Government Operations Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2023

[Yves Giroux]

I'll give you an economist's answer that you may not find entirely satisfactory.

The repercussions depend on the situation in which we find ourselves. In a full employment situation, business bankruptcies are painful for both the business and the employees, no doubt about it. Macroeconomically speaking, for the economy as a whole, there are losses, of course. However, as I said, if there's full employment, the affected employees can find new jobs within a reasonable period of time.

In contrast, if unemployment is higher than what would be normal in a dynamic economy, there may be consequences for those affected. They may face a longer period of unemployment than would be expected in a very dynamic economy with full employment.

Yes, it's possible and even probable that tens of thousands of bankruptcies would engender significant costs.

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

Thank you.

I see that this budget is higher than last year's, which was kind of a relic of the pandemic period budget. The last more or less normal budget we had was the 2018‑19 one.

Compared to the 2018‑19 budget, is this one similar or significantly higher? If it's higher, why would that be, given that we're at the end of the pandemic?

[Yves Giroux]

Spending is much higher than in budget 2018‑19, even taking inflation into account.

There's more spending within the federal government itself. Much of it is related to staffing, but there are other reasons. Conscious decisions were made to increase the number of programs and fund them more generously, as well as to grow the public service. That's the main reason for the bigger budget.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I apologize for interrupting again, but we're past our time.

I have Mr. Johns, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I cannot actually comprehend the fact that we're post-COVID and the out-of-control consulting is still skyrocketing. The government can find more money for highly paid consulting firms than for small and medium-sized businesses that closed their doors to protect public health and can't access CEBA loans. I just find it absolutely unbelievable.

I'm going to talk about Phoenix.

The Conservatives started this Phoenix pay system that was supposed to save us $80 million a year. It's over $2.3 billion. Hopefully, you can provide the amount that it has really cost Canadians through their highly paid consulting regime of their own that was carried on by the Liberals. Do you have an updated number on the total amount the Phoenix pay system has cost us?

[Yves Giroux]

I don't with me right now, but it's something that we could probably provide in writing to the committee.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

That would be fabulous.

Shared Services Canada is asking for another $34 million to fund the next generation human resources and pay initiative, but there's no funding here for the Phoenix pay system.

In June, you shared that the Department of Finance told your office that hundreds of millions were allotted to fixing Phoenix, and that would fix it once and for all. Now I want to ask you if service delivery has improved. Clearly, it didn't. They're focusing on going after people for overpayments instead of paying the people who did work and did not get paid.

Almost a million transactions with financial implications are currently waiting in the pay centre's queue. What do you see is needed to fix this? What resources are needed to make sure everybody who's owed money gets paid?

[Yves Giroux]

Honestly, sir, I have no idea what's needed at that point, because it's been going on for a long time. If I knew exactly what was needed, I would probably quit my job and sell it at a high price and fix it for good.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Yves Giroux]

I'm sure I—

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Some highly paid consulting company would hire you in a heartbeat to do that, but the next generation initiative is supposed to save tax dollars and improve pay administration.

There's $23 million here to fund a settlement related to Phoenix, but specific settlements, like PSAC's agreement with the Treasury Board, haven't applied to damages since 2020. Anyone harmed since 2020 isn't protected and can't claim damages.

Have you costed extensions for any such agreements, and does it make sense for the government to be periodically allocating funds to various damages or would laying it out up front and all at once be more effective and transparent?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm afraid we're out of time, Mr. Johns, but I do see Mr. Giroux writing down your question. I'm sure he'll get back to us.

We have Mrs. Block, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I join my colleagues in welcoming you today. I also appreciate your analysis on the supplementary estimates (B).

Mr. Giroux, at a previous meeting, you commented on the amount of spending that's finding its way into the supplementary estimates. If my memory serves me correctly, you were concerned by the amount that was finding its way into the estimates and characterized it as a lack of planning.

How do the estimates that we are looking at today compare to the estimates that would have given you that sort of concern previously?

[Yves Giroux]

That's an interesting question that I did not expect.

I would say that this one is probably less concerning to me, because it involves a series of settlements for claims related to indigenous people, which are hard to predict in advance. Even if they were predictable, it would be disingenuous on the part of the government to reveal how much it's prepared to put on the table before everything is finalized.

From that perspective, it is normal and expected that funding for these agreements would find its way into supplementary estimates, and given that it's a significant portion of the supplementary estimates—the other part being, of course, budget initiatives—I've less concern with the amount in these supplementary estimates (B) than I would have if it were not related to these specific items.

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

Thank you very much.

I do appreciate the role that you and your office play in supporting parliamentarians by providing us with the economic and financial analyses that you do, and I understand that it really is intended to raise the quality of the debate that we have here in committee when we're looking at estimates but also in the House. It promotes greater transparency and accountability for the government.

We also have noted in previous committee meetings that it is oftentimes difficult to scrutinize the estimates, mainly because we are not given a lot of detail in some of the lines or itemized lists for the purposes of certain amounts of money. Would it be feasible to require departments to provide more detailed accounting or those lists that would provide more specificity on their planned spending?

[Yves Giroux]

It certainly would be feasible, and there are a couple of ways to make the job you have easier. One example is having a budget that is tabled sooner in the cycle, so that most of the items find their way into the main estimates, as opposed to having the main estimates and shortly thereafter supplementary estimates (A). Also, as was asked yesterday at the Senate national finance committee, when there are agreements for which funding is sought in supplementary or main estimates, indicating the year in which the liabilities were booked gives us a sense as to how long they have been on the books of the government.

I'm sure I'll be running out of time soon, but those are a couple of ways to make your jobs in scrutinizing government accounts easier.

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

Thank you.

Do I have enough...?

[Yves Giroux]

If I have—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You have a minute.

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

Did you want to add something to that?

[Yves Giroux]

I was going to say that we take all the credit if our work elevates debates in Parliament, but none of the blame if it doesn't.

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

Thank you.

Really quickly, I want to ask about the purpose of the one dollar allocated “to authorize the amendment to the Revolving Funds Act for the Optional Services Revolving Fund”. Can you explain that?

[Yves Giroux]

I cannot, because I still have not figured it out. We have been working on the supplementary estimates and the fall economic statement. We haven't gotten to that point. Unless Kaitlyn or Jill know more, I certainly cannot explain that specific area.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[Yves Giroux]

Can you...?