Government Operations Committee on Dec. 1st, 2022

[Yves Giroux]

They are discretionary to a certain extent, in the sense that the government could decide not to settle these claims for a number of years. But at one point, it will likely become unavoidable to settle these claims, either by negotiations or—more likely, if the government were to not want to address these issues—through the courts.

There's some element of discretion when it comes to the timing of these claims, but not that much discretion for the settlement of the claims themselves. The discretion is with timing.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you

On a similar type of question, you have $4.8 billion for fighting the pandemic. Is that discretionary?

[Yves Giroux]

I think this aspect is more discretionary. For example, there's funding of $1.8 billion to buy more COVID-19 rapid tests. The government could have decided to buy less or buy none at all, and leave that to other jurisdictions.

There's also funding for Global Affairs to support public health measures in developing countries, which is, I think, discretionary. Similarly, there's funding for the Public Health Agency of Canada to provide $700 million to fund medical research and vaccine development, which is discretionary. Whether it would be a good decision to abandon that or not, I leave others to determine. There are other funding decisions that are discretionary, and they're under the COVID-19 funding rubric.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

As a final one, on $2.5 billion to help Ukraine, a western democracy fighting for its very existence, are those funds discretionary?

[Yves Giroux]

I think they are, by definition, discretionary because my understanding is that there is no legal obligation for the Government of Canada to provide this funding. Again, “discretionary” does not mean that it's inappropriate. It's just that there's no legal obligation for the government to provide this funding.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Bains.

We'll go over to Mrs. Block, please.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My question is perhaps a short one.

In March of 2020, this government tried to pass legislation that would have given it the authority to spend money for almost two years with no scrutiny and no ability to hold it to account. As we talk about the situation we're in right now, without a hard deadline for the release of departmental results reports but yet a very tight timeline for parliamentarians to approve additional spending, the government may in part be accomplishing that goal of spending money with very little scrutiny and an inability to hold them to account.

We've talked about the fact that there is no hard deadline for the release of these reports. As parliamentarians, what could we or should we be doing to rectify this situation and to change the current circumstances that we find ourselves in? How do we get a hard deadline put into our budgeting process?

[Yves Giroux]

I think that with respect to having timely departmental results reports, one obvious solution that comes to mind is legislating a deadline of, for example, September 30, or six months after the end of the fiscal year and no later than, and inserting that into the Financial Administration Act. I think that would be the best solution to this so that you as parliamentarians get the departmental results reports in a more timely manner. Legislative amendments would be the way to go.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks very much, Ms. Block.

Mr. Giroux and Ms. Vanderwees, thanks for joining us today.

Before you go, though, I have just a couple of questions, if you don't mind. As chair, I'd like to exercise my prerogative.

I'm wondering if the PBO could get back to the committee on the following if you can't answer it now. I'm curious about the impact of higher energy prices and energy exports on federal revenues. We received a note back from Finance Canada saying that this didn't necessarily have a positive impact on revenues, which I find very odd. I wonder if you could get back to us on that.

Then, if you don't mind, I'm wondering if have the administrative costing of the dental program, both as a lump sum and also as a percentage of the overall cost, and if you have that available now.

[Yves Giroux]

I'd have to get back to you on that so I do not give you inaccurate numbers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I've heard rumours floating around that it's quite excessive, so I'm quite curious to see how much we're actually spending on administration rather than actual delivering to folks.

That said, thank you very much to the two of you for joining us.

Committee, I just have a couple of very quick items before we see if we can adjourn.

We've sent around the information regarding the GG study. It's the years that we're going to choose, which were chosen by the analysts. I have to ask if the committee approves these time periods.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Perfect.

The second one is a letter that was prepared regarding CBSA. Can we get approval for that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Wonderful. Thank you very much.

Mr. Baker, thanks for joining us today. I'm sorry you weren't able to join in.

Mr. Collins and Mr. Chambers, thanks for joining us.

For the PBO, again, it's always an absolute pleasure to have you with us. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

We are adjourned.