Public Accounts Committee on April 16th, 2013

[Michael Ferguson]

I think first of all, certainly, throughout this audit we acknowledged that many good things had occurred. There were pilot projects that were trying to streamline things and there was a lot of good progress made.

In paragraph 23 we specifically said, though, that the assessment of the administrative impact of the reforms hadn't been done comprehensively. We did acknowledge that there were specific areas where the streamlining of the activities were in fact measured.

The issue for us was that the overall impact hadn't been measured comprehensively. Again, there were many good things that we noted, and they are noted in the report.

To give an example, you could have a possibility where a program is changed. This isn't a real life example. This is just to try to understand some of this. You could have a situation where organizations are no longer required to submit as many reports, applications, and that type of thing, which on the surface would look like you have reduced the administrative impact on the organization. But in fact if the organization still has to prepare all of that information and keep it on hand in case they are audited, the only thing that is changed for them is whether they have to send it in or not. The actual impact on that organization in that case is that the reduction may in fact be very small.

So there were lots of good things, but it's still important to go back and make sure, because it was one of the intended objectives to try to reduce the administrative burden on recipients in order to assess the degree to which that happened.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. MacDonald.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Sorry, time has expired.

Mr. MacDonald, I'll give you a chance, if it's really brief, please.

[Donald MacDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think a number of the initiatives we have taken to really respect the fact that all not recipients are created equally.... For instance, some of the latest initiatives under Budget 2012 and the economic action plan involve going from large municipalities to very small, not-for-profit organizations that may be relying on more volunteers.

We've taken a number of initiatives to streamline the application process to actually move toward the use of technology for online application processes to try to assist organizations to get the information in without increasing the administrative burden.

We also monitor our service standards and client consultations. When we're going out, for instance, with that initiative and talking at 80 different meetings to look at proposed changes to our programming, we're listening very much to some of the concerns that are coming back. By speaking to recipients we're familiar with, but also new recipients, we are seeing what their expectations are of our programming going forward.

It's very much a continuous improvement through the feedback we receive in administering and managing these programs.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you very much. Time has expired.

I don't know whether you're planning to place a motion or not based on what you just told me. We have now concluded the natural rotation of the committee. Unless there are interventions to the contrary, it would be my intent to wrap this up.

In terms of loose ends, earlier, Mr. Byrne, you had been having some discussion with witnesses about information. Were you satisfied that you got what you wanted, or is there an outstanding item you are still seeking?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chairman, I had asked our witness whether or not he could provide the committee with factual information about the total dollar value of grants and contributions voted by Parliament today, and what the amount was for grants, what the amount was for contributions, and also to put that in a comparative context with the Auditor General's report of 2006, in which there was some criticism that the Government of Canada was moving more and more to a granting-based system rather than a contribution-based system.

If either Mr. Ferguson or Mr. Scrimger could provide us with a discussion about that, it would be helpful, but at this point in time I'll just ask for that factual information. Alex and I have already had a discussion about getting that.

The only question that remains, Mr. Chair, is the timeframe for when that information will be provided.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Hopefully, we can conclude this quickly. We understand what's being sought. Number one, will we get it? Number two, when?

Mr. Scrimger.

[Tom Scrimger]

Mr. Chair, if I can, we will be quite pleased to work with the clerk and give you a response to that as quickly as we can. Obviously, I want to check how quickly we can assemble the data and get back to you. We will make our best efforts to get it to you as quickly as we can, and we'll identify a timeframe to the clerk, so you can review it to ensure it meets your requirements.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

It does for now. I'll bring that back to the committee at the first meeting following receipt of that information and the committee can determine whether it's acceptable or not.

Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Chair, I understand the request and the need for the request, and I have no challenge with that, and for the request of our witnesses. I would only be mindful: Is it spurious? Is it needed? I'm not offering comment on this, but understand that there's a cost to everything. If this is something that would be maybe $4,000 or $5,000 or $10,000 worth of investigative work...but all of a sudden if we're into hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of calculations and tabulations, is it money well spent? I would ask this committee to bear that in mind whenever we ask for information. That's all.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

That's fair, and that's a standard approach to things. But I haven't heard anything at all from our witnesses that suggested this was going to be a problem. Your point is noted.

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, just to provide some comfort to my colleague, this was a major piece that was reviewed by the Office of the Auditor General in 2001 and 2006. It was an issue the Auditor General had raised. Therefore, not only do I think this would be useful for us as a follow-up to be able to chart the circumstance, but also for our analyst, since it has been raised on the record, to put a context to the information vis-à-vis the previous Auditor General's reports, which were tabled with this committee and available to us as if they were evidence today.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I don't think that's a problem. Alex has heard the request, so we'll not only get the answer, but we'll ask Alex to provide a little historical context for it. Okay?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

That's fine.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

If the committee is fine with that....

I'm not seeing anybody racing to get the floor, so I'm assuming that's fine.

I bring to the attention of members that this Thursday we will be report writing, and next Tuesday we have another public hearing, and that one is from the fall 2012 report of the Auditor General, “Chapter 3—Protecting Canadian Critical Infrastructure Against Cyber Threats”. That will be next Tuesday at the same time as this hearing was held.

With that, I will thank our guests.

I'm seeing a hand. Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

One of our members, who's our resident accountant, does have a few more questions of the witnesses. It's not uncommon in this committee that, since our witnesses are assembled here, we would afford him that opportunity. Of course, if the opposition wishes to have a similar opportunity, they certainly would be able to as well.

I would ask that we allow one more question from the government side, and I'd offer that to the opposition as well, if they choose to have one.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

We can do that.

In terms of consistency, in the past this has been controversial as to whether or not we're going to go in camera to do other business, adjourn, or create a new rotation. We can do it. It just takes a majority of the committee.

But I do want to mention to the government that they're initiating this. Normally, when we do extensions, it's because there have been a lot of difficult, complex questions, the answers weren't able to come out in the five minutes we have, so people are anxious, and it's clear to the public that a lot more issues are there to be raised. It makes all the sense in the world. I'm just pointing out that this wasn't this kind of rotational discussion, and therefore the government is setting a bit of a precedent that the opposition will be entitled to in the future without necessarily having to make the case that there's justification, just a desire.

I say that as a precautionary note, but the motion is in order.

We have a motion that we do one more round, one from each caucus.

Is there any debate?

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

The only dilemma, Mr. Chair, would be if the bells ring, what do we intend to do?

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Follow standard procedure.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

That's fair enough.

I say that just as a precautionary tale. I'm looking at the clock. It says ten after. If the bells ring, and someone says the bells are ringing, we need to go, in which case.... I don't expect that to happen from my colleague across the way, because I think he's offered that, so—

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

No, you're right, Mr. Allen, and we have procedures for votes. This is not something new.

I would mention to colleagues that I did say there was an important piece of business that at some point we need to be getting at. It will wait till Thursday, but it can't wait for long, and it really is important. But I'm not going to inject myself any further into this debate.

The floor is open on a motion to have one more rotational question from each of the caucuses.

Hearing no further debate, I will go to Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I have just a quick question.

You're talking about a precedent. The bells haven't gone yet, and we're not at 5:30 or 5:15. I'm wondering what the precedent is, because we've often gone another question in each one to get to the end of the meeting. I'm not sure what the precedent is.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Oh, well, it's experience. I've been in this chair and on this committee long enough to know what's controversial and what's not, and oftentimes having further questions in rotation is controversial. Usually, the opposition has to make an argument that the government accepts that there is merit in going further. To do it in the absence of that, I'm just pointing out, does create a bit of a precedent that, in the future to make that motion, there's not a requirement on the opposition to be making a case as to why. It was just a matter of the lead of the government benches that said “I've got another member who would like to question”, and that's all it takes.

In the future, you can expect that there will be comparable motions that come where we don't have that circumstance. That's all I'm pointing out. I just want it noted because of experience.

Is there any further discussion or further debate? I'm hearing none.

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think we now have an issue with the time, because if you see the clock, it's 10 after—

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

We can get close to it, though. If you want, we can shorten them to three minutes, and I think we can still get one each. They're half-hour bells, I suspect.