Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 8 - Evidence - November 15, 2011
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine the expenditures set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012; and in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2012.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to order.
[Translation]
This morning, we will continue our study of the Main Estimates for the 2011-12 fiscal year, which were referred to our committee.
[English]
In this session, we turn our attention to the Public Service Commission of Canada. We are very pleased to welcome back Maria Barrados, President of the Public Service Commission. She is accompanied by Hélène Laurendeau, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, and Elizabeth Murphy-Walsh, Vice-President, Audit and Data Services Branch.
Honourable senators will know this is likely to be the president's last appearance, since her term has expired. We understand that there is a job search to try and find someone to replace her.
Ms. Barrados, we have enjoyed our association and your appearances before our committee in helping us understand the issues of the Public Service Commission.
Before I give you the floor, I would like honourable senators and our audience to recognize that we have a delegation visiting us from Mongolia. Honourable senators will know that Mongolia was previously under the umbrella of the Soviet Union. Over the past 20 years it has been doing very well as a fledgling democracy, and we are pleased to have the delegation visiting us. They wanted to observe one of our processes whereby parliamentarians become informed about what is happening so we can hold the government to account. On your behalf, senators, I said that if they would like to attend our meeting, absolutely.
Welcome, and thank you for coming to visit us.
[Translation]
Maria Barrados, President, Public Service Commission of Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here with Hélène Laurendeau, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, and Elizabeth Murphy-Walsh, Vice-President, Audit and Data Services Branch, to discuss the Public Service Commission's 2010-11 Annual Report and its audit reports for 2011, which were table in Parliament on October 25.
The PSC is an independent body responsible for safeguarding the integrity of staffing in the public service and the non-partisanship of the public service. The PSC is free from ministerial direction in the exercise of its executive authorities for hiring and non-partisanship, but it is accountable to Parliament. We report annually to Parliament on our activities and results.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss them with your committee.
[English]
The PSC's 2010-11 Annual Report covers the fifth year of operation under the current Public Service Employment Act, the PSEA. As of March 2011, there were 83 organizations representing over 216,000 individuals, to which the PSC has delegated its appointment authority.
There was no growth in the core public service in 2010-11, compared to 3.4 per cent the previous year. There was a marked reduction not only in hiring but internal staffing activities — 15.2 per cent — compared to last year. We saw less recruitment, especially new permanent hires, with no change in departures. Fewer young employees joined the public service in 2010-11, and for the first time in a decade there was a decrease in the number of employees under 35 years old. Although there is less hiring, there is still significant intake. Over 1,250 students entered the public service through post-secondary recruitment as opposed to nearly 1,650 the year before.
The government has entered a period of fiscal restraint. There will be pressures on the staffing system. We see continuing interest in public service jobs, but it will be for fewer jobs.
The PSC is responsible for managing a priority program for displaced employees in the federal public service. Our legislation provides for a ``priority'' person to be appointed ahead of all others to vacant positions in the public service, if the person meets the essential qualifications. This program is important in providing fairness to displaced employees, and we need to make sure it works well. An evaluation identified areas for improvement and we are making a number of changes to make the program more robust and rigorous. In addition, our analysis of 19 audits over the past two years showed that in 11 per cent of appointments, problems were identified in obtaining priority clearances.
As well, proper use and better planning of both the permanent and contingent workforces are essential in ensuring that managers are able to respond to their needs in a flexible way while respecting the values in the PSEA. However, we believe that targeted hiring must continue to ensure succession in the public service and maintain to deliver results for Canadians.
I would like to now turn to our overall assessment. Based on our oversight activities in 2010-11, we have concluded that, overall, merit is being respected in the staffing system, and our audits show that managers are doing a better job of applying the merit test. Organizational performance in the management of staffing continues to improve. We saw positive trends in hiring strategies, which better support staffing priorities as well as improved HR capacity. However, we have concerns with the quality control of appointment processes, the lack of appropriate assessment and documentation of merit, and the poor rationales for non-advertised appointment processes.
In addition, there continues to be a small proportion of cases where merit has not been met. This is usually the result of error, omission or improper conduct. As well, there are still too many cases where merit is not demonstrated in staffing files or other organizational records.
The PSC continues to be concerned about employees' perceptions of the fairness of the overall staffing process. About a quarter of employees persistently feel the overall process is not at all fair, or fair only to some extent. We are also concerned that the continued low rate of external appointments for persons with disabilities will have negative consequences for their representation in the public service over the long term.
With respect to non-partisanship, we find that a small proportion of public servants are politically active. In 2010-11, the PSC received 94 candidacy requests from public servants. Still, we are concerned that public servants are not well informed about their rights and responsibilities with regard to political activities. We believe more effort is required to properly safeguard this core value.
I would like to turn to our audits. This year, the PSC examined 11 organizations and it placed additional conditions only on the delegation of staffing authorities at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. The commissioner has provided an action plan that outlines how they will respond to the audit recommendations. They will also provide semi-annual reports on how the plan has been implemented. The PSC has removed the conditions placed upon Health Canada and some of the conditions on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police following their past audits.
Following a 2009 audit, the PSC and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada reached an agreement with respect to the auditing of additional appointments, the conduct of investigations and corrective actions. A report on this agreement was also tabled in Parliament. The PSC found improvements in their staffing practices. However, the IRB has not accepted the conclusions in the majority of investigations completed by the PSC.
Any decision to not respond to results of an investigation or to not undertake appropriate corrective measures undermines the integrity of the staffing system. Instead of removing all their staffing authorities, we are now moving forward with a process whereby the PSC would carry out investigations and order corrective actions on the internal processes at the IRB.
[Translation]
As we move forward, the PSEA values will as important as ever. With fewer opportunities, each appointment decision takes on more significance relative to the integrity of the system as a whole. Our oversight activities provide important information about the integrity of the staffing system and assurance to Parliament that the core and guiding values are being met.
We will continue to work with members of this committee as well as other parliamentarians, deputy heads, bargaining agents and other stakeholders to ensure that the staffing system is responsive to the changing operational and fiscal context, and that the staffing values continue to be respected.
As you may know, my term as president has been extended until a replacement is found. The PSC is committed to supporting a smooth transition to a new commission over the coming months and will continue to ensure that Canadians benefit from a professional public service in which merit and non-partisanship are independently protected.
Thank you. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much Madam President of the Public Service Commission. I should have pointed out at the beginning that we are all in receipt of reports that you have produced — your annual report and the audit report that you have just referenced.
For clarification, in relation to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, you said that instead of removing all their staffing authorities, we are now moving forward with a process whereby the Public Service Commission would carry out investigations and order corrective action on the internal processes at the Immigration and Refugee Board. Can you elaborate on that? Can you explain what authority you would have and if you have used this authority previously?
Ms. Barrados: We have not used quite this approach. The regime that we have in the statute provides for a delegation by the Public Service Commission to deputy heads. With that delegation comes the right to remove someone from their position, which requires an investigation. There are two pieces to that delegation — the staffing authority and the right to remove someone from the position if there is a problem. We give the full delegation, and we have been doing that.
In the case of the IRB, following our initial audit, we continued to work and we went back at the end of that period. We found that on the staffing portion of the delegation, they really have made significant improvement. They have done all the things we recommended, and it is being done better.
However, on the corrective actions portion of it, they have not agreed with us. They have not agreed with the methodology; they have not agreed with our conclusions. We are not satisfied with how they are carrying out that portion of the delegation.
My alternatives are to remove the full delegation or to deal with only one part that I want to remove from them. Given that they are in a position now of having to implement new legislation — there is a lot they want to do — I think it would be too heavy handed and inappropriate to remove the full delegation. I only want to remove the part that I feel they are not doing so well on. If they are doing better on the staffing, they will not have that many problems on the investigation either.
I have taken legal advice on what is the best way to do that. The legal advice I am getting is the best way is to do it through an exclusion order. We have the authority to do that, but it is approved by the Governor-in-Council.
The Chair: This is a quasi-judicial body and it is part of Immigration Canada, is that right?
Ms. Barrados: That is correct.
The Chair: Do you have to deal through the deputy head of Immigration Canada or can you deal with the head of the Immigration and Refugee Board directly on these matters?
Ms. Barrados: I deal directly with the head of the board. The relationship that they have with the deputy head is not very close; they cannot take direction from the deputy head because of their mandate.
The Chair: The authority that you have at the Public Service Commission is to deal with this quasi-judicial board as a separate entity in effect, is that correct?
Ms. Barrados: It is the staffing in that quasi-judicial board. I have a separate delegation agreement with the deputy head for Citizenship and Immigration.
The Chair: The staffing would be the public servants who are hired to work for and support the work of that board, is that right?
Ms. Barrados: That is it exactly. There are a number of Governor-in-Council appointees at the IRB, and those are not in my mandate.
The Chair: That is what I wanted to get to. They are not within your mandate.
Ms. Barrados: No.
The Chair: The people you are dealing with have been appointed through Governor-in-Council appointments, but the issue that you are dealing with is their staffing, correct?
Ms. Barrados: All deputy heads and associate deputy ministers are Governor-in-Council appointments. At the end of the day, I am a Governor-in-Council appointment as well, although the process is that Parliament has to vote before the Prime Minister can proceed with the nomination.
It is the staff who report to these heads, who are all appointed under the Public Service Employment Act with the two big requirements that they be merit based and non-partisan, which makes it very appropriate for a quasi-judicial body.
The Chair: Have you come to any conclusion why you seem to be not getting the cooperation from this particular group that you do get from the rest of the public service?
Ms. Barrados: I have had very good cooperation on the staffing side. To say that I have had no cooperation would not be quite correct. I have had partial, very good cooperation, but I have had partial, not good cooperation. Underneath it has been a view by the head, who has legal training and who runs formal processes, that our methodology is flawed. We did end up in court, actually, on methodology, that was withdrawn.
We have had a number of our investigations reviewed by the courts, and the courts have upheld our methodology and our approach. There is a fundamental difference of agreement, but the authorities are with the commission and we have to do what we believe is correct.
The Chair: As parliamentarians, we have some control over the legislation under which you operate. If you felt that there was a need for some clarification or if the court case had pointed out that there would be a need for clarification in order to allow you to do the job that we are expecting and hoping that you would do, you would let us know that, correct?
Ms. Barrados: In fact, we did. We issued a special report that was just prior to the election. There was not an opportunity to have a lot of discussion about it, but the Public Service Commission had a view at about how well the public service modernization and the changes in the Public Service Employment Act had gone, as well as areas of suggestions for statutory change if Parliament decided to go that route.
The process we have is the government will be coming with its recommendations; we also have our recommendations. On the whole, we are agreeing on the status, but in the details there are some differences. This is one area, the area we are talking about in the case of the IRB, where we feel there should be more discretion for the commission. If a deputy head is actually someone who is giving us difficulties in doing things the way they should be done, or the deputy heads themselves are involved in some of the processes that we are investigating, which was the case at the IRB, then there should be more discretion given to the commission in terms of what it does in its investigations. That is one of our recommendations.
The Chair: As you stated in your opening remarks, we are now moving forward with a process whereby the Public Service Commission would carry out investigations. Does that entail legislative change to give you more discretion?
Ms. Barrados: No. We use the exclusion order process. We have done the drafting, we are in the process of doing the consultation and that then goes for Governor-in-Council approval.
The Chair: Thank you. It is helpful to clarify that point.
Senator Finley: Ms. Barrados, the last time you came to see us, just prior to the election earlier this year, you repeatedly stated that one of your main areas of focus was ensuring the non-partisan nature of the bureaucracy. During the election campaign, there was a pretty obvious incident of what I assume was some form of union agitated league of a draft of the Auditor General's report to one of the political parties who in turn leaked it to the press. Would you consider this to be a partisan activity? Could you tell me what concisely was done to investigate this? To me, it was a glaring incident of union agitated partisanship during a federal election. I wonder if you would comment on that.
Ms. Barrados: That is a difficult issue. The reason it has some difficulty is we work quite closely with the unions, and there is pretty strong agreement on how we see the staffing system. There is no agreement between the Public Service Commission and the unions in how we view non-partisanship. In fact, it was the unions that took us to the Supreme Court.
With respect to how we deal with unions, if there is union activity, you are not technically a member of the public service, so the same regime does not apply. Members of the union have been taken out of the public service and they are working for the union. I really have no authority to investigate the unions. However, I do have authority over union members who are part of the public service.
In this particular instance, I have not received a complaint. The way we work, I receive a complaint, send it to my jurisdiction group and ask them, ``Do I have jurisdiction?'' Unless I have some evidence of whether there was a public servant involved or not, I would not have jurisdiction. If there was a public servant involved, I would have jurisdiction and we would launch an investigation then. I have not received such a complaint, and we have not had that question.
I did have issues during the election campaign, though, from unions who did not find the tool that we have on the Internet, which is a self-help tool — the idea behind this tool is that a public servant can use it to answer a series of questions. The response may be that they have a risk of being too politically active or that there is some risk associated with this.
Unions felt that we were too restrictive and that we were giving direction that was more limiting than it should be. We have committed to reviewing that, but we certainly remain of the view that public servants, while they have a right to participate in some political activity, must not do so in such a way that it compromises the non-partisanship of the public service.
That is our position and that is the position of the Supreme Court. That is how we would follow through.
Senator Finley: Perhaps you could square this circle off for me bit. You just mentioned a tool you have on your website, but public service employees can apply or can become candidates for political office, which generally carries a considerable amount of partisanship with it. If the candidate loses and presumably returns to the civil service, how do you manage a situation like that? There is very evidently partisanship. Is there particular attention paid to that employee in future actions, or is there no oversight at all?
Ms. Barrados: We are actually very concerned about that. Our decision to give someone permission to run as a candidate depends a lot on where they return to if they lose. The reason we ask for a 30-day period is because that is the nature of the discussion. If we are not satisfied that they would return to a position that we view has an acceptable level of risk, we would not grant the permission. We have had some of those cases, particularly for peace officers.
The other thing we do is that in some of the regulatory and quasi-regulatory areas we restrict the area that someone can do their work, so if they are running in a particular area, they cannot see any cases in that area for a year. We work at getting that agreement.
If the risk is too high, we do not grant permission. I have had a case where there was a public servant working in a minister's office, but there was no clear agreement on where this person might return to, so we did not grant permission. We would not grant it until we were satisfied they would be returning to something that would not threaten the non-partisan nature of the public service. It deals very much with the type of work, the visibility of the work and the relationship with ministers.
Senator Finley: If Canada were federally a right-to-work country — i.e., people did not have to be part of a union to be in the civil service or at any level in the civil service — would that ease your job or make it more difficult? What would be your comment if people could be in these jobs without necessarily being union members?
Ms. Barrados: The non-partisanship side would be the only place where it really has an impact. At this time, I feel we just have a disagreement and we have to work on it, so I am prepared to continue to work on it.
There is a big court case currently under way where the unions actually feel they should be more involved in staffing. We would have to see the results of that in order to see what kind of impact it would have.
The Chair: Ms. Barrados, to clarify your opening comment in relation to non-partisanship, you indicated that in 2010-11 the commission received 94 candidacy requests. Would that be for the federal election only or for anyone who wanted to run municipally or provincially as well?
Ms. Barrados: Most of those are municipal. We had 20 requests at the federal level. Of those, not all of them ran. I think 14 ended up running federally, but the largest number is municipal.
The Chair: You conclude your opening remarks in that paragraph by saying, ``We believe that more effort is required to properly safeguard this core value.'' Is the core value you just talked to Senator Finley in relation to his question about keeping the public service non-partisan? Is that the core value you are talking about protecting?
Ms. Barrados: Yes. It is merit and non-partisanship. We do a survey on employees on a regular basis to see their reactions to the staffing system. On the last survey, 37 per cent did not have much of an idea of what their obligations were. That is too high a number. This is an area where, with the Supreme Court decision, there is a lot of judgment required. I am certainly of the view that it is essential that we keep the public service non-partisanship to serve whichever government is in power.
The Chair: The paragraph almost reads as if you are surprised that more public servants are not aware that they can participate politically and you would hope they would become better informed so more could participate. Is that your intent in that paragraph?
Ms. Barrados: No, that was not my intent. My intent was actually the opposite.
The Chair: You may want to look at page 4.
Ms. Barrados: I have been around for a long time; my view is that politicians should do politics and public servants should do public administration.
My colleague just pointed out there were 13 who ran for the federal election.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I want to go back to the priority program for displaced employees. You said the evaluation identified areas for improvement and you are making a number of changes to make it more robust and vigorous. Could you tell us about that?
Ms. Barrados: Ms. Laurendeau is responsible for that. However, from my point of view, we are working closely with the Treasury Board. As we downsize, there will be people coming out of the public service. It will be up to ministers to decide what the size of that will be, but we will have to be ready.
In our evaluation, it was clear that not everyone understood what they were to do in this system because we have gone through a period of growth. It is a different situation when you are not growing anymore. We have to provide people with more information, more training and make our system more interactive. When people are in there they can see how they are doing. We can give information to the departments.
We must ensure we have enough limits so that we do not have people repeatedly coming into the system and not getting anywhere. Perhaps Ms. Laurendeau wants to add something.
Hélène Laurendeau, Senior Vice-President, Policy Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada: We have three big initiatives to ensure we are prepared in time for when the action plan is put in place. As Ms. Barrados pointed out, we are working on the systems to ensure we have the technical capacity to leverage the current technology to make this as seamless and interactive as possible. We are working on clarifying certain policy elements to ensure they are understood by various stakeholders, both on the employee and management sides. We have been living a period of growth, so we have been less acquainted with the mechanism in place. We have to re-educate ourselves on how to use them and maximize them to achieve the objective.
The third area we are working on is ensuring we have the internal rigour — to ensure it is applied in a fair and rigorous manner — to ensure all employees are treated in a way that is human and in respect of their rights.
Senator Nancy Ruth: On the issue of what is fair, I want to go back to some of the facts of your report about the four groups — Aboriginal, disabled, visible minorities and women — and the fact that people under 35 have not entered.
When you are being fair to those who are losing their jobs, how will the four groups be protected in a way that will reflect their capacity from the general workforce? How will young people — who we do need to keep — be kept? What will you do with the surplus of managers or executives, which you seem to have too many of?
Ms. Barrados: The process that we have is that in the priority system, people in the public service will be placed in jobs for which they qualify. They must meet the essential qualifications of the job. That is less of a requirement than you often get because there will be essential requirements and what we call asset requirements. There will be opportunities for public servants who meet the essential requirements that are in the system. However, if there are no more jobs of that nature, they will have to be looking elsewhere.
On the manager side, we had growth in that executive group. However, that is the area where we have the largest amount of retirement. We have a departure rate running at 8 per cent from that group. That will automatically get smaller because of the amount of retirement that is going on.
The other element — and I do make a strong case for this — is it will be difficult for government to go from growth to no growth, but it will be essential that people do really good planning. They have to do good human resource management planning. They will have large, natural departures because the baby boomers are still on the way out. They will have to change the workforce, so there will be dislocation because of the work. We still should continue to hire young people because we do not want to make the mistake that we made in the program review period when we stopped all hiring. We suffered from that in terms of a lost contingent. In the public service, people by and large enter towards the bottom and spend their careers in the public service.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You are saying that in the executive groups folks are getting to the age of retirement. Why has that group been expanding in this environment? That is what your numbers show.
Ms. Barrados: Yes, they do. I am talking about last year.
Going forward is when we are expecting bigger reductions. I do not know exactly why that number — particularly the number of EX-01s, the lowest executive level — grew the way it did. It tends to move with the overall size of the public service. I would suspect this year it would not be.
As well, I think people were thinking about succession. If you have 8 to 9 per cent departures, you want to ensure you have a pool of people there to do the job. Even if it slows down a bit, you have a natural attrition rate. I worry less about the ability to adjust overall in terms of the number. The challenge will be that you have the right skill sets for the right kinds of jobs. A further challenge will be as you are changing your workforce — in Ottawa and outside of Ottawa — and your flexibilities when you are outside of the national capital area.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I want to come back to the four groups again.
Subsection 15(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the equality section, guarantees ameliorative correctional programs for those who are disadvantaged in Canadian society. Is there room in your displaced employees priority people to apply such a legal test? If two candidates have exactly the same capacities to do the job available and one is disabled, will there be any advantage to the person who is disabled?
Ms. Barrados: The problem we have in the public service on the disabled, which of the four groups is the one that I am most concerned about, is a population that is roughly comparable to the workforce in the public service. They are retiring at quite a rate. We are not doing so well bringing them in. It is the entry level. I feel more effort has to be taken to get them in. We have done a best practice review and there will have to be special initiatives taken. Existing powers in the PSEA and the Employment Equity Act can be used to bring these groups in.
Within the system — if we are staying with essential qualifications — we will watch. The commission will obviously watch because we have to watch that carefully.
I would hope we would not run into the issue of equity groups being the ones who are being let go, but we will watch that closely.
Ms. Laurendeau: We have been encouraging departments in doing their planning to keep an eye on their obligations with respect to representativeness.
We are encouraging them to upstream, and while they are doing their planning on the job reductions to be mindful of that. As Ms. Barrados said, at the tail end we will monitor that there is not an undesired effect the downsizing may have on the target groups.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If there is an undesired effect, what can you do?
Ms. Barrados: We have quite a bit of power. We have the powers to control all delegations, put conditions on delegations and powers to run special programs and limit activities.
I must say that government officials have been very responsive to our desire to get greater representativeness. We have done very well on visible minorities in terms of the recruitment rates that we have had. We will watch. We do not want that to slow down. Over the last three or four years, we have been running over 16 per cent, which is good.
The Chair: You started focusing on hiring or finding another place in the public service for someone who had lost his or her position. That is a priority within the hire for a position. We then moved into the priorities of new hires and people who are outside the Public Service Commission. Can you describe under what circumstances what groups exist for priority for new hires?
Ms. Barrados: There is a bit of an issue of terminology, and I apologize for not being sufficiently clear.
The priority system is for people in the public service. The commission operates that; we have delegated almost everything but we did not delegate that. By operating that system, we require that any public servant who is staffing a job must come to the priority system first to get a clearance number. The commission must say yes, it is okay.
The process is that we search the priority system and see if there is anyone who meets those qualifications to do that job. We have to be satisfied that person was fairly assessed before we say to go ahead with hiring. That is within the government. That is for public servants.
The other effort we put on is in employment equity groups; there are special provisions in the legislation. You can do two things: You can make the characteristics that are associated with these groups one of the assets, so you are looking for something special that these groups bring to the job; or you can restrict the whole competition to one of those four groups. You can say that for this type of job, I am looking only for visible minorities or Aboriginal people; or for this kind of job, I am looking only for handicapped people.
This does restrict the number of people who can apply. However, if there is a reason why a ministry feels that they are very short and they need these kinds of people, I think that is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, and the statute provides for it.
The Chair: Those groups are who — visible minorities, disabled, injured military people?
Ms. Barrados: Women, visible minorities, Aboriginal people and handicapped.
The Chair: Do you include retired military personnel in that or are they treated differently?
Ms. Barrados: The medically discharged military personnel and medically discharged RCMP officers are the exception to my explanation on the priority system. You have to be a public servant to get into the priority system, but if you are medically discharged from those two areas, you can be in the priority system. This is a special provision we gave them.
The Chair: They fit within the priority system.
Ms. Barrados: Yes.
Senator Marshall: I wanted to talk about the non-advertised appointments. You mentioned it in your report, and when you go to the reports on the individual agencies, I think it surfaces in every one of the individual reports.
You mentioned in your report and also in your opening remarks that about one quarter of the employees feel that the overall recruitment process is not fair. Could you talk about what you found when you did your reviews of the individual organizations? You made reference to policy and guiding principles, but could you be more specific?
Ms. Barrados: On my comment that one quarter of the employees felt the processes were not fair, this was part of the survey that we did of employees who had been through a staffing process. We have done further analysis on those. It shows that people who are in a collective process tend to be more inclined to worry about fairness. They wait around for a long time and they do not know what is happening and where they fit in the process.
People who lose a competition tend to feel that it is not fair more than people who win a competition. It is those who are in processes and do not know; that is a concern. I think that we should be able to do better in those areas.
On the non-advertised positions, I will have Ms. Murphy-Walsh give you some more detail on that. However, in the audits, the auditors look at how this is treated.
The commission prefers advertised. The statute does provide for non-advertised, but if there is a use of non- advertised, we expect it to comply with policy and we expect a rationale for that non-advertised. The auditors look for that all the time. Perhaps Ms. Murphy-Walsh wants to comment on that.
Elizabeth Murphy-Walsh, Vice-President, Audit and Data Services Branch, Public Service Commission of Canada: We do look at non-advertised processes as we conduct each of our audits. We look at those because, by their very nature, they are of higher risk. For example, a non-advertised process is not open to the public and made widely available. Therefore, because of that, they do have to adhere to the guiding values. We do look at those individual processes.
We look at them in the context of are they part of the overall staffing plan? For example, are they looking at particular employment equity groups that they want to bring into their department through a non-advertised process? Have they run a process before and found no one qualified and then come across an individual who is qualified so, therefore, it is not economical to run another process but, rather, maybe use a non-advertised process because of that? We do audit the rationales associated with those non-advertised processes to determine whether or not they are adhering to the guiding values.
It is sometimes challenging for managers to ensure that they have completely documented all of the guiding values. That is what we are often observing upon.
Senator Marshall: In those organizations, one of the issues we discussed last time you appeared before the committee was bureaucratic interference. We talk a lot about political interference but the issue of bureaucratic interference seldom arises. When you see issues with regard to non-advertised positions, the issue of bureaucratic interference comes to mind. Is that an issue within the Public Service Commission of Canada?
Ms. Barrados: Sure. When Ms. Murphy-Walsh talks about guiding values, the first one is fairness. Was this a fair process? The fairness test is one where we expect some explanation as to why this was deemed to be fair by having it non-advertised.
The examples Ms. Murphy-Walsh gave were, yes, I ran a process but it was totally unsuccessful and now I have a candidate. Well, yes, then you should not redo it. That is a waste of time and money. However, if the reason is that I know this person really well, that he comes from a really good family and I think this person would be good for the job, it does not meet the test. That is what we are looking for.
Senator Marshall: Sometimes it is not that obvious. You cannot relate the reason why it is not advertised to the fact that someone knows someone.
You did say in your report that the issue with regard to unadvertised positions seems to be not as significant a problem as it has been in previous years. Did I get the right impression in reading the report?
Ms. Barrados: Yes.
Senator Marshall: It is getting better. The anticipation now is that the recruitment will slow down in the public service. Is there a possibility that there could be further conditions put on positions that are not to be advertised? For example, could they require the prior approval of the Public Service Commission of Canada? Is there an opportunity now to nip the problem in the bud with regard to a slowdown in recruitment and things of that nature?
Ms. Barrados: Perhaps I can make a comment about things not being obvious. You and I have a common background in audits. People tend not to write in the file that they are doing something inappropriate unless they want to tell on their manager, but the auditors do talk to people. Part of their judgment about whether it requires further attention is when they feel the risk is too high. They send it to the investigative group so we pursue it.
As far as your question about whether we should have the commission intervene more, I do not think that would be an appropriate thing to do.
I think we have gone to a delegated system. There are more risks in a delegated system. I think the senior public service has responsibly taken this on. It is not perfect, but we are making a lot of progress.
Therefore, I would not feel it is appropriate to intervene in anticipation of something we have not seen. I think the Public Service Commission should continue to be somewhat preachy. I hope the next president will continue on and give little speeches and lecture people. I like Sheila Fraser's comment in that you nag people to keep them on track. I do not think I could see us intervening, not at this point. I think we must have a big problem in order to intervene, and we are seeing improvement.
Senator Marshall: Going back to your comment with regard to about one quarter of public servants thinking the recruitment process is unfair, you were saying that people think it is unfair if they did not get the job or they think it is unfair for another reason. Was there any indication or overriding impression that people thought it was unfair because positions were not advertised?
Ms. Barrados: There is some of that. I cannot make a commitment because I will not be there, but I am hoping that the next commission will spend more time looking at this.
We have been pushing very hard on having more of the long-term acting appointments being advertised and having acting appointments not necessarily revert to a full-time position, which is a real advantage. Again, these are areas where we have seen improvement. It is all going in the right direction, so I hope there will be an opportunity for the next commission to take a further look at this.
You will always have some people who are not happy if they do not win; that is a natural human response. However, when I see something like the collective processes people feeling things are not fair, I think that is something we have to look at. I think with technology, where we are making some ground, providing more information to people so they can self-serve is an opportunity where we should be able to address some of those things.
Senator Marshall: You said in your report that with respect to the acting appointments, in the past it seemed like more people ended up with the job on a permanent basis, but that does not hold true now; it seems like the problem is starting to fix itself.
When you appeared previously, we also talked about the issue of casual employees. Is that still an issue? Are you seeing improvements in that area as well? In previous reports, you indicated that people who are hired on a casual basis end up in a permanent position in the public service, which was a way in for many people. Could you speak to whether that issue is being addressed or whether it is still a problem?
Ms. Barrados: The concern we have had at the commission is that we used casual — temporary workers — term appointments as way to recruit into the public service. One cannot say you can never come in that way, but that is not the way to recruit and look for the talent really needed for not only today but for the longer term.
There has been improvement with this, but not so much for the casuals. I think it is an area that we really have to monitor. There is nothing wrong with using casuals. In fact, with regard to my comment about planning better, the workforce of the future will need to have more flexibility so that not everyone can be a permanent worker. There will have to be a group of permanent workers, workers who are much more contingent and that provide the flexibility to a manager to respond to varying needs and government decisions without having to go through workforce adjustments.
There is nothing wrong with using casual employees, but it should not be the way the public service recruits because that will work against getting equity groups in and getting representation from across the country. You want regional representation. It will work against getting young people in.
Senator Marshall: For the one quarter of employees who felt that the recruitment process was not fair, were the non- advertised positions an issue? Was that one of the reasons why they thought it was unfair? Is it possible to say that of that one quarter, half of them were because a lot of positions are not advertised? Can you narrow it down that much?
Ms. Barrados: The analysis I have seen has not looked at that because we were asking about the particular positions and processes. However, that is something we should look at.
Senator Gerstein: Ms. Barrados, I think you said that this may be your last meeting.
Ms. Barrados: Yes.
Senator Gerstein: I am sure I speak for all members of the committee in expressing our appreciation and thanks for the service and leadership you have given to the Public Service Commission of Canada over these many years.
It is in that regard that I would like to ask you if you might take a moment to reflect on your career as the president. What are the accomplishments that you look back on with the greatest of pleasure? What is the Barrados legacy?
Ms. Barrados: Oh, I am not sure about a legacy. When I came to the Public Service Commission of Canada, it was an organization that was not sure where it was going. That was because of the whole public service modernization process that had been going on for a long time. The commission was not really sure where it was going, and there had even been one scenario that there was not much of a role for the commission.
I came into an organization that was change-weary. I am most proud of the work that we have done at the commission in getting a team of people together who have continued to drive change. We have changed that organization fundamentally from a very compliance-driven organization, in that we are here to do things only in this way and no other way, to a very innovative, out-to-support-people organization. We are now running systems that are recognized around the world. We have a psychology assessment centre that is garnering new recognition. We are providing services, doing so on cost recovery, and we are continuing to do well.
We have built up a whole series of different things. That is really because of the team of people that we have managed to build, and they work very collegially. They help each other, which is quite unusual to say amongst an executive team that they are collegial. I am very proud of that.
The second thing I am very proud of is the relationship we have with Parliament. The new act provided for more of that, but I think we have a good working relationship with Parliament. I appreciate the work and the interest of this committee because the head of the Public Service Commission of Canada is in an unusual role. I am not really part of the deputy community, and I am not part of the cabinet processes, nor should I be. I am not really with the pure agents of Parliament because I do have executive responsibilities. Therefore, it is quite a unique job, but I need that parliamentary contact to ensure that I maintain perspective. I think we have done that, and I value that very much.
I think the internal management of the organization is pretty solid. We have audited financial statements, and we have had them for a number of years. I think we have a capacity to deal with change now in a positive way. I feel I am leaving an organization that is in pretty good shape.
Senator Gerstein: I must say your final comment is the greatest legacy that anyone could leave. Thank you very much.
Senator Peterson: Thank you for being here.
In reference to the 2011-12 practice review report, is there validity to the Procurement Ombudsman's assertion that the PSC showed favouritism and failed to support the principles of fairness, openness and transparency in awarding four contracts valued at approximately $80,000 to hire external members of its independent audit advisory?
Ms. Barrados: We made a mistake in that report wherein the advice I had received was that an ACAN process — Advance Contract Award Notice — was appropriate to bring these people in. I had been sole-sourcing them. I was advised that this was not very transparent, and I agree with that. I have been pushing very hard for transparency. We used an ACAN process. I thought that was the appropriate process to give it more transparency. ACAN is a system where you can contract for services by posting it and asking if there is any complaint or if anyone feels they can do it, and after a period of time you can go ahead.
The Procurement Ombudsman looked at this and determined that it was not an appropriate method for me. We are not going to do it that way. We are doing a different process.
Senator Peterson: Measures have been taken so that that probably will not happen again then.
Ms. Barrados: Not while I am there, it will not happen. It was a mistake. We made a mistake.
Senator Runciman: As a follow-up to Senator Peterson's question, part of the criticism in that report is that the office was tailoring requirements to fit certain bidders. You can rebut that, perhaps, but I am wondering how difficult it is if you are looking at complaints or concerns. I share Senator Marshall's concern about so much of this on a bureaucratic level rather than a political level, and that tailoring requirements, I am curious as to how you can conduct an investigation and determine if indeed that has happened, as your office was alleged to have done in this particular instance.
Ms. Barrados: We are talking about contracting. When I came in to the organization we were building up the audit function, both internal audit and the audit function that you see in the green book. I wanted a range of expertise that would advise on the audit function. I needed someone who had done audit; I needed someone who been a deputy minister; I wanted an academic. Yes, those are the kinds of requirements. I wanted a mix. If I could get someone who had done that kind of work in another sector, so much the better. I wanted a mix of people who could get advice.
I had that mix of people and I sole-sourced, which was perfectly all right. However, then I wanted the committee to have some continuity. That is when I got into trouble and I used the wrong vehicle. I went through the ACAN process. I said that this is the mix I want and these are the people. Yes, I had those people and I wanted them going through an ACAN process. I said, ``Does anyone else think they can do it?'' That is the process. I had no one else come forward, so I went ahead and I contracted with them. The Procurement Ombudsman said that was an error. I had my own internal audit people look at it and they confirmed that I had made a mistake.
Now we have run a full request for proposal. We have had the applicants; they will be screened, but I will not be doing that contracting, because I think that is something that a new person should do. It should not be me setting up the committee for the new person.
Senator Runciman: I was looking at it in a broader context in terms of tailoring requirements, which can to some degree be difficult to determine from your office's perspective, and not just on the contracting side. I am talking about a bureaucrat in Alberta or whatever he might be looking at a friend or a cousin that they can tailor the requirements for to meet the qualifications of that individual, perhaps. That is kind of a challenge that would be difficult to overcome.
Ms. Barrados: No. In staffing there is a requirement that you state the requirements of the job and you have a process to meet the requirements of the job. The commission is the one that oversees this. Managers say what is required. We set out a process, and then we judge whether that process was followed. There is a whole suite of things around that.
In the case where we made the mistake in contracting, we thought that we had followed the process appropriately. We had a particular job with a particular need. In some cases it may not be wrong to hire a family member. If you are hiring them because they are a family member, that is wrong, but in some communities almost everyone is related, and you are looking for someone who can do the job.
We are not perfect. We did make a mistake on the contracting one, but the mistake was made because I was trying to be more transparent. If I had stayed with sole-sourcing, I would have been fine.
Senator Runciman: You are talking about public servants running for public office. I was curious about one comment you made that you are not a fan of the concept, but you said you are particularly concerned with respect to peace officers. Could you elaborate on that?
Ms. Barrados: Most of these are for municipal, and in most cases we do not have any issues with people running for municipal government. Peace officers in a small town give us an issue. We had one case that was the most stark, where the community was collocated with the border site. The individual was a peace officer, front-line search and seizure, carried a weapon and wanted to be mayor of the same community. To me, this was too much of a conflict.
However, the same people in the same community doing administrative work did not have that front-line work with citizens going through. Having a dual role with citizens — being a peace officer and having those powers and also being the mayor — gave me a problem, but if you have an administrative job in the same area, you do not have that personal contact, and that was not a problem.
Another area where we had problems is where federal public servants in some of the more remote communities have responsibilities for roads and water. To then be in the municipal government puts them in a real conflict. It is those areas where we perceive there is a real conflict of interest, and I will err on protecting the non-partisan nature of the public service.
Senator Runciman: It is essentially confined to the municipal sector. Your primary concern is the municipal sector?
Ms. Barrados: We have had concerns in the provincial and federal as well. They have actually been a little easier.
The Chair: Honourable senators, our time has run out, but Senator Nancy Ruth had a request for a second round. Please put your question on the record. If it can be answered quickly, great; if not, maybe it could be answered in writing.
Senator Nancy Ruth: There were a number of comments in your paper about documentation and records, whether it was documentation of merit or something else. The only reason I am raising this is because the former Auditor General had made quite an issue when she did her audit on GBA that the records were not open and transparent. If there were records, they were hidden in cabinet documents to which she did not have access. It raised for me some concern that throughout the civil service record-keeping that is open to the public is a bit of a problem.
The Chair: Could you answer that quickly or would you like to provide a written answer?
Ms. Barrados: I will do it quickly. We are not raising any issues with cabinet documents. We are looking at administrative documents.
Senator Nancy Ruth: So was she. She could not find them.
Ms. Barrados: Yes, I know. They are not always accessible to the public because they deal with individuals and there are privacy concerns.
There is a general comment, and I made it when I was at the Auditor General, and the past Auditor General made the same comment, that record-keeping is something that must be improved. The auditors will look for records but they will also talk to people to make sure that it is not somewhere else. There is a need to improve the record-keeping.
The Chair: On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I would like to thank Ms. Murphy- Walsh, Ms. Laurendeau and, in particular, for her last appearance here, the President of the Public Service Commission, Maria Barrados.
[Translation]
This morning, we will begin our study of the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2012, which have been referred to our committee.
[English]
Our committee began consideration of the Main Estimates in the last Parliament, consideration which is ongoing and will continue throughout the year. This constitutes the beginning of our examination of Supplementary Estimates (B), which we will also continue for the rest of this fiscal year.
We are very pleased to welcome back officials from Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. You are very helpful in helping us understand this rather extensive document that we all have had a chance to read over our break week. I am sure there will be a good number of questions as a result.
Appearing before us is Mr. Bill Matthews, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector; Ms. Sally Thornton, Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates, Expenditure Management Sector; Ms. Marcia Santiago, Senior Director, Expenditure Information Division; and Ms. Isabella Chan, Director, Expenditure Management Portfolio.
I love your names and titles.
Mr. Matthews, I understand you will lead us through the deck that we have all had a chance to look at and then we will go into a question and answer period.
[Translation]
Bill Matthews, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to provide an overview of the Supplementary Estimates (B), and we will be pleased to answer your questions following the presentation.
[English]
If it is easier, Mr. Chair, to think of us all being from the Expenditure Management Sector, that works for us as well.
If it pleases the committee, I will take a few minutes to walk through this deck, and then I will spend a few minutes discussing what we are dealing with on the content for the Atlantic Canada Opportunity Agency — just as an example of a department, to get everybody straight on terminology, et cetera and how the documents are organized.
If you flip to slide 2 of your deck, this is a little bit on how this document is organized. Then we will walk you through the highlights of Supplementary Estimates (B).
If you go through Supplementary Estimates (B), which I understand you did on your break week — time well spent — you will see an introduction. The introduction contains the estimates to date for the fiscal year 2011-12, and you will also see a description of the largest items by dollar amount that are reflected in these estimates, as well as the changes in statutory forecasts. I will repeat this point several times; the statutory items in these estimates are for information only. The Senate is not asked to vote on statutory items, but we do provide updated forecasts on statutory figures.
Towards the back of the book, you will see the supporting schedules for the appropriation bill that will be tabled later on in December, which is what gets approved from a legislative perspective. You will see a summary of statutory changes. Finally, I would highlight for you the horizontal initiatives at the back of this book. There is a bit of a change there, an improvement we feel strongly about.
When we say ``a horizontal initiative,'' that is something that multiple departments have received funding to implement. The change we have made this year, or in this Supplementary Estimates (B), is that if a horizontal initiative received money in Supplementary Estimates (A), we have shown that as well to help you track what these horizontal initiatives have received during the current estimates cycle. Of those horizontal initiatives, there are three that received money in Supplementary Estimates (A). You will see that as what we think is a positive change to the way we have presented information here.
Slide 3 is a breakdown of what we actually have in these estimates. As I mentioned before, there are a couple of different ways to view the funding here. The total is $6.6 billion. If you are interested in the split between voted and statutory, it is $4.3 billion voted and $2.3 billion statutory.
On slide 3, there is a mistake in the estimates that I want to highlight for your information only. On page 8 of the estimates document, we have a table that looks very much like page 3. You will see we use the word ``millions'' in the estimates document instead of ``billions''; it is a one-word error on page 8, just in a heading on a table. It looks like this table, so I wanted to highlight that for your attention. I am sure you all noticed that.
The Chair: We have found some odd things in the past.
Mr. Matthews: I wanted to be on the record with that error.
Budgetary versus non-budgetary is another split. Non-budgetary is typically for things like loans that do not impact the bottom line of the government if they are managed. We do have a change in the non-budgetary items, which is statutory; it is a decrease of $1.4 billion. That relates to the automotive deal from a couple of years back. This is a result of a repayment by Chrysler Canada to the Government of Canada of their loan. That is a decrease in a non-budgetary statutory item.
You may have noticed already that Supplementary Estimates (B) is quite a bit thicker than Supplementary Estimates (A) was. You may recall that for Supplementary Estimates (A), we were a little bit challenged for time because of the election and other things, so we had requested to departments that they only bring forward items for Supplementary Estimates (A) that needed funding before the December time frame. Supplementary Estimates (A) was thinner as a result. Those items that were deferred have been included in Supplementary Estimates (B). Therefore, if you are imagining this document is a little thicker than the last one you saw, you are quite correct.
Slide 4 is a year-over-year comparison in terms of what we are looking at here. Total spending estimates to date, including Supplementary Estimates (B), were at $259.4 billion. If you are interested in how that compares to total estimates from previous years, 2010-11 was $266.6 billion and 2009-10 was $254.6 billion.
I would remind you that, normally speaking, from a total year perspective, typically the split between voted and statutory is one third voted and two thirds statutory, grosso modo. As we get into sups, that ratio tends to change because we typically have more voted items than statutory. If you look at these estimates, you have about two thirds voted and one third statutory. However, in total, we are staying true to the traditional breakdown between statutory and voted, which is roughly two thirds statutory, one third voted.
If you are wondering how the voted amounts compared to previous Supplementary Estimates (B), they are not too far off. For Supplementary Estimates (B) this time, voted is $4.3 billion. If you were interested in 2010-11, it was $4.4 billion voted, and in 2009-10, it was $4.9 billion. That is not too far off, if that comparison is relevant for you.
Slide 5 is some of the major voted items, and I will not go through them all here, but I will draw a couple to your attention. Of the amounts in the supplementary estimates, as I mentioned before, we have voted amounts of 4.3. Some of the significant ones I should highlight for you are Health Canada, $218 million, largely around non-insured health benefits for program integrity pressures, and that is about 85 per cent of that amount. That relates to health care for First Nations and Inuit living in Canada. The remaining 15 per cent is around nursing services and emergency care in 138 remote and isolated communities.
With respect to HRSDC, you will see a writeoff for student loans. You have heard us speak to that item before. When we were back here for Supplementary Estimates (C) last time around, which never was approved but we were here to explain it, that item was included as part of that package. However, because Supplementary Estimates (C) was never actually translated into an appropriation act, it is included in these estimates.
I will also mention AECL, which you will see a couple of times in this presentation and in the estimates, both from a statutory and voted perspective. You will continue to see AECL in Supplementary Estimates (C), as we continue to support the divestiture as well as the ongoing operations there.
The Chair: Should we anticipate a Supplementary Estimates (C)?
Mr. Matthews: You should anticipate a Supplementary Estimates (C) at this stage — no promises, but we are planning on one.
On Slide 6, we see a little bit on environmental spending because there is a fair amount in here, especially around our horizontal initiatives that relate to environmental spending. The Clean Air Agenda is split into five items. We have the Clean Air Regulatory Agenda, the Clean Energy suite of initiatives, Clean Transportation, international engagement, as well as adaptation to the tools and knowledge necessary to minimize risks to exploit new opportunities resulting from climate change impacts. There is a heavy amount of funds in here related to environmental spending on these initiatives, so I want to highlight that.
Another horizontal initiative is the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan. That is one action plan, but it results in many departments getting funding to clean up existing environmental liabilities. In the supplementary estimates we have funding for 17 organizations related to cleanup of contaminated sites.
Slide 7 — and you will not see this distinction in the estimates document itself — relates to re-profiled funding. As you know, Parliament and the Senate approve appropriation acts that are good for a year of funding, so the current fiscal year. Sometimes that funding is funding that has been previously approved in earlier fiscal years, but we have to come back if it is not spent in the initial fiscal year to actually get approval to spend it. There is a fair amount of what we call re-profiled funding in these estimates, which is funding that was initially approved in a previous fiscal year but did not get spent, so we are rolling it forward for spending in the current fiscal year.
Roughly $2 billion in these estimates is re-profiled funding, and we have mentioned a couple on slide 7 that are of note. One is the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, which relates to the one-time extension of the economic action plan programs to allow for completion of programs. Under that fund, once that announcement was made, just over 1,400 projects were actually extended. Under the Building Canada Fund, deadlines for completion were extended for 275 projects.
The third major re-profile I would highlight is the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, and that is in support of smaller scale infrastructure programs largely around things such as water and waste water treatments, cultural and recreational programs. There is a fairly high amount of re-profile there of $104 million.
On slide 8, we switch gears and go into statutory items, which we have split into two pieces. One is revisions of forecasts that you have seen before. The first group is forecasts that we are just providing an update for, so Department of Finance fiscal equalization, public debt charges and payments to the Export Development Corporation. That is the non-budgetary amount I mentioned earlier related to Chrysler Canada. Then there are new forecasts, items that have not previously been included in estimates. Those would be a transitional payment for Newfoundland and Labrador, the divestiture related to AECL, which is statutory, some disaster relief for Agriculture Canada, as well as some federal-provincial arrangements for Finance.
I wanted to highlight those new items for you so you get a sense of what is a revised forecast and what is new.
In wrapping up, slide 9 depicts an amount of $6.6 billion, not too far off previous years in terms of what we are actually asking for. Sixty-eight departments and agencies are included. We will eventually have an appropriation act to support these estimates, which will be tabled at some point in December, and we will go from there.
I would ask you to quickly open your estimates document to ACOA, which I believe is on page 29.
[Translation]
It is page 45 in the French version.
[English]
I will do a quick walk-through of the how these are organized. What you will find there is a budgetary ministry summary on the first page. What you see is exact dollars and authorities to date, which is previous Main Estimates plus Supplementary Estimates (A). The second and third columns are things that come from these supplementary estimates. There are two possibilities to get the total estimates to date: transfers either to or from another government department, and then adjustments, which is where we are actually looking for additional funding or potentially reducing funding.
If you look down the left-hand side of that page you will see it is organized by vote. Vote 1 is typically operating funding for a department, and those are the adjustments. Vote 5 in this case for ACOA relates to grants and contributions, so that details the adjustments we are making to that vote. Then you have two statutory votes which you can identify because of the ``(S)'' beside them. They are the contributions to the employee benefit plan as well as the motor car allowance for the minister of state. Finally, you will see that Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation is vote 10, which is a special vote to continue wrapping up the activities of the corporation.
If you flip to page 30, you will get additional detail on what is actually being asked for here. Again, this layout is the same for all departments. We thought we would highlight this one. Just to keep you on your toes, the numbers on this page are actually in thousands of dollars. The numbers on the previous page are exact dollars. If you were wondering why they did not match up exactly, that is why.
Under the voted appropriations you will see some text explaining the adjustments to both vote 1 and vote 5. Then you will see something interesting. About halfway down the page you will see ``funds available,'' because the department has asked for new funds and has been approved by Treasury Board for new funds, but we subtract from that funds available within the vote. In this case that results from strategic review decisions related to ACOA.
Toward the bottom of the page you will see a further delineation. You may recall that ACOA went through a strategic review last year. The adjustments as a result of the savings proposals that were accepted have been subtracted from their ``ask.'' That is how these are actually manifesting themselves in the estimates. You will end up with a net transfer amount. Then you will see statutory appropriations and transfers.
That is the outline of how they are all organized.
If you are wondering about votes, typically vote 1 is operating. Vote 5 in this case is grants and contributions. Some organizations have capital votes as well. Our threshold for G and C votes and for capital votes is about $5 million. If an organization does not have grants and contributions or capital that exceed $5 million, you will see what is called a program vote, which means everything is rolled into one wherein an organization does have spending that will exceed $5 million for capital, or for grants and contributions a separate vote will be established for those things. If you are wondering why in some organizations you see something called a program vote versus operating capital, grants and contributions, that is the distinction.
I will leave it there, Mr. Chair, and turn it over to your questions.
The Chair: As a point of clarification, you talked about re-profiling and a couple of the government granting programs. There is also the 5 per cent re-profiling. Can you explain how that fits in with this other re-profiling?
Mr. Matthews: They are over and above the 5 per cent. We have two kinds of what I will call generic re-profiles: operating budget carry forward and capital budget carry forward. Those allow departments within a certain percentage — 5 per cent for operating and 20 per cent for capital.
Generically, as a matter of course, in estimates, we allow departments to re-profile within that range. If they have actually not spent something bigger than that, and they need to re-profile that money, it is a separate process. We actually have to go through with the Department of Finance and make sure everyone is on side with the re-profile.
The Chair: From a parliamentarian's point of view, within the 5 per cent and 20 per cent, do we see that re-profiled in the estimate process somewhere?
Mr. Matthews: You will see the allocation from central votes.
Treasury Board central votes include operating budget and capital budget carry forwards. In these estimates documents, you will see allocations from central votes. That is one type of allocation.
The Chair: Do you automatically put everything in there that might fit within the 5 and 20?
Mr. Matthews: As a normal course, yes.
The Chair: Most departments would like to have that if they could.
Mr. Matthews: Given the nature of appropriations, it is against the law to overspend your appropriations. Departments typically will leave a bit of slack to ensure they do not overspend. It is normal to have some amount of re- profiling on the operating side. On the capital side, projects can be quite complex and it is not uncommon to see delays in terms of capital spending because of contracting, et cetera. You will see some re-profiles there.
The Chair: Honourable senators will be familiar with recent articles in the newspaper about the Department of National Defence. Due to the nature of their procurement, they cannot use a lot of their capital expenditure in the year that it has been allocated. That is an example of that we are talking about.
Mr. Matthews: Exactly.
Senator Finley: I appreciate your walk-through of the supplementary estimates structure. I am not sure if the questioning I have is more appropriate for you or the individual departments or organizations requesting the money. Perhaps you can filter that for me as to whether we should be asking these questions of specific departments.
I notice, for example, that $130 million is appropriated to CIDA in this Supplementary Estimates (B). I do not have them in front of me, but when I was reading them it was delightfully arcane. It reminded me a little of Sir Humphrey Appleby. This $130 million is a significant chunk of money. Do you have a breakdown of where this funding is going, the deliverables and the reporting mechanism, or should I be talking to CIDA about that?
Mr. Macklem: Generically speaking we do not have a breakdown in the estimates of where it is actually going. Perhaps I can speak to some of the amounts.
There is $125 million to address emerging global requirements around food aid, nutrition, sustainable development, et cetera.
In terms of what countries it is going to, I cannot actually speak to that, but I can speak to which organizations are involved in the receipt of that money. They include the World Health Organization, Canada's Food Aid Convention commitment around the knowledge gateway and the United Nations women's organization. We have some detail. There is some going to improved quality and efficiency of secondary education in Bangladesh. I cannot get you a breakdown by country of where they are planning on spending this money.
Senator Finley: I would appreciate that, if you could. There is nothing in there that you mentioned that I can comprehend as being for emergencies, such as something that has just cropped up like an earthquake or tsunami. It seems to be routine. That is why I am wondering why it is cropping up in Supplementary Estimates (B).
Mr. Matthews: If I recall correctly, this is more of a transfer as opposed to new money to allow them additional flexibility. I will let Ms. Thornton elaborate.
Sally Thornton, Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates, Expenditure Management Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: These are payments that go to international organizations. We work with those international organizations to determine priorities, but the allocations are through those organizations. This is our contribution or grant.
In the instance of the $125 million, there used to be that amount in their contributions. They are simply moving it to a grant program. There is no net increase in what they are requesting. It is the vehicle by which it will be transferred to those organizations. It will now be a grant rather than a contribution.
Senator Finley: Okay.
The Chair: Is the difference between a grant and a contribution clear to everyone?
Ms. Thornton: Typically a grant goes to an organization based on the previous agreement, and there is not necessarily the same rigour in terms of reporting back. There are things in place to ensure that the monies are spent for what is agreed on. However, the organizations that ultimately receive it do not have to provide the same level of rigour in terms of reporting back to the donor organization.
Senator Finley: The one where they do not have to be as rigorous in reporting back is a contribution, or is it a grant?
Ms. Thornton: A contribution has an agreement. Explicit performance measures, accountability measures and reporting measures are all agreed to. The terms are such that they are reported back and are very public.
For grants, the money goes. All grants are still subject to potential audits.
Both grants and contributions are reported publicly through the Receiver General, public accounts. Anything over $100,000 is reported publicly in terms of transfer. What is required from the ultimate recipient in terms of reporting back is less for a grant than a contribution.
Senator Finley: How much of this $130 million is a grant and how much is a contribution?
Ms. Thornton: The $125 million will be a grant, but it is to the international organizations.
Senator Finley: That $125 million, therefore, does not have the same strings attached to it, for example, that it would otherwise have.
Mr. Matthews: There is more flexibility around a grant in terms of what the recipient can do with it. There is definitely more rigour around a contribution program in terms of reporting back to the government.
One of the things that must be resolved when a program is designed is whether it is a grant program or a contribution program. Depending upon the nature of the work, sometimes a contribution program is more desirable. Others times a grant program is better. In this case, CIDA is requesting that we move funds from what was a contribution program to a grant program.
Senator Finley: In other words, we are reallocating this money, in a sense, to not have the same stringency in terms of deliverables, for example.
Mr. Matthews: In terms of the oversight and the reporting burden you place on the recipient, there is less around a grant program. Again, it is a choice you make depending on the nature of the work.
Senator Finley: I would appreciate having CIDA in here to talk to us, if that is possible.
The Chair: Thank you. The steering committee will talk about that.
Senator Finley: There is a definition that I would appreciate.
On page 113, $10 million is given in relation to ``workload pressures'' at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Can you tell me what is meant by ``workload pressures?'' Is there a definition? Is there a recognized bucket that money goes into or comes out of?
Mr. Matthews: We typically use terms like ``workload pressures'' to articulate a case when demand for services is not necessarily within the control of the organization. Workload will typically mean that you have received more demands for your service than you are anticipating. If I could use another example like immigration claims or EI claims, you are in a business that is demand driven. We typically use ``workload pressures'' to address cases where there has been more demand than was anticipated.
Senator Finley: Do you know what would this be in the case of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission?
The Chair: I am sorry. Some of us are trying to follow this in the document that we have to vote on. Could you refer us to page 113?
Ms. Thornton: Page 113, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission under ``Explanation of Requirements,'' and then ``Voted Appropriations.'' It is the first item, ``Funding to address workload pressures . . . .''
The Chair: That is perfect. Thank you.
Ms. Thornton: Specifically in this instance, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission provides inspection and certification services to organizations that use nuclear materials. It is done on a cost recovery basis. Some of the organizations such as education institutes, medical research facilities and cancer treatment centres may be exempt from paying fees.
The funds in these estimates that are being requested are composed of two parts. The first is $7.2 million for the inspection and certification of the licencees who are fee exempt. This level of funding is consistent with the previous three years and reflects the growing use of nuclear materials in other fields such as health care and education.
The balance of $3.8 million is being used to fund non-cost recoverable activities, specifically public inquiries, nuclear safety and emergency management.
Senator Finley: Of that $10 million, $7.2 million is going to the organization. It is not necessarily cost recovery. Is that how I understand that?
Ms. Thornton: Yes, it is for the inspection of organizations that are fee exempt.
Senator Finley: On page 128, I note there is some $38 million for ``additional office accommodation for government departments . . . .'' We are undergoing a strategic operations review at the moment, which I assume will involve some cutbacks or slowdowns or freezing. Given a vast amount of government space in Ottawa, why do we need another $38 million worth of new accommodations? Could you explain that to me?
Mr. Matthews: Public Works is funded for accommodations based on a percentage of employees working in the government, so there is kind of a levy on it. That is a notional amount that is given to Public Works.
One of the things Public Works is doing is working with departments to consolidate space. There is a new standard in play that provides less square metres per person than in the past. A lot of work is being done to consolidate and get to the new standard, which in the short term may cost some money.
You are quite right that under the current exercise around strategic and operating review, there may be some reductions in space requirements, but it is premature to know what that would be. This is funding that will be spent this year around fitting up for existing employee complements based on plans and the new standard.
Senator Finley: So that I understand, you said that this is based on some kind of formula. Is it based on a dollar amount, the cost of the government or the civil service, or is it based on square metres per employee?
Mr. Matthews: The formula, if I recall correctly, is a dollar amount per employee, and that is to resource Public Works. They are given a budget to manage on a per-employee basis, and their spending is against that amount. If there is anything left over, obviously it returns to the Consolidated Revenue Fund as unspent, if it is not re-profiled.
The formula is based on the salary costs, and it is 13 per cent of the salary costs. That is the notional formula they are asked to operate within.
Senator Finley: Therefore, if their salary increases or if there is any kind of expansion within that dollar number, then automatically the accommodation level would increase?
Mr. Matthews: Right. The resources that Public Works is asked to manage within are formula driven. If there is a salary increase, then that would result in an increase for Public Works. However, at the same time, that is the way to compensate Public Works for inflation, because inflation for accommodation services happens as well. It is kind of a proxy for inflation.
Senator Marshall: I want to talk about the $1.5 billion relating to Export Development Canada. The explanation talks about payments being received from Chrysler Canada. Is that repayment of a loan or is it purchase of shares? Could you explain that?
Mr. Matthews: Sure. I will try to be quick, because it is a long story.
If you recall, senator, the deal to support the automotive industry involved both GM and Chrysler, as well as both the federal government and the province. However, it was the federal government that flowed the money to the companies themselves. It was two thirds federal, one third provincial. When you are dealing with Chrysler and GM, you must understand that there is both the old and the new corporation, because both still exist.
Initially, they were loans that were given. Some of those loans were transformed into shares both for GM and Chrysler, and some of the loans were left outstanding. The amount related to Chrysler is because they repaid a loan, I believe in July, that we were not necessarily expecting to be repaid during this time frame. There was a repayment of a loan in a time frame that was inconsistent with our expectations and we got it earlier. It is a good-news story, but it relates to the repayment of the loan, not the shares that the Government of Canada owned.
Senator Marshall: Is that full repayment of the loan or is there still a balance outstanding?
Mr. Matthews: There is still a balance in the original Chrysler Canada Corporation.
Senator Marshall: How much is that?
Mr. Matthews: I would have to check. If I recall correctly, less than $500 million is outstanding there. Again, based on the initial loans that were given to those corporations, fairly significant portions of those loans were turned into shares.
Senator Marshall: We spoke about this before at our committee. It is difficult to follow what happened, and that is what I am trying to do now. You are saying that the $1.5 billion loan is not fully repaid. What about the shares?
Mr. Matthews: The government divested its shares from Chrysler Canada in July. I believe we have now sold all our shares.
Senator Marshall: Were the shares sold at a profit or a loss?
Mr. Matthews: The shares were sold at a profit over their original value. When those loans were first turned into shares, the new company was basically emerging from bankruptcy, so they had a low value and they were sold at a profit.
Senator, if I could refer you to the Public Accounts of Canada. They disclose the accounting for what happened.
Senator Marshall: Where in the public accounts would that be? I have looked in the public accounts and it is difficult to trace the transactions.
Mr. Matthews: It is in a couple of different places. If you look at the public accounts for 2009-10, you will see a note on significant transactions, and the auto deal is covered in there. In this year's public accounts, I believe there is an update to that note as well. The full story, as I said, will not be told until next year because it was only after year-end that the shares in Chrysler were sold.
Senator Marshall: What does the phrase ``the cancellation of forecast transactions'' mean? It says the $1.6 million reflects ``advance payments received from Chrysler Canada'' — I got that — ``and the cancellation of forecast transactions.'' What does that mean?
Mr. Matthews: The loan to Chrysler involved some interest. We were originally forecasting that there would be a repayment schedule, which was quite prolonged, as well as some interest payments on that. When they paid those loans early, obviously the interest is gone. That was the notional planning that had gone on. As I said, it was a protracted payment period that was, in fact, paid off early.
Senator Marshall: What did you say was the balance of the loan?
Mr. Matthews: I think the balance left in the original Chrysler is less than $500 million.
Senator Marshall: When do you expect that to be repaid?
Mr. Matthews: Anything that is in the original corporation I think is tied up in the bankruptcy proceedings of the corporation. I am not sure, given that it is in bankruptcy proceedings, that there is any expectation there.
Senator Marshall: There is no due date, like 2012?
Mr. Matthews: No.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I would like to ask about the Additional Fiscal Equalization Payment — Total Transfer Protection of $952 million. It is third item from the bottom on page 51. How is this number forecasted and why should such a large adjustment be needed? Who received the monies? Are we likely to see these payments in the future and, if so, why?
Mr. Matthews: The reason this is such a large amount is this was not included in the Main Estimates. This is the first time you are seeing it. This is one of the new ones. This is not an adjustment to a forecast you saw on the Main Estimates, but in fact this is the first time you are seeing a number for this in the estimates cycle this fiscal year. That is why you are seeing such a large amount.
I would have to do some follow-up from the Department of Finance to see what the intent is, but you would typically see statutory payments of this nature through multiple estimates cycles.
Perhaps Ms. Thornton would like to add something.
Ms. Thornton: Yes, you would typically see them through multiple estimates. The Total Transfer Protection payments were first announced in December of 2009 for 2010-11 and extended to 2011-12. That was announced in December 2010. They are intended to prevent declines in major transfers.
Specifically for those two years, a comparison is made of the sum of equalization, the Canada Health Transfer, the Canada Social Transfer, and the payment to Ontario related to the Canada Health Transfer, as well as the Total Transfer Protection payments.
Provinces that receive equalization and that experienced a decrease in transfer payments receive an additional fiscal equalization payment under this transfer protection. These payments were introduced as parts of Bill C-3, an act to implement certain provisions of the 2011 budget as updated in June. All of the payments are explicitly set out on the Department of Finance's website, where there is a breakdown of the various statutory payments, including all transfer payments and equalization payments.
Mr. Matthews: The only other thing I would add is that at page 51, there is nothing in the column on the far left under ``Authorities to date.'' That means this is the first time you are seeing it in this estimate cycle. That is how you tell the difference. If you see a number under ``Authorities to date,'' it means you have seen a previous number.
Ms. Thornton: You will note also that the ``(S)'' is underlined. That means it is new to this estimate cycle. The underlining means it is new to the estimate cycle.
The Chair: Okay. You do have a number of codes.
Ms. Thornton: We do have and are trying to share them.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I have a second question, which I assume you cannot answer at this time; I will look forward to a written response. When officials from Treasury Board appear before us I always ask this question: Could I have an update please on the action plan for gender-based analysis that Treasury Board is responsible for? I look forward to receiving your response.
The Chair: We all look forward to receiving that.
Senator Neufeld: I will go to page 109 on the AECL. I see two numbers and perhaps you can help me with them.
The first is $275.5 million for operating and capital expenditures. Can you tell me briefly what the capital expenditures would be?
The second figure is $285 million for the divestiture of AECL. Did we pay $285 million to divest of AECL or is this amount related to costs incurred by AECL until the divestiture?
Can you explain those two figures as best you can? We could also ask AECL.
The Chair: AECL will be here before the committee tomorrow evening.
Mr. Matthews: I will be brief.
Senator Neufeld: We will see if your answer is the same as AECL's. I would rather you be a bit forthcoming, shall we say.
Mr. Matthews: The statutory piece relates to the divestiture of AECL for some obligations that the Government of Canada continues to have on that divestiture. Part of AECL still exists, as you know, and there is some capital refurbishment of their equipment. That is the capital piece. I will turn to my colleague to see what she would like to add.
Ms. Thornton: On the voted appropriations, as you will recall, the divestiture closed October 2. Under Supplementary Estimates (B), the voted appropriation will provide AECL with $275 million for expenses incurred in advance of the divestiture and during the closing of the transaction.
The expenditures are associated with relicensing of the National Research Universal Reactor, the wind down of dedicated isotope facilities, the implementation of health, safety, security and environmental upgrades at Chalk River laboratories, shortfalls in the existing reactor life extension programs projects, the development of some new react technology, operational requirements, workforce adjustments and costs associated with dividing the organization into two stand-alone entities.
The Chair: I have a point of clarification: Would that wording include the ongoing work at Point Lepreau, or is that somewhere else in the estimates?
Isabella Chan, Director, Expenditure Management Portfolio, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: That comes from the statutory amount and is part of the divestiture. Some funding is needed to divest.
The Chair: I could not understand all that wording. Ms. Thornton, does the wording appear in these estimates or could you provide us with a copy of that breakdown?
Ms. Thornton: We would be happy to ask AECL to provide it, which is where we got it.
The Chair: If they give permission, will you send it to us?
Ms. Thornton: We will ask them to send it directly to the committee. We will make sure they are aware.
Senator Neufeld: I will let it go at that. There are lots of questions that can come out of that but I know time is short.
My last question is on Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and the figure of $149 million in student loans that is written off. What criteria do you use to determine that $149 million is non-repayable?
Mr. Matthews: This amount is largely around loans that are actually uncollectable because of expiration of statutes. The loans are so old that there is no way to collect them. I promised Ms. Thornton that she could respond to this question.
Senator Neufeld: We have such loans appear every year. Why do you not wrap up all the ``so old'' ones and get rid of them? There must be a different process than just declaring them ``so old.''
Mr. Macklem: There are two pieces. They do an assessment each year of what is collectable and from an accounting perspective, they take an allowance. ``Write off'' means ``no longer collectable because time has expired.'' Every year there will be new amounts such as this.
Senator Neufeld: What does ``so old'' mean? Is it 10 or 20 years?
Ms. Thornton: Six years. Basically, it is regulated by Debt Write-off Regulations, 1994. The five criteria include deceased; bankrupt; cost effectiveness of recovery; statute-barred, which means no action in six years; and hardship.
In this instance, you are seeing three years of debt write offs. More than 99 per cent of this is beyond the six years statute-barred limitations, which means unrecoverable. The figure is so big because it is three years cumulative. This whole process began in early 2000 and we are just now beginning to see the six years. Our first six years statute-barred was in 2007.
Senator Neufeld: Will it reduce over time?
Ms. Thornton: Yes it will reduce and probably annually. You will see smaller levels every year.
The Chair: That is interesting. We will pursue that further at another time.
Senator Peterson: The figure for remediation of contaminated sites is $218 million. Is this all historic waste? What are some examples of contaminated sites?
Mr. Matthews: There are 17 departments involved.
I will say two things. The government has a public website that lists all contaminated sites, such as old mines, ammunition dumps for DND and the Sydney Tar Ponds. There is a quite a range of sites. I am not sure if we have examples of the sites for the 17 departments being resourced here.
Ms. Thornton: Do you have a specific department that you would be interested in knowing about? For example, under AANDC, it is the federal Giant Mine gold mine complex; under National Defence, it is CFB Goose Bay and the DYE Main site at Cape Dyer in Nunavut; under Transport Canada, it is Fort Nelson Airport and Victoria Harbour's Rock Bay. There are 17 organizations that have their own sites.
Mr. Matthews: To be clear, this is not the end of it. This is the money that departments plan to spend this year. If you are looking for the total liability for environmental sites, it is disclosed in the Public Accounts of Canada. We are dealing with the estimates, which show what departments plan to spend this year related to these actions.
Senator Peterson: The figure can be much larger than what we see here.
Mr. Macklem: Yes.
Senator Peterson: Can we find it in the Public Accounts of Canada?
Mr. Matthews: It will be in volume 1 of the Public accounts of Canada.
Senator Peterson: Does anyone have an idea of the total cost?
Mr. Matthews: Yes, they have that.
Senator Peterson: Will it be in there?
Mr. Matthews: When they get to a certain stage of estimating cleanup costs, it becomes bookable from an accounting perspective. They make an estimate of those costs and you will see an estimate of that liability in the Public Accounts of Canada.
Senator Runciman: I had some AECL questions, but I will hold them until tomorrow evening.
Is the transitional payment to Newfoundland and Labrador of $536 million distinct from the transfer protection program?
Mr. Matthews: The transitional payment for Newfoundland and Labrador is actually the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offsets Payments Act. The act is specific to Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Runciman: They are not impacted by the transfer protection program. Are these not comparable with respect to equalization? This is compensation or an adjustment period with respect to going — maybe I misunderstand this program — from being a ``have not'' to a ``have'' province.
Mr. Matthews: I can only speak to this act, but this one is specific to those two. I am looking to Ms. Thornton to see if she has anything to add.
Senator Runciman: Is that the agreement signed in 2005?
Mr. Matthews: Yes.
Senator Runciman: Why would this not be in the Main Estimates? Why would we have this in the supplementary estimates?
Mr. Matthews: Here we are dealing with $536 million, if I round this amount. I want to check if this is an updated estimate or a brand new one.
Marcia Santiago, Senior Director, Expenditure Information Division, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: We did not list it in the Main Estimates, I would guess, because we did not have the estimate at that time. This would be an adjustment that was made through Budget 2011.
Senator Runciman: I am curious, since it was a deal signed in 2005, why you would not have a number for the mains.
Mr. Matthews: If they did not have a good number available for the mains, because it is an estimate, it can actually wait, but we can look into that, if you like.
Senator Runciman: I guess I am just trying to see if there is a connection with the transfer protection program. Is there also an additional payment made to these provinces under that program as well as this agreement?
Mr. Matthews: This is over and above, to my understanding.
The Chair: Does it have anything to do with oil and gas?
Mr. Matthews: I am going back in my memory. I thought this agreement was actually around segregating oil and gas revenues from that calculation.
The Chair: There is a separate payment to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia by virtue of the revenue they receive from oil and gas so they would not be disadvantaged from having received that, or perceived disadvantaged.
Senator Runciman: I understand the intent, but when we talk about the transfer protection program, are they also receiving funds with respect to that? Is there a linkage here? If there is, I would be interested in hearing about it.
Mr. Matthews: Yes.
The Chair: It would be helpful for us to know if they do have an entitlement under both programs, which I suspect they do, but we will find out from you.
Mr. Matthews: Yes.
The Chair: We are now to a second round and our last senator for today, Senator Marshall, who did not have a chance to finish up earlier.
Senator Marshall: I was interested in Atomic Energy of Canada, but that can wait until tomorrow. What percentage of student loans is uncollectable? What is the percentage?
Mr. Matthews: It is very small. I will ask Ms. Thornton to get you the official figure but, if I recall, it is less than 5 per cent.
Senator Marshall: Every year we see more and more.
Mr. Matthews: You will see more and more because of the debt write-off regulations. We have to come to write things off through estimates, so there will be some, but they actually have quite a good track record in terms of overall collectability.
Ms. Thornton: I would note that, overall, 87 per cent of Canada Student Loans are repaid. The write-off process itself is regularly reviewed by the Office of the Chief Actuary, and it does conform to industry standards.
The Chair: Was the six-year writeoff collection period after which you write off by regulation or was that by statute?
Mr. Matthews: That was debt regulation. I think it was by regulation.
Ms. Thornton: Yes.
The Chair: That may be why we missed it. We tend not to deal with regulations in this committee. Another Senate committee, a joint committee with the house, deals with the regulations. I was not familiar with that six-year period.
Ms. Thornton: There are actually five pieces of legislation or regulation that address the whole writeoff process. That does include the debt writeoff regulations under the Financial Administration Act.
The Chair: Could we receive a briefing from you on that so that we can get it into our report and it is understood by all of the senators? Senators deal with people in their constituencies, in their provinces and areas, specifically students and the parents of students, and it would be very helpful if everybody understood what the rules are. We will try, with your help, to communicate that a bit better.
Thank you. That concludes our session today.
Honourable senators, tomorrow evening we have AECL and Natural Resources Canada. A number of our questions dealt with both of those departments, so we should be able to delve a bit more thoroughly into those, including the contaminated sites aspect. I think you will find you will get more information on that.
On your behalf, I would like to thank Treasury Board Secretariat for being here and doing a fine job again, and bringing out this big thick book in a hurry. We look forward to talking to you again, probably not with respect to Supplementary Estimates (B) but probably with respect to Supplementary Estimates (C).
(The committee adjourned.)