Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 5 - Evidence, March 30, 2004
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 30, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-27, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2005, met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the Senate has referred to us Bill C-27, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2005.
For the record, we have already had two meetings on the Main Estimates for the fiscal year 2004-05, and we began debate on this supply bill in the Senate the other day. The Senate decided to send this bill to the committee, an unusual move, but the circumstances are unusual, in that, first, the Main Estimates that were tabled are to be replaced by a new set of Estimates sometime this spring; second, there is no Part III to the Estimates, that is to say, departmental plans and priorities; and third, the supply bill is seeking interim supply for a period of nine months into this fiscal year. For all these reasons, the Senate thought we should have another look at it and resume our dialogue with the Treasury Board.
Senator Kinsella, who spoke on this matter, asked that one or other of two deputy ministers, either the Deputy Minister of Finance or the Secretary to the Treasury Board, come to the committee to answer some questions and address some of these issues. Mr. Jim Judd, the Secretary to the Treasury Board, is here. Thank you, Mr. Judd, for rearranging your schedule to accommodate us in this way. He is accompanied by our old friend, Mr. Mike Joyce, a frequent witness at this committee on the Estimates.
Mr. Jim Judd, Secretary to the Treasury Board of Canada: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I should like to begin this session with a brief opening statement to set the context for our discussion on the Main Estimates. Once I have concluded, I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have, or ask my more experienced colleague Mr. Joyce to help me out on some.
Let me start by clarifying an important, and perhaps inadvertently confusing, distinction that may save some time today, which is to say that the Main Estimates tabled in February are neither draft nor interim documents, as some have referred to them.
The fact that they do not include new spending in the budget is not unusual. As you know, this is quite normal, given the usual sequencing of budgets versus Main Estimates in any given fiscal year.
We have done our best to reflect the new structure of government in the Main Estimates, including adjustments to base resources. While the February Main Estimates do not reflect the final results of negotiations on these resource adjustments, this is more a matter of precision in the numbers than a question of material change.
In our view, the restructuring adjustments will not affect the overall totals, and we do not anticipate major adjustments. Instead, we expect adjustments at the margins, primarily affecting corporate service allocations among those organizations and departments that were affected by the restructuring of government on December 12 last year.
Given the extent of the government reorganization announced last December 12, we felt that re-tabling the Main Estimates would provide Parliament with the latest, updated expenditure information in a single comprehensive document as soon as we were able to compile it. Our intention was to provide greater transparency in terms of the changes that will be forthcoming over the course of the year, given what we know now — for example, the budget decisions announced last week and the related question of the $1 billion in reallocations to the government's A base budget.
With the nine-twelfths supply, and the possibility of dealing with full supply in the fall, this approach also provides the opportunity to consolidate what would otherwise be a Supplementary Estimates process into a single supply process.
With regard to the nine-twelfths supply bill, the current situation is one of uncertainty around the parliamentary schedule and whether Parliament will be sitting at the end of June in order to pass a full supply bill, as is the normal process.
I might point out that, in this regard, Mr. Chairman, our research indicates that there are three precedents in the last 20 years for asking for more than usual interim supply.
Senator Oliver: For nine months?
Mr. Judd: Nine months' supply was sought for fiscal year 1997-98, for 1989-90, and seven-twelfths supply was sought for fiscal year 1996-97.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: With one set of Main Estimates, not two?
Mr. Mike Joyce, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure and Management Strategies Sector, Treasury Board of Canada: That is correct, senator.
Mr. Judd: In our judgment, the prudent approach here is to ensure greater planning certainty for departments and organizations — which for the most part are also going through a significant reorganization through to the fall — in which to continue the delivery of current programs. As you know, this is not the first time that the government has taken these prudent measures to ensure the passage of sufficient interim supply in similar situations.
The decision to defer tabling of the reports on plans and priorities also reflects our interest in balancing timing with the need to provide Parliament with adequate information, not just on the numbers, but to situate the numbers within department and agency strategic and operational plans.
If I could, I should like briefly now to turn to our plans for the remainder of this calendar year. With respect to the tabling of reports on plans and priorities, we anticipate carrying this out in two phases: a tentative May 27 tabling for roughly 70 organizations, and a tentative fall tabling for the remainder, probably more than 20 organizations currently, that have been affected by the reorganization or by budget decisions of last week; coupled with these reports on plans and priorities, an updated set of Main Estimates to provide Parliament with a single, comprehensive document reflecting the three areas of information not included in the Main Estimates tabled in February, that is to say, the final result of resource adjustments as a consequence of the departmental reorganizations announced by the government last December; new spending decisions announced in the budget for 2004, as was made evident last week; and, finally, the result of the $1-billion reduction exercise that was announced in budget 2004 on March 23.
As I mentioned previously, our hope is that we will be able to combine this with first regular Supplementary Estimates into a single supply process.
I would now invite your questions and comments on these issues.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Judd.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: You are not the only ones being affected by what you call the uncertainty surrounding the parliamentary schedule. After listening to you, I think you have added another argument to the many that I present in favour of fixed terms. If you do not mind, I might quote you some day.
The normal process of presenting the Mains, et cetera, has been disrupted by the reorganization of the government announced in December. That reorganization is massive. As I recall, it was announced by the Prime Minister either the day of or the day after his being sworn in. It must have been prepared over a long period of time. Why did it have to be announced at that time? Why could it not wait, so that when the Estimates came down, you would have had the regular Estimates, work on the reorganization and the readjusted Estimates at the same time, and then could announce both at the same time?
Maybe ``announce'' is not the right word, but it seems to me the cart has been put before the horse here; massive reorganization and then, oops, we have to put down the Main Estimates because the law requires it, but they are not really factual numbers, in the sense that many of the chapter headings will have to be changed to reflect the reorganization. To repeat myself: Why announce the reorganization when the Estimates applicable to that reorganization are still being worked on?
Mr. Judd: With respect, senator, the machinery-of-government decisions are a prime ministerial prerogative. In my experience, Prime Ministers are free, and have been free in the past, to make decisions as to the organization of government as they see fit. It is unfortunate in this sense, that we were unable to quickly capture the changes in the Main Estimates to the extent we would have liked, but in the circumstances, we felt we really had no option but to proceed in the fashion that we did.
Perhaps if we had been more nimble, we would have been able to do a better job, but I think, given the timetable here, with the change in government, the reorganization of government, the Speech from the Throne and the budget all in rapid succession, we did the best we could in the circumstances.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I am not faulting your work but whoever is responsible for what appears to be the haste in announcing the reorganization when the timing was so poor for others who have to work around it.
Were you aware that the reorganization was taking place? Do you know how it came about? Were departments consulted or did it just come out of the blue? It is massive. I think it is even more significant than the one that Prime Minister Kim Campbell announced soon after she took office.
Mr. Judd: Prime Minister Campbell's was a significant reorganization as well. I am not sure in comparative terms —
Senator Lynch-Staunton: They were both significant, would you agree with that?
Mr. Judd: Both were significant. I know that the planning for the reorganization had preceded the transition of government and I believe that deputies responsible for the organizations affected had been spoken to in advance of those decisions. Certainly that was the case — I can only speak personally in this instance — with respect to my own department, which was fairly substantially affected. Parts of it ended up in the new Public Service Human Resource Management Agency of Canada and parts of it are being divested to Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Senator Oliver: Was that not under Bill C-25?
Mr. Judd: No. It was a reorganization decision associated with the transition, as opposed to a consequence of or response to Bill C-25 per se.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is the end of my general intervention. The Prime Minister was not a member of the preceding government for about two years, and I just do not understand how he could suddenly not only be made aware, the day he comes into office, of this reorganization, but announce it. Did somebody brief him ahead of time, tell him the implications and explain to him and cabinet that as a result, the Estimates will be, I will not say incomplete, but not as clear as they should be? Was there any attention at all given to the fallout, some of which we are discussing today?
Mr. Judd: I believe, as is normally the case in respect of transitions of governments, where the change in government is known, there would have been the normal pre-transition briefings provided for the incoming government, by officials of the Privy Council Office more than anyone else, I assume, on those issues. I think that was the case this time around.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Perhaps we can develop this with the President of the Treasury Board or other ministers.
The Chairman: Mr. Judd, the Secretary to the Treasury Board — correct me if I am wrong — over the last number of years has also been Comptroller General, has he not?
Mr. Judd: That is correct, senator. The Secretary of the Treasury Board had the joint title of secretary and Comptroller General since the other event Senator Lynch-Staunton referred to, which was the 1993 reorganization of government, when the two offices were combined.
The Chairman: This government will appoint a separate comptroller general. Will he or she be part of Treasury Board?
Mr. Judd: The new comptroller general will be part of the Treasury Board Secretariat. The individual in question would have the status of deputy head, and in effect, would take over a part of the secretariat that deals with accounting, financial management issues, financial policy issues, internal audit and some other functions that have traditionally been associated with the Comptroller General's role in the past.
The Chairman: When Mr. Reg Alcock was before the committee, we asked him about the reporting relationships of the comptrollers who will be located in the various departments and agencies of the government. It was not clear to him at that time, and certainly not to us, whether those comptrollers would be reporting to the comptroller general over at Treasury Board, or whether, in the first instance, they would be reporting to their own deputy ministers.
A few days later, it appeared that that issue had been resolved in favour of the deputy ministers, or in favour of the status quo, as it were. I saw Mr. Alcock being interviewed on CBC Television, and in answer to a direct question from Don Newman, he said that the comptrollers in the different departments and agencies — I hope I understood him correctly — would be reporting to their own deputy minister but would have a ``secondary reporting relationship to the comptroller general.'' Do you know anything about that?
Mr. Judd: Indeed I do, Mr. Chairman.
The issue of reporting relationships with respect to the comptroller general has been the subject of substantial debate over the last several months. The two options, as you outlined, were, essentially, to have departmental comptrollers responsible to their deputy ministers or, alternatively, responsible to the comptroller general. We consulted, I think quite widely, including with people in the private sector to get a sense of private sector practices in this area; the current and former auditors general; other public administration experts and so on. In the final analysis, the result is that departmental comptrollers will report to their deputy ministers, but the comptroller general will have a minimum four- part relationship with departmental comptrollers. The comptroller general will have a role in the appointment of departmental comptrollers, and in their annual appraisal and assessments. The comptroller general will set the standards for comptrollers in departments in terms of qualifications, experience and credentials. The comptroller general will also be asked to play a more significant role in the broader development of the comptrollers' community within the government.
As I said, arguments were made on both sides by various and sundry people. I think that in the final analysis, it came out the way it did because of a concern that were comptrollers to be responsible to the comptroller general, it would, perhaps, undercut the sense of accountability of deputy ministers if their senior financial person reported to someone other than them.
In any event, I suspect it may be an issue that will be revisited in the future, depending on how the current system works over the next year or two.
The Chairman: When you describe the four-part relationship between the comptroller general and the comptrollers in the different departments and agencies, is that what is meant by a ``secondary reporting relationship?''
Mr. Judd: That is exactly it. In the internal discussions that have taken place around this issue, we have referred to the relationship as solid line/dotted line.
The Chairman: The question, to put it in a crude terms, is whether the comptroller of the department will have complete freedom to flash an amber light, as it were, to the comptroller general about activities that may be taking place or may be imminent in that department or agency. I mentioned this in the debate the other day, in the case of Public Works and the sponsorship business. Ran Quail, the former deputy minister, testified that because of the relationship that appeared to exist between the minister and a lower-level bureaucrat, he stood aside and allowed that relationship, whatever it entailed, to continue.
One wonders whether a comptroller in that department, with a comptroller general in the Treasury Board, would have made any difference if the comptroller were reporting to the deputy minister. If the deputy minister stands aside, will the comptroller stand aside too? What do you think of that?
Mr. Judd: It is a legitimate question, senator, and certainly, as I said, in the internal debates around this issue, there were pros and cons of either option.
The Chairman: You spoke about dotted lines, but is it a direct link with the comptroller general? Will that comptroller in the department be in a position to give a head's up, at least, in a formal way, to the comptroller general about something that is taking place in that department or agency that concerns him?
Mr. Judd: In fact, senator, there is already an obligation for that to be done now. Several years ago, we changed the comptrollership policy for the government to make it mandatory that senior financial officers report any such situations to the then deputy comptroller general. I took the opportunity, I believe last fall, to remind my deputy ministerial colleagues formally in writing of that policy and those obligations. That will continue in the new construct.
The Chairman: Well, it raises some interesting questions, which I will not ask, that the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee is now looking into.
Senator Downe: Mr. Judd indicated that the current Auditor General was asked her opinion on whether the comptroller should report to the deputy minister or to the comptroller general. What was her position?
Mr. Judd: Her position was coincident with the final decision.
Senator Downe: She supports the final decision; is that right?
Mr. Judd: Yes. I also discussed the issue with her predecessor at some length, not just on the basis of his public administration background but also his current role in private sector governance issues. One of the things we were interested in discussing with both was their experience in both the public and private sector elsewhere. I believe it is fair to say that both came out with the view that clarity of accountability would best be ensured by having the departmental comptrollers report to the deputy ministers.
Senator Downe: My second question refers to your opening statement, on the top of page 2. You indicate that the supply bill is nine-twelfths because of uncertainty around Parliament's schedule. I assume if, after the next election there is a minority government, we can expect this nine-twelfths to be the rule rather than the exception because there would be continuing uncertainty?
Mr. Judd: You are taxing my predictive powers, senator.
Senator Downe: I am curious.
Senator Comeau: Mr. Judd, my question revolves around the issue of the two sets of Main Estimates. I would like to quote to you a statement made by the President of the Treasury Board when he appeared before this committee a couple of weeks ago.
I was simply informed that I could not make a statement. That was why there was no statement. I got a formal set of instructions: stand, read this, put it down on the table, stand, read that, put it down on the table and walk away.
Subsequently, the minister issued a press release indicating there was a second set of Estimates. Why would the minister not be allowed to advise Parliament through a statement and have to resort to issuing a press release?
Mr. Judd: I believe that it was largely a consequence of our following the normal practice on tabling announcements in the House of Commons. In retrospect, perhaps we should have been more forthcoming on the president's statement and advised him differently. That is certainly something we would want to ensure, were this to happen in the future.
Senator Comeau: You are not suggesting that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons precluded him from doing so; was it your desire that he do it through a press release rather than in Parliament?
Mr. Joyce: Senator, it is not a function of the Standing Order. The Standing Order simply sets a deadline for the tabling of the Main Estimates, which we were respecting. It is exactly as Mr. Judd said. We were just following, and advising the president on, the standard practice in the House of Commons with respect to tabling the Main Estimates.
In hindsight, I certainly agree with Mr. Judd, and would have perhaps found a way to advise the president to do this differently. The media release was issued at the same time as the Main Estimates; it was not subsequent.
Senator Comeau: It does send a message that Parliament is kind of irrelevant when the minister proceeds with press releases rather than dealing directly with Parliament, which is where it should be done. It is rather insulting to parliamentarians. It does reduce them to the old cliché of being nobodies 10 feet from the doors of Parliament Hill.
I would advise you that, given that he is a new minister and did as he was told, it does create a negative image of both the minister and us. I suppose what you are suggesting in hindsight is that it should have been handled differently.
If there is any kind of a Standing Order that precludes the minister from doing it, obviously the Rules of the Senate could allow for it in the Senate, even before a committee like this.
Okay, I believe I have made my point on that one.
The Part IIIs are not, as I understand it, going to be tabled for some time. My understanding is that the minister made a decision at one point in the discussion with Mr. Joyce, and I will paraphrase the discussion.
I think it was something to the effect that we do not have the final figures yet, minister, so it might be better not to table the Part IIIs. That is probably a fair recommendation to the minister. However, that leaves us not knowing the numbers in certain expense categories. My question, had I the non-tabled Part IIIs, would have been, what about the gun registration estimates for this year? Will we be over or under? Have you any idea of where we might be heading with the gun registration estimates?
Mr. Joyce: Senator, you are correct in your characterization of the interchange between the President of Treasury of Board and me. As I stated earlier, the decisions on the current planning dates for the reports on plans and priorities of Part III reflected a judgment on a balance between timing and bringing information before both Houses of Parliament that was a true reflection of a three-year strategic plan.
With respect to the gun registry, the only changes contemplated for inclusion, if we reissue the Main Estimates to include them, are the three that the secretary referred to. To the best of my knowledge, the expenditures of the gun registry are reflected in the Main Estimates as tabled.
Senator Comeau: Are they in the set that has been tabled?
Mr. Joyce: The RPPs will reflect that level of expenditures. There have been no further expenditures that I am aware of.
The Chairman: Mr. Judd, in the budget plan, you alluded to the $1-billion reallocation that had been announced in Mr. Manley's budget in 2003. For the record here, in the budget plan, at page 56, you say that the President of the Treasury Board has completed the reallocation exercise and secured the savings for 2004-05 and beyond. As a result, reductions have been made to every portfolio, with the exception of those agencies reporting directly to Parliament. Previously approved departmental funding levels will be reduced by $1 billion in 2004-05 and ongoing, consistent with the commitments made in last year's budget.
Where the budget plan mentions reductions, are they year-over-year from the Main Estimates of 2003-04 to 2004- 05, or are they reductions in the internally approved spending levels for the departments?
Mr. Judd: They are year-over-year reductions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Therefore, those reductions will add up to $1 billion between the Main Estimates of 2003-04 and the Main Estimates of 2004-05?
Mr. Joyce: That is correct.
The Chairman: You say in this document that reductions to departmental funding levels will be reflected in the revised Main Estimates that the President of the Treasury Board plans to table next fiscal year.
Mr. Judd: That is correct.
The Chairman: Those reductions are not in the Main Estimates that we have today. Is that correct, Mr. Joyce?
Mr. Joyce: If I may clarify that, senator, of the $1 billion, some 24 per cent, which is an average over the five-year period because they are year-over-year reductions, will actually reflect the ongoing impact of the decisions that were made for the $1 billion in the current fiscal year, 2003-04. In fact, that 24 per cent is already taken out of the Main Estimates that were tabled. It was not announced at the time because we had only achieved a part of the target for the ongoing $1 billion. If we re-table Main Estimates, you will see the difference between 24 per cent and 100 per cent.
The Chairman: The budget paper states that examples of programs eliminated or reduced include: the cancellation of the sponsorship program; the cancellation of the Canada history centre; cuts to VIA Rail's capital program; reductions to professional services budgets and advertising programs; and the deferral of some new building projects in Ottawa. Does that pretty well comprise the bulk of the $1 billion?
Mr. Judd: No. There are reductions over and above that, senator, applied to departments, which account for about 60 per cent of the total. Departments have been given until the end of May to identify specifically where the savings will occur. As a default mechanism, should they not do so, the savings will be taken from their travel and professional services budgets.
The Chairman: Has each department been given a target figure for the savings?
Mr. Judd: Yes.
The Chairman: Is it an across-the-board percentage cut?
Mr. Joyce: If I may be more precise, it is not a target. Treasury Board has made a decision and that amount of money has been removed from the portfolio numbers. A target suggests something that they have to achieve. As Mr. Judd said, flexibility has been provided to the departments if they do not want it taken from professional services or travel budgets. Departments have the option to identify other means. Essentially, it is an across-the-board measure for all portfolios of the government. We have taken up to 10 per cent from those budgets.
The Chairman: This has affected all departments except the agencies that report directly to Parliament.
Mr. Joyce: All ministerial portfolios have been affected; that is correct.
The Chairman: Eventually, we will see a reduction in actual dollars in the Estimates of 2004 for these agencies and departments, and the Main Estimates for 2004-05 over the Main Estimates for 2003-04? Is that what we can expect?
Mr. Judd: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Oliver: Mr. Judd, I thank you for your presentation, which was clear and unequivocal. I would like to pursue one of the last areas you talked about — the tabling of the reports on plans and priorities. You made some interesting remarks to the effect that some will be ready on May 27 and others around July 30.
Some new departments, such as the Canada Border Services Agency, might not be ready in time, understandably, with all the changes taking place. However, I believe that Treasury Board and Transport Canada will not have to be ready until July 25. Why does Treasury Board need until July 25 to prepare a camera-ready copy of its own Part IIIs? What would cause that?
Mr. Judd: First, Treasury Board Secretariat was significantly affected by the reorganization announced on December 12, with the result that approximately one- third of the secretariat was moved to other departments and agencies. Since the transition in government, we have been given new responsibilities that include the expenditure review committee that the President talked about when he appeared before your committee. I also have to restructure the organization for various reasons: to deal with the consequences of the reorganization; to deal with the consequences of the new responsibilities added to the organization, such as the expenditure review committee; and finally, to account for the new office of the comptroller general.
In an ideal world, I would have done that faster, but I must say there have been a number of other preoccupations that have kept me from getting to that as quickly as I otherwise would have liked.
Senator Oliver: In relation to the possibility of Parliament not sitting for a while, what happens if there is no legislation to create some of these new departments to which groups, people and work is being sent? Will that cause a further delay in the Part IIIs, if there is no legislation passed by Parliament?
Mr. Judd: In that instance, senator, and subject to correction, the transfer of duties legislation would still allow for that to happen without jeopardizing the timetables for the RPPs.
Senator Oliver: That would not give rise to a further delay; is that correct?
Mr. Judd: That is correct.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Just to follow up on Senator Oliver's last comment, I deplore the fact — I know it is allowed — that this reorganization, or any reorganization, of departments and agencies can take place unilaterally and legislation to make it all legal can come through maybe a year or two later. This is what will happen in this case; we will not see legislation now. By that time, what is the point? The deed is done.
I compare that with President Bush wanting to create the Department of Homeland Security. He had to go to Congress, there was a debate, it was very politicized and it was on the eve of a congressional election. That is not the point. The point is that Congress was involved and participated in the creation of a new department. Whereas here, we were told on December 12 that this is what government will be all about from now on. I allow myself that comment because in this day and age there should be more participation by Parliament in what are still exclusively executive functions.
You did mention Sups. You are no doubt aware that this committee has debated and discussed with Mr. Neville and others the use of Vote 5 and how some of us feel that perhaps the guidelines underlining Vote 5 should be tightened up. I will not go into examples of where some of us felt that an excessive use of Vote 5 was made.
Mr. Neville did come to this committee two years ago with some reaction to our concerns and then Treasury Board was to return, and we have not heard anything since. I know you are tied up with many other things, but are you aware of whether the Vote 5 issue is still alive and whether we might expect some reaction to our apprehensions?
Mr. Judd: The issue is still alive, Senator Lynch-Staunton. You can expect a reaction to your apprehensions. This is an issue that the President of the Treasury Board addressed briefly when he was here. He indicated at that time that he would be willing to return to discuss the issue. This is an issue that we have spent a fair amount of time on internally and in discussions with staff of this committee, including last year. It is part of our broader interest in seeing what changes can be made to the process and the quality of reporting to Parliament. The subject is on my agenda for discussion with the president next week, as a matter of fact.
The Chairman: There were two matters that Treasury Board undertook to look into: first, the actual wording of the vote needs to be taken into consideration; second, that not just the secretariat but the formal Treasury Board, the committee of ministers, were to sign off eventually on perhaps a new or revised set of guidelines. Those are the two issues that the Auditor General wanted addressed.
Mr. Judd: That is quite correct. In this instance, my minister has a larger interest in the question of reporting to Parliament, which he may have discussed with you when he was here.
I suspect that the question of changes to Treasury Board Vote 5 may be just one of a number of issues that he would want to engage this committee on in the future.
The Chairman: That is fine.
Senator Downe: I wanted to follow up on a comment by the Chair earlier about reallocation or reduction of $1 billion. Under the regional program review, most of the impact was in the regions as opposed to Ottawa, particularly in terms of unemployment. On a percentage basis, I understand more jobs were lost in the regions. When the government ramped up again after the budget was approved, most of the hiring was done in the Ottawa area. There were other impacts as well. Is Treasury Board taking any steps at this time to ensure that this reduction of an ongoing $1 billion does not affect the regions more than the National Capital Region?
As an aside, in a recent budget in the United Kingdom, the Chancellor announced that they were moving a large number of departments out of London to the regions for economic benefit reasons. Is that something we should be considering here?
Mr. Judd: With respect to your first question, Senator Downe, the issue is still very much alive with ministers of Treasury Board, that is to say, the balance of public servants as between the National Capital Region and the rest of Canada. They have directed us to ensure that departmental reduction plans are reviewed by the secretariat and by Treasury Board ministers from a number of perspectives, including the potential impact, if any, on representation outside the National Capital Region.
With respect to the British budget and the move of departments and personnel outside of London, that is an issue that continues to be subject to some ongoing debate within the Government of Canada. We may not be discussing the subject to the extent that was outlined in the British budget, but certainly there are factors that you pointed out, in terms of post-program review reduction in federal representation outside the national capital and subsequent growth in the National Capital Region, that continue to preoccupy members of the government. I expect those matters will be addressed in the coming months.
Senator Downe: This is important not only for economic reasons, but also for the health of the country. There is no one from British Columbia here, but if you look at the number of senior federal public servants and departmental positions in British Columbia, the situation is terrible. We should be more aggressive in moving national departments and Crown corporations around the country.
In Prince Edward Island, for example, we have the only national headquarters outside the National Capital Region, which is Veterans Affairs Canada. That department has been there for decades now. They have a tremendous impact on the community. Their payroll is approximately $68 million this year. We have a professional public service that contributes to the community through volunteer hours. They have greatly assisted official languages status in the province. There are benefits that are ongoing and bring the regions and the provinces closer to the federal government.
If the British government can do it, and they have announced they are doing it, that is something we should look at for a host of regions. Ottawa has a booming economy in many areas, but it is not the only part of Canada that should benefit from the federal public service. I have made my pitch, thank you.
The Chairman: You put in a good word for the location of a major facility such as the GST centre in Summerside, senator.
Senator Downe: The national GST centre is in Summerside, put there by former Prime Minister Mulroney. It has a tremendous impact in that area. Fortunately, we are way out of whack with B.C. and others, but that is not an argument I will advance.
The Chairman: Do you know when we might expect the appointment of a comptroller general?
Mr. Judd: If all goes according to plan, within a matter of weeks. The negotiations are in progress.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: How is that being done? Are you advertising the position or trying to fill it internally?
Mr. Judd: It will be an external appointment, if the current plan is concluded successfully.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Are there candidates that may have gone to professional firms?
Mr. Judd: We have actually gone down to one candidate right now.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Judd and Mr. Joyce.
The chair will entertain a motion to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.
Senator Finnerty: I move we go to clause-by-clause consideration.
The Chairman: It is moved by Senator Finnerty. Is it agreed?
Senator Lynch-Staunton: It is quite unusual to do clause-by-clause consideration right after hearing the witnesses. I think I have heard you say that on a number of occasions.
The Chairman: There is nothing I am aware of in the rules.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I am pointing out the practice.
The Chairman: We find ourselves in an unusual situation. Shall the title stand?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Stood. Shall the preamble stand?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 1 stand?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall Schedule 1.1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. Shall Schedule 1.2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: Shall Schedule 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is it agreed that Bill C-27 be adopted without amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Is it agreed that I report Bill C-27 at the next sitting of the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you, honourable senators. I remind you that tomorrow night at 6:15, again under the rubric of Main Estimates for 2004-05, we will meet to revisit the issue of equalization. Our witnesses will be Professor Harvey Lazar of the Institute of Intergovernmental Relations at Queen's University; Ms. Vicki Harnish, Deputy Minister, and Ms. Liz Cody, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Finance, Government of Nova Scotia. There will be a modest but nutritious supper served at 5 o'clock in room 705. The meeting is being televised. It is a very important current issue — equalization. We will see you tomorrow night for dinner at 6:15. I have invited the witnesses to join us.
The committee adjourned.