Government Operations Committee on March 8th, 2023

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

How does it concern liabilities on Canada's balance sheets? How does the practice of writing off student loans differ from forgiving them?

[Diane Peressini, Executive Director, Government Accounting Policy and Reporting, Financial Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

The writeoffs of student loans actually remove the debt from the accounts of Canada, but that doesn't legally discharge that debt. In the future, the Crown does retain the right to be able to go back and collect or recover the debt. The debt can be reinstated on our books at any time, subject to limitation periods or exceptions that may exist.

Conversely, with forgiveness of a loan, it's actually legally extinguished. It waives the right of the Crown to reinstate that debt in the future and allows both the Crown and the debtor to permanently remove the amount from their books and discharges the liability.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Bains.

Witnesses, thank you for being with us. You're all done for today. It was a pleasure to see you. I think we'll see you back in a few weeks for the main estimates.

Good heavens. I sincerely apologize. I should just pack up and go. I messed up from the beginning of the meeting. I apologize. We have two and a half minutes for the Bloc and two and a half for the NDP. I do sincerely apologize, witnesses, and Mrs. Vignola and Mr. Johns. Sorry.

Go ahead.

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

One of Treasury Board's roles pertains specifically to parts IV, V and VI of the Official Languages Act.

A contracting document has come to my attention that stipulated that deliverables had to be provided in English only and that in-person presentations had to be made in English, or French if necessary.

To your knowledge, is that standard practice? If so, is that acceptable in a country that calls itself bilingual?

[Samantha Tattersall, Assistant Comptroller General, Acquired Services and Assets Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you for the question.

I would like to point out that we have published a new guide on the official languages in contracting. Each contract has its own conditions. Ultimately, the government must live up to its obligations.

If we require documents in English, it might be because we want to translate them if they are technical documents and we have more experience in that field.

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

Okay.

I do not think that is acceptable. It is unfair. I do not really see why it is that way, but I expect we can talk about this again another day.

If Canada is a bilingual country, it is completely bilingual from the outset, and the two languages have the same rights. Employees who receive documents have the right to receive them in their first language. By chance, the employees who were responsible for the contract in question were francophones.

I understand all of this, but francophones always bear the brunt because, every time, bilingualism is fine as long as it is the francophones who have to be bilingual. Unfortunately, anglophones are often, but not always, the ones who are treated better in their first language.

When contracts request that oral presentations be given primarily in English and in French only if necessary, that sends a clear message that echoes other moments in Canadian history. I am not even referring to Manitoba or Ontario. You know your history, I hope. It does not make for pleasant reading.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks. I'm afraid we don't have time for a response, but if there's any answer, perhaps you could provide it in writing to the committee.

Mr. Johns, you'd better do your two and a half minutes before I cut you off.

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

Thank you.

First, I want to thank you and all of your colleagues and all of the people who you work with for your service to Canada in the public service.

There's $800 million more for external consultants here, which I believe is work that should be done by public servants like yourselves. Now it's going to be $21.4 billion to be spent on external consultants. This has gone up fourfold under the Liberal government since 2015. It doubled under the Conservative government. It's risen tenfold from a decade ago. It's a runaway ship. We know consultants are in it to make sure they've got work for themselves, so I've got some questions.

Can you maybe tell the committee when staffing plans will be developed and released for departments? How many of them will or have been developed by outside consultants or with input from them?

[Annie Boudreau]

As the minister mentioned, tomorrow she will be tabling the DPs, the departmental plans, in which you will see the three-year commitment by departments in terms of the money that they have available, and also the FTEs they are going to be able to pay with the existing funding. Those will be tabled tomorrow.

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

The minister talked about the special expertise of these consultants. Their special expertise is making sure they've got work for themselves for the future and growing their own companies. That's what they've proven. That's proved by the numbers.

I need to know how many of them helped develop those staffing plans, because they're developing work for themselves. That's what I believe.

Did any of the big six $100 million-plus club, the highly paid consultant companies, have anything to do with the development of any staffing plans?

[Annie Boudreau]

I won't be able to answer your question.

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

You can't answer if McKinsey or PricewaterhouseCoopers or Accenture or KPMG or Deloitte had anything to do with drafting staffing plans or plans to make sure they've got work to fill roles and jobs that could be done by public servants?

[Annie Boudreau]

I have no answer for you. The best person to respond would be the accounting officer, who would be the deputy ministers in each respective department and agency.

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

Thank you, again, for your service.

[Annie Boudreau]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

Colleagues, thank you for bearing with us today the back and forth and everything.

Witnesses, now please, you are welcome to leave.

Colleagues, we have to vote on the supplementary estimates (C)s, and then we'll go in camera.

Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I want to return to my motion that I had presented. We had agreed to deal with this afterwards. Would you suggest we get the vote on the supplementary estimates done first and then return to the motion, or...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes, the vote will just take seconds.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

So why don't we do that?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I have seconds. That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Officially does the committee wish to vote on the supplementary estimates (C) now?

[A voice]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes, thank you.

In all, there are four votes in the supplementary estimates (C), 2022-23. Unless anyone objects, I will seek the unanimous consent of the committee to group the votes together for decision.

Is there unanimous consent to proceed this way, as we usually do?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.