Government Operations Committee on April 24th, 2023

[Michael Wernick]

No. I think that what has changed recently is the accelerated speed of change, particularly in the field of technologies. There were no iPhones 20 years ago. Canadians now expect instantaneous services. Everything has to be very precise and accessible by smartphone. All sorts of modernizations are needed in services to Canadians.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

But you just said those services are not archaic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm afraid that is our time.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

The witness is contradicting himself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Colleagues, I mixed up our order. I apologize. I was supposed to go to Ms. Kusie, and I went over to the Bloc.

I'll finish with the NDP, and then we'll have the last two Liberal rounds. I apologize.

Mr. Johns, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you again for being here.

Mr. Wernick, you talked about the deficit reduction plan under the Conservative government and the cuts, which were pretty severe. Obviously, we saw outsourcing with Phoenix. We saw Veterans Affairs get cut by a third.

Would you believe that a lot of the outsourcing was a result of the deep cuts to the public service? We saw outsourcing double under the Conservative government, and it's gone up fourfold under this government right now.

[Michael Wernick]

On a more general point, I was in management after the program review of the Chrétien government and Mr. Martin's program review, and I was in government after the deficit reduction action plan. Those were totally reasonable decisions for a democratically elected government to take. They're in charge of fiscal policy.

My point that I'm trying to get across is that often, when there's a reduction in operating budgets, one of the first things that gets cut is training.

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

Sure, and knowledge, also, in the public service then evaporates.

In terms of the advice that you.... Cabinet ministers were given advice, and they decided that they wanted to go with outside consultants. From the public servants.... Do you see that as damaging morale and also, potentially, as an exit of some of the senior policy-makers within the public service?

[Michael Wernick]

No. This would have been in the management areas, often on costing. I don't mean that they would have directed, “Go and hire this consultant, or hire a consultant.” I think a lot of things go through the Treasury Board process, which is the management board of Canada, and people often want to see, from all parties, some third party validation of the risks and costs of various approaches.

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

I only have a few seconds left.

I really want to look at the broader issue of outsourcing, not just McKinsey. What are the best questions that you think we could be asking the witnesses who come before us as we look at all of the big outsourcing companies that would improve public spending in terms of the public service and looking at this issue?

[Michael Wernick]

I kind of look at it from the other end of the relationship. I don't really have a lot of direct expertise in contracting, procurement and follow-up. I think you should continue to pursue that if it's interesting to you.

I do recommend that you should do a follow-up study on the capacity of the public service and try to get a handle on how much the government—any government—is investing in training and leadership development. I'm very concerned that the arithmetic of the last budget does not add up. You cannot cut consultants by that much and not have it affect services unless there's at least an offsetting investment in training.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm afraid I have to interrupt.

The time is up, and bells are ringing, colleagues. We have the 30-minute bells.

Can we seek consent to do the last couple of rounds with Mr. Wernick before we let him go? Is that fine, colleagues?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Great.

Mrs. Kusie, you're up.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Wernick, I want express my opposition to your comment about the deficit reduction action plan and the impact this has had on the public service. The deficit reduction action plan had two scenarios: one of 5% and one of 10%. That would imply that it is, in fact, funding that resulted in the regression of the public service. However, in fact, if we look at the situation we are in today, with a 53% increase in our bureaucracy, there are poor public services. Immigration backlogs are significant. Passports are unavailable for those who wish to travel, and obviously, there is the inability of the current government to negotiate a strike.

I definitely do not think that a lack of money or funding is at the heart of the problems of the public service. The situation that we find ourselves in today reflects that perfectly and evidently. I, myself, was affected by the DRAP. I was the consul to the mission in Dallas, Texas, at the time, and I, too, had to come up with 5% and 10% scenarios. I do not correlate the deficit reduction action plan to the position that the public service is in today.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to pass my time over to Mr. Barrett.

Thank you.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair, if I may proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Please, go ahead.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, if I may—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Please go ahead.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

With just a couple of minutes left, and noting that we do have bells ringing, if we have another opportunity to come around, I have some questions for you, Mr. Wernick. Thank you for joining us today.

Colleagues, in advance of today's meeting, I did advise you that I would move the notice of motion I gave on Wednesday, April 19. That's been provided to the clerk. It's available in both official languages. It was circulated to all members. I'll read it, just for context of people who are following.

That the committee:

a) Invite the deputy heads from the following entities in relation to the redactions and improper translation of documents requested by the committee on January 18, 2023: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited; Business Development Bank of Canada; Canada Border Services Agency; Canada Development Investment Corporation; Canada Post; Canada Pension Plan Investment Board; Department of Finance Canada; Employment and Social Development Canada; Export Development Canada; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; National Defence; Natural Resources Canada; Office of the Veterans Ombud (Veterans Affairs Canada); Privy Council Office; Public Sector Pension Investment Board; and TransMountain Corporation;

b) Invite the Office of the Law Clerk to brief the committee, in public, on the extent of the committee's powers to call for documents;

c) Instruct the Chair to send a letter to each of the entities listed in section a) of this motion to inform them that the committee is currently considering referring this issue to the House of Commons as a possible breach of parliamentary privilege.

Chair, we are at about three minutes and 15 seconds into this questioning round, so I don't want to delay other members' questions.

Just by way of context, this motion comes from the discussions that were had over the course of two meetings with respect to requests made by the parties at the table. I hope this satisfies those requests. I seek all members' support and ask that, if there are no questions, we put it to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I believe Mr. Jowhari has a quick comment. Then I think we can move to a vote.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, MP Barrett. We are in support.

Can I just ask for a clarification? How many meetings do you have in mind, and how do you see calling the witnesses impacting specifically Bill C-290 and some of the other work we are doing?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Just quickly, Mr. Chair, my thought was that we would ask the chair to see what resources are available so that the committee can continue its other business uninterrupted by this. I would hope we could resolve this over a couple of meetings. This is not a comprehensive study. This is in support of the ongoing work of the committee, so it shouldn't interfere with the committee's other business.

That's what I had in mind, in answer to his question, Mr. Chair.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, we definitely support having two meetings and then leaving it in your capable hands to manage while we give priority to the other ones. We are ready to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead.