of Canada with a reliable and integrated human resources and pay management system.

How will the funds requested be allocated between Phoenix pay system stabilization, and human resources and pay initiatives?

[Karen Cahill]

The amount I mentioned was only for Phoenix pay system stabilization. Unfortunately, I do not have information about funds for the implementation of the new public service pay system, which is being called the next generation human resources and pay system, because these funds will be requested by Shared Services Canada, which is now the department responsible for the next generation system.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

What is the Treasury Board Secretariat's role in this project?

[Karen Cahill]

Our role at the Treasury Board Secretariat is to work with our Shared Services Canada colleagues to ensure that policies and processes are transferred into the new pay system. Our role is human resources integration. Our team will therefore work closely with the Shared Services Canada team on this.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you very much, Ms. Chabot.

We'll now go to Mr. Green for six minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I want to begin by replying to Mr. MacKinnon's comments that perhaps some of the questions we were asking were not in line with the responsibilities of the Treasury Board. I respectfully disagree, and in fact I will state on the record my disappointment. While I have a great amount of respect for the President of the Treasury Board, and indeed a friendship, I don't feel that he in fact answered any questions that were put to him from opposition. Of course, it's always easy to answer questions that are coming from government when they're written by government.

I want to note that the mandate letter to the President of the Treasury Board says that his responsibility is to “lead the management agenda of the Government and oversee the implementation and effective delivery of Cabinet-approved initiatives.”

It states he is to “work to instill a culture of evaluation, measurement and evidence-based decisions in program and policy”. In relation to some of the comments that Mr. McCauley brought up—to which, it appears, Mr. MacKinnon took some exception—the mandate letter goes on to state that his responsibilities are to “Continue to work to strengthen the oversight of the expenditure of taxpayer dollars and the clarity and consistency of financial reporting, and to exercise due diligence regarding the costing analyses prepared by departments for all proposed legislation and programs.”

Unless I'm missing something two years in.... I'm going to go back to the Hansard and review the questions that were here. However, to be an hour with the President of the Treasury Board and not get answers to basic questions is a frustrating process. It's not often that I agree with Ms. Harder, but she was quite right in her assessments of the government's failures.

To the senior staffers who are here: If in the briefing notes and the opening statements and comments of the President of the Treasury Board you are highlighting and touting things that you consider to be successes within the purview of your work, then you ought to be open to fair questioning and you ought to be able to provide fair responses, given how far we are into this year.

I want to put on the record that I'm happy to hear any further comments from my friend Mr. MacKinnon and that I'll continue to ask questions that are pertinent to these supplementaries. He's not the only person who's asking pertinent questions as they relate to these estimates.

For instance, the Public Health Agency of Canada is requesting $1.5 billion under vote 1a for medical research and vaccine developments. The funding would support the acquisition and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines. Now, I've had an ongoing issue with the way that our government has spent close to $1 billion on vaccines, yet it appears that in all the contracts, contributions agreements and funding announcements, we seem to never receive any kind of preferential purchasing or procurement agreements or equity positions. I would think that for almost $1 billion, we should be well positioned to have our own nationalized production of vaccines. However, that's for another question.

As a simple question, how much of the funding that has been requested will be allocated to vaccine purchases that have already been negotiated? The negotiations have happened, contracts have been signed, and now you've come back to look for additional funding.

That's through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Purves, please.

[Glenn Purves]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

In terms of support for vaccine purchases and so forth, the funding is going to go towards the COVAX facility agreement in securing options to purchase vaccine doses for Canadians as they become available.

The one thing I would say is that authorities typically work within a fiscal year, and viruses and the development of vaccines don't often respect fiscal year-ends. That $1.5 billion you're looking at was given authority by Parliament already last year, but given the delay in the actual payments—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

To be clear, we're still continuing to take from COVAX. This isn't to contribute to COVAX but for us to procure from COVAX, correct? Is that what we're doing?

[Glenn Purves]

This is ongoing procurements that are going on, on the vaccine side, but it's all about the payments. These are to support payments that have to be made for the purchase of vaccines after royal assent to the supplementary estimates (A).

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, was it not just recently announced, I think maybe even at the G7, that we're going to be also providing additional funding towards the COVAX facility? This is where.... I think within this committee you've heard me talk quite a bit about international patents, TRIPS waivers, our hoarding of the [Technical difficulty—Editor] with the highest portfolio. Are we taking from COVAX? Are we actually giving doses to COVAX or are we still taking doses from the COVAX facility even as we seem to be touting being in a surplus position of vaccine procurement?

[Glenn Purves]

Again, I could speak to the fact that this is for the payment authority to be able to continue to contribute to that facility.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Is that on top of what we've taken from it in the last fiscal year?

[Glenn Purves]

In the last fiscal year, effectively, because of the delay in payments on vaccines, the authority that was provided in the last fiscal year is being re-profiled to this fiscal year in order to be able to make those payments.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I understand.

That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Purves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

We'll now go to our second round. We will start with Mr. Paul-Hus for five minutes.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. Cahill.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, local managers have been approving special 699 leave claims.

Has the Treasury Board standardized these claims? Have clearer guidelines been given with respect to who is entitled to this leave?

[Tolga Yalkin]

I can answer that question, if I may.

The Treasury Board gave guidelines to the departments to help them answer any questions pertaining to 699 leave claims. It's important to emphasize that decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. Each public servant is in a different situation. That's why managers need to take each individual's special circumstances into account in determining whether or not to grant this leave.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Did you define the reasons for claiming this leave more clearly?

[Tolga Yalkin]

Yes. An update was posted on the Canada.ca website in November.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I believe that you would agree that there is unanimous committee consent on resuming discussion of the motion I introduced at our last meeting. The motion asks the committee to require that the government send it all documents pertaining to contracts for personal protective equipment, tests, and vaccines.

I'd like to ask our committee to put the motion back on the agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

I'll look around the room and see if there is agreement to continue the debate on Mr. Paul-Hus's motion.

Mr. MacKinnon, I see your hand is up.