OGGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, May 26, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.))

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board)

The Chair

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Á

1110

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Á

1120

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Á

1125

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Á

1130

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Á

1135

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Jim Judd (Secretary of the Treasury Board and Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Mr. Jim Judd

Á

1140

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Jim Judd

Á

1145

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Jim Judd

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Jim Judd

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Á

1150

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Paul Forseth

Á

1155

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Â

1200

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Szabo

Â

1205

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

Â

1210

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Â

1215

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Richard Neville (Deputy Comptroller General, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

Mr. Paul Forseth

Â

1220

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Richard Neville

The Chair

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Â

1225

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Richard Neville

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)

Mr. Jim Judd

Ms. Carolyn Bennett

Â

1230

The Chair

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Jim Judd

Â

1235

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Jim Judd

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Roy Cullen

Â

1240

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Â

1245

Mr. Jim Judd

Mr. Paul Forseth

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Jim Judd

Â

1250

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 044

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, May 26, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): Order.

    This is meeting 44 of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. We're here today to consider the main estimates of the Treasury Board.

    Madam Minister, it is always a pleasure to have you here. I assume you have a few opening remarks, and then I suspect members will have a number of questions for you. Is that a fair assumption?

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board): Yes, thank you.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Let's go!

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a pleasure for me to be here today to discuss the Report on Plans and Priorities for the Treasury Board for this fiscal year.

    As you can see, I have with me today Jim Judd, secretary of the Treasury Board and controller general of Canada, and Richard Neville, deputy controller general.

    Both of them have been before the committee before as have a number of other officials of the Secretariat. This is testimony to the important role of this new committee and the interest of its members in management issues in the government. My officials and I look forward to working with the committee in order to advance the government's management agenda.

[English]

    Our report on plans and priorities outlines both changes in the resource base of the Treasury Board Secretariat and the major highlights of our agenda.

    The Treasury Board and its secretariat together serve as the management board of the government. As such, its responsibilities fall into three principal areas: promoting sound management of and reporting on federal resources; managing the federal public service; and enhancing the delivery of services to Canadians.

    Before discussing the current and prospective activities of the Treasury Board and its secretariat, let me first address the proposed changes in the estimates that support these. You will note the proposed increases in the budget for the secretariat this year. The principal change, just over $250 million, is due to increases in public service insurance and benefit costs.

    The secretariat's own operating budget would increase by approximately $33 million, of which about half is related to the Government On-Line initiative. Much of the remainder would support such other important initiatives as classification reform, modernization of human resource management, official languages, and the modernization of the government's travel management program.

    Mr. Chairman, with regard to the activities of the Treasury Board and its secretariat, let me begin by saying that we have a very ambitious agenda.

[Translation]

    As well as being ambitious, it is also a long term agenda given the time and effort that will be required for successful implementation in an institution as large, diverse and complex as the federal government. Finally, it is also an agenda that requires significant cultural change in order to succeed, something that cannot be achieved overnight.

    Let me briefly describe our agenda in three parts: the ongoing work of the secretariat; secondly, the pursuit of major change initiatives launched in the last several years; and finally, prospective new initiatives.

    The ongoing work of the Secretariat encompasses a range of activities. In the area of expenditure management, they encompass the review of government program expenditures, the setting of policies and standards for the management of government resources and expenditures as well as reporting on them.

    In its role as the "employer" of the public service, these range from the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements with public service unions to the administration of pension, insurance and benefit plans to the setting of human resource policies in a number of areas.

    These activities support a number of existing statutes and regulations, ranging from the Financial Administration Act to the Official Languages Act to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, to name but a few.

[English]

    Secondly, we continue to pursue a number of important initiatives launched in the past several years in support of improving the management performance of the federal government. Let me mention a few of these.

    The modern comptrollership program, designed to improve management practices in performance reporting, risk management, control systems, and values and ethics, has recently been extended to nearly 90 departments and agencies. This program is based on the recommendations of a private sector advisory group that also advised us that the effective implementation of this throughout government would require seven to ten years.

    Our Government On-Line program, launched several years ago, has a target date of 2005 for implementation. It is proving to be very successful so far. Last month we were ranked first in the world, for the third consecutive year, for our progress in connecting to Canadians through new technology.

    Our effort to improve diversity in the federal workplace to better reflect demographic realities of contemporary Canada is another initiative that we have to continue to pursue. We have made good progress to date, but again, we have much more to do in the coming years to achieve our goal.

    We have sought to improve the government's reporting to Parliament and to Canadians in a variety of ways in the recent past. The new report on Canada's performance, as well as the introduction of reports on plans and priorities, the companion departmental performance reports, and innovation in electronic reporting are all part of that effort. However, we recognize that in the area of reporting, further improvements can and should be made. That is why the last budget committed the Treasury Board to working with parliamentarians and the Auditor General to explore ways of doing this. I know this is an issue that this committee has focused on, so I will look forward to working with you on this very important file.

    I should add as well that there is important work under way within the secretariat on reviewing all of our current policies and reporting requirements. The objective here is to simplify and streamline wherever necessary so as to ensure maximum clarity and effectiveness in these various instruments.

    Let me now turn to some of the new initiatives we are dealing with at Treasury Board.

    First, I do not need to describe in any detail to members of this committee our legislation to modernize the human resource management framework of the public service, so I will just make comments on it. One, it represents the most significant legislative change in this area in nearly four decades. Second, if approved by Parliament, its implementation will take time and considerable effort. Finally, it represents but a portion of what we are trying to accomplish in the modernization of our human resource management. There is a large non-legislative agenda that goes hand in hand with the legislative change.

Á  (1110)  

[Translation]

    A second significant challenge for us this year is to meet the commitment in the budget to embark on a five-year review of non statutory spending in government. This will entail two sorts of reviews: one of individual departments and agencies; the other of so-called horizontal programs and activities—that is to say, those that cut across departmental jurisdictional boundaries.

    I expect to inform the House shortly of more specific details on this new approach as well as our efforts in the past months to identify $1 billion in savings.

    Third, we will be bringing forward this year a new public service code to address among other things public service principles, values and ethics. As well, we hope to move ahead with a new management accountability framework that will more clearly define expectations of public service managers and better define accountabilities in this domain.

    Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, in the interest of saving more time for discussion today, I have only touched on a few of the activities and initiatives of the Treasury Board and its Secretariat. Let me close with a few concluding observations.

    To reiterate what I said earlier, we have a large and challenging agenda that requires time to implement. Progress will be neither instant nor uniform across this large institution.

    We are making significant progress on our files, although we recognize fully that more needs to be done and also that, like the rest of government, we too can learn and improve.

    In the end, what is important is that we continue to enhance the performance of government so as to allow it to better serve the needs of Canadians. We have a good public service in Canada, but like any other institution, it is one where improvements can be made and will be made. That is especially important at a time when it faces important demographic change.

    But we are committed to doing that, and I look forward to working with this committee to that end.

    Mr. Chairman, we are available for any comment or question on our Report on Plans and Priorities.

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Welcome, Madam Minister, and thank you for your comments.

    We know that Parliament has an independent role to monitor the government. Especially on the opposition side, we have to put pressure on the government to require the government to justify its agenda to the public. From my perspective--in our party, anyway--we also have an obligation to compliment the government when it goes in the right direction. If we appear to be opposing, we don't oppose for opposing's sake but with constructive alternatives.

    With regard to how the public at large is to know where the government is going and whether they as voters are getting value for dollar in terms of what the government takes from them in taxes, I think the government has tried to respond with changing its reporting documents, its financial documents, the part IIIs and so on, and trying to look at plans and priorities, but I would still like to see descriptions of documents that are much easier to understand for the average public, perhaps some graphs and charts that show the trends of where we've been and where we're going.

    In a particular department it's not always easy to find out the number of employees, for example, directly beside program numbers. We can't really see whether the global budget at, say, the immigration department has gone up over a five-year period, or see how those plans and priorities relate to some specific numbers.

    You've outlined in your comments here that you're going to be embarking on consultation with parliamentarians, and I would certainly think even with the public, to try to figure out how to make the required reporting documents in the plans and priorities much easier for the public to understand, and easier, I suppose, to put on the Internet so that the public can more fully judge for themselves whether the government is doing a good job, and give feedback.

    So perhaps you can comment on that desire to have this engagement with the public in the reporting documents.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard This is a very large question, as you know, because this is on how to improve reporting to Parliament. As you said, some years ago we changed the way we report to Parliament. We changed the estimates process completely.

    As you also said, part of the estimates process is that each department has to table two important documents to parliamentarians and to the public--the plans and priorities document and the performance document. At the same time that we changed that process, we also changed the management framework of the government. That is to say, it is more oriented on results, and not only in the inputs but the results at the end. What results do we want to achieve, and are we able to measure the results and be transparent about them?

    I would say that over the years there was an improvement in reporting to Parliament, but a lot needs to be done in the future, too. We all know that the Auditor General is not exactly satisfied with the kind of reporting to Parliament that we are doing. She follows that file very closely. We also know that parliamentarians sometimes make remarks about how it's very difficult to find the information, as do members of the general public.

    So those are the challenges we have in front of us, and really, I would appreciate receiving your ideas on that. I intend to work with you as parliamentarians--especially with your committee, and the public accounts committee--and with the Senate as well on how to improve the kind of reporting we are doing to Parliament, to simplify the reporting, to streamline the reporting, to use less bureaucratic wording so that the public can understand what we're talking about, and finally, to improve on how we report on horizontal issues.

    I have to say, sometimes I receive mixed messages from parliamentarians on the kind of information you would like to see in those reports. So this year it will be very important, and this is a commitment in the budget, to have input and to work together with the Auditor General to find a way reporting better to the Canadian public at the end of it. This is the process we will follow this year.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Well, we know that sometimes when government perhaps is a little bit embarrassed as to how things are turning out they want to bury the details somewhere. They may be legally required to report, but they report in such a way that unless an investigative reporter spends some time on it, or uses access to information, the material doesn't get out there. I would hope that historical way of government functioning sees the sunset.

    You say here that you're also looking forward to a public service code to address, among other things, “public service principles, values and ethics”. Part of that is the ethics of transparency, and the ethics of fair dollar, and trying to be a wise steward of the public purse. But can you just respond a little bit on what your intentions are here beyond Bill C-25, which has a number of sections in the preamble that outline principles? Is this going to go way beyond Bill C-25, or what are you talking about here?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, we are speaking about the code of values and ethics. Right now we have a post-employment and conflict of interest code for the public servant. I would like to see that code we have here enshrined in larger documents, in a code of values and ethics. What are the basic values that public servants should follow in their daily work?

    As you know, all professions have a special code of values and ethics. In French we call that «code de déontologie». We should have that code of values and ethics for the public service.

    I have to say, a lot of work has been done over the last years. We had a special report done by John Tait many years ago that dealt with values and ethics in the public service. A lot of work was done in different departments, and now we're at the point of officially having that code of values and ethics that public servants can rely on when they have to take some actions in their daily work.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I hope they are Canadian values and not Liberal Party values.

    We'll leave it at that.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth. And either one would work, I would think.

    Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Madam Minister. Before dealing with a matter that has been of interest to us for months now, namely Bill C-25, I would like to tell you about the situation that concerns us a great deal.

    During one of this Committee's meeting, on May 12, 2003... We realize that when witnesses appear before the Committee, they can use the language of their choice. As you know, committees have interpretation services 95 per cent of the time. However, when the witnesses are senior officials, when we speak to them and ask them questions in French, you had a policy, I believe, saying that as of the 1^st of May, 2003, those deputy ministers, senior officials or directors must at least have the respect, when they speak to a parliamentarian, of doing so in the language of the latter, since they get bonus for bilingualism. I hope at least some respect will be shown towards the Parliamentarian and Committee members by answering in their own language. As I mentioned, we have interpretation service about 95 per cent of the time in order to follow the proceedings in French.

    I have a very specific case, that of Ken Sunquist, who is director general at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I mentioned to him that I would like him to address me in French and he continued to speak to me in English. The following day, so probably May 13, I wrote to your office to see whether he got a bilingualism bonus. I have not yet received an answer. I had also asked for the list of those who did get the bonus and I hope your office will give me the information as soon as possible, especially with regard to Mr. Ken Sunquist.

    I will now get back to my questions, but I would like to have an answer from you regarding situations such as that one.

Á  (1125)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Fine, let me clarify. The policy you mention is, I believe, the policy that applies to all senior managers that have bilingual positions in the public service. The bilingualism bonus is for the unionized employees of the public service that have a bilingual position. So they are two different things, Mister Lanctôt. In the public service, regardless of the level, 37 per cent of the positions are bilingual; it could be a receptionist. In that case, there is a bilingualism bonus, and that bonus is negotiated with the unions. That is one thing.

    The other is the policy for our senior managers, those who have bilingual positions. So I am not entire sure whether you are referring to someone in a bilingual position. One could imagine...

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Should directors general have a bilingual position?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I do not have the statistics here with me, but many of the senior management positions in the national capital region are bilingual; I think 75 per cent of them are. It is indeed 75 per cent in the national capital. We could give you the figures, but it is a matter of determining whether the incumbent has a bilingual position.

    Now if you have made an official request for information, you will certainly get an answer, but I am sure you will agree with me that I will have to abide by the Privacy Act at the same time.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: But I do hope that when someone appears before a committee, matters can be raised, whether they relate to privileges, procedures or accountability. After all, those people represent the government. I hope we will get the information and they won't be playing games invoking confidential information or privacy, and I hope you will ask that individual to lift the veil if required, so that we can be told whether he has a bilingual position. I would like to know whether you think it is appropriate that someone not answer in French, even when asked to do so, and continues to show a total lack of respect.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, we have to see whether the person had a bilingual position. Secondly, some people are appointed to bilingual positions and have two years to become bilingual. They can go on language training and they have two years to become bilingual. These are often positions where people do not have any direct contact with the public as such or do not have to supervise bilingual people. Was that the case? I do not know. It is difficult for me to answer you, sir.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you.

    How much time do I have left now, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: You have about a minute and a half, for the first round.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: So, I will ask question that are more directly related to Bill C-25. When we met with you the last time, we got the general impression that you were open to suggestions from the opposition regarding proposals or possible amendments. But then we saw that all of them were rejected, at least the one I suggested, except for one or two, but those were with support either from the Canadian Alliance or other government representatives.

    We heard evidence that was exactly the opposite of what you are seeking. The preamble states that the goal is to have better cooperation between the employer, employees and unions, but what we saw in the bill that was passed clause by clause in the past few months, and based on what we heard from union representatives and officials, is that they are not being heard and are not involved in any cooperative effort, and worse still, are not even involved in the joint decision making process when matters as important as appointments, staffing and promotions are being discussed. Why have you adopted such a hard line with unions and officials?

Á  (1130)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Far be it for me to say that I have a hard line approach toward the unions. Since coming to Treasury Board, I have tried to improve the cooperation with the unions. In fact, there are several examples we could give you, Mr. Lanctôt, of cases where we work together.

    Let me give you two examples that come to mind: through the Joint National Council, we worked with the unions to overhaul the travel guidelines, and we also worked with the unions on the revision of the harassment policy. We did those two things jointly with them. Those are just two examples, but there are many others.

    So far, in terms of collective bargaining—the last round with the Public Service Alliance of Canada comes to mind—, both sides made compromises to reach a negotiated agreement rather than resorting to more extreme measures.

    That said, Bill C-25 contains several measures to extend this cooperation even further. For example, if this bill is passed by Parliament, all departments will be obliged to have a management-union committee in each of the departments. There is also the entire question of codetermination, which is a new concept put forward by Mr. John Fryer in his report. There is also the entire consultation process that must be followed with the Public Service Commission for staffing policies, etc.

    That said, the unions have been kept informed on a regular basis when those changes were being discussed and planned, but I realize they would also like to see other changes that we did not agree to. So I can understand that they may be disappointed with some parts of the bill, but overall, I would say it is a big step forward.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Minister, and Mr. Judd and Mr. Neville.

    I'd like to come back in a moment to the role of the Treasury Board and the Treasury Board Secretariat when it comes to resource allocation decisions, but one thing that was lacking in your presentation, or at least I didn't hear it, was any mention of the issue of user fees. I guess that tells me that it's not really in your plans or in your priorities.

    One of the things in the last budget was a reference of course by the Minister of Finance that this would become an important priority for the government. In addition to that, in the policy draft you're circulating, you talk about the added resources that will be put into the resources of the Treasury Board Secretariat to better monitor departments and agencies if they fail to meet the commitments they make in terms of performance standards. So I'm surprised there's no mention of additional resources that will be allocated to this function, as well as what plans there are with respect to departments or agencies that don't meet the performance standards.

    I know we've been working together to try to reach some conclusions around this, but I was surprised, frankly, there was no mention of user fees in your plans or priorities.

    I wonder if you could comment on that.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, I could comment. I did not speak about all of the policy revisions we are making at Treasury Board right now. As you know, cost recovery is one of the policies we are revising. As you also know, we worked through the finance committee on that, and tabled there the revised policy on cost recovery. However, I could speak also about other policies we are revising right now. So if you want us to speak specifically about it today, we can.

    The second subject you raised is about the performance of departments, and if they don't meet their performance targets or the results they are supposed to achieve, the role then of the Treasury Board Secretariat. I think you had some exchanges before with my secretary about that, so perhaps I can ask him to elaborate a little bit.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Sure, but just to interject for a moment, I know we're going to have this discussion and debate at the finance committee over the next couple of weeks, so I didn't really expect a detailed debate today on cost recovery and user fees. I was just noting that I was surprised it wasn't mentioned in your plans and priorities. As well, your draft policy says there will be more resources allocated to monitor departments and agencies. Is that a very small amount of resources? Have you not determined what those resources will be? Is it too insignificant a policy matter that you're not prepared to comment on it, or....?

    Mr. Jim Judd (Secretary of the Treasury Board and Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): If I may, Mr. Cullen, I would mention four quick things.

    First of all, the policy specifically was not mentioned in the report because we took it to be covered by the two broader initiatives, the work being done on revising reporting to Parliament. As I think you know, that includes the whole issue of cost recovery.

    Second, it was also covered generically by the issue of what we're doing in respect of the policy review across the board within the secretariat. A number of policies are up for review, very significant ones, including user fees.

    Third, I think it's probably fair to say that, as you know, the secretariat has been spending, for the last year plus, a considerable amount of time on the policy review in respect of user fees, and that work continues. We're now up to a third draft on this.

    The final issue I would just like to comment on is the resources question. The resources issue is one that we would have to address once we had a final product with respect to the policy and its implications in terms of reporting, monitoring, and so on. That's an issue we have not addressed but it would be done this summer.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you. I appreciate that.

    Of course, the House of Commons finance committee will make a judgment call in the next couple of weeks on whether your proposed new policy goes far enough, and then the Parliament of Canada will make a determination on that as well. But I haven't seen the final position paper. As you know, there was discussion back and forth between me, your parliamentary secretary, Madam Robillard, and other players, and I still don't know finally what kind of position you're taking.

    But I'd like to leave that. If you have a copy of how far you're prepared to go, it certainly would help me when I present my case to the finance committee on Wednesday.

    Do I have a little more time, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: Yes, you do.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Then I'd like to talk about resource allocation.

    I've said at this committee before that I was involved with the Treasury Board in British Columbia, which is a little more hands-on--perhaps, some would say, too hands-on. The Treasury Board there played a very key and major role with respect to resource allocation decisions. In fact, ministers had to come before the Treasury Board, ministers on the Treasury Board were briefed, and if there were resources that didn't match the priorities of the government, with a lot of soft goal-setting and an orientation toward not really concrete results, the Treasury Board would start hacking away. Frankly, that's what would happen.

    Maybe that's not elegant enough for Ottawa, where we have kind of a different approach, and we're very sensitive to line versus staff. I understand those sensitivities, but let me just ask a concrete question.

    The Minister of Finance in his budget talked about the need to cut about a billion dollars, I think, and I forget exactly which year, with then some ongoing “reallocation”, I guess is what we're calling it, of resources. What role will the Treasury Board and the Treasury Board Secretariat play in that whole process?

    Mr. Jim Judd: In respect to the billion dollars, Mr. Cullen, the Treasury Board Secretariat has taken the lead in identifying those funds. We've been working in close collaboration with our colleagues at the Department of Finance and the Privy Council Office on this. Our expectation is that the minister will shortly be able to make an announcement with respect to that.

    Secondly, on an ongoing basis, the Treasury Board and the Treasury Board Secretariat play an active role across the board in resource allocation issues affecting what we would call the “non-statutory A-base” of the government--exclude debt payments, statutory transfers, and so on. We look at those issues at the level of the secretariat and at the level of the cabinet committee of the Treasury Board itself on an ongoing basis.

    Annually, we would probably deal with something in the order of a thousand individual cases affecting in some fashion resource allocation within the government.

    As a third point, the budget announcement of Mr. Manley also announced the new five-year cycle of expenditure and management reviews that kick off this year. Again, it's something that I expect the minister shortly would make a public announcement on in terms of the specific departments to be covered this year, plus the horizontal issues to be covered this year. But over the five-year period, that would cover all non-statutory funding in the government, over and above what we already do at the Treasury Board.

    As far as the experience of British Columbia is concerned, I'm afraid I'm not as familiar with it as you are, but it sounds attractive.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Roy Cullen: I should say that was many years ago. Now they have their own fiscal dilemma.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cullen and Mr. Judd.

    As Mr. Cullen pointed out, some who worked in provincial systems would think the Treasury Board was a bit too intrusive.

    Madam Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Yes, a variety of people would think that.

    Minister Robillard, it's very nice to have you back to talk to us.

    I find this very interesting; when we start questioning program spending and so on, and issues get raised in the House in question period, it always seems to come back that, well, we complied with Treasury Board guidelines. As parliamentarians, we're always asking where we can get the assurances that everything has followed through.

    In your department, how experienced are the analysts who do the reviews of various programs and so on? Do they do research other than what is presented to them from the various departments in order to ensure that what the department is saying about this wonderful new program is indeed appropriate, and that they have done their own homework on it?

    As well, have you refused very many applications for funding, and have you often sent them back for further work to be done on them?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I would say that, yes, this is part of the job we are doing. Perhaps we're not doing it the way they are in B.C., because I don't know the system there, but I have to tell you that every submission is looked at very closely by our analysts.

    I perhaps would ask Mr. Judd to talk about the competence of our people, but I have to tell you, yes, this is normal. We work with departments, and sometimes we send back the submission. Sometimes the submission is brought forward to the minister at the board, but we make conditions with the approval of the submission. That is to say, sometimes we can freeze the funding if they are not in compliance with other policies. We can change the delegation of authority in each department; there is always that possibility.

    So we can put conditions when they come in front of the board, and we do that regularly, I would say. At almost each meeting of the board we have those kinds of conditions put forward with some submissions from departments.

    Mr. Jim Judd: The way the secretariat interacts with departments and agencies runs from the level of individual analysts who work on a specific program, or a specific department, all the way down to my level, which is to say that the interaction with a department or agency could be at my level with a deputy minister, or it could be with my senior officials at the level of ADMs, and so on, all the way down through to the level of the analyst.

    Just off the top of my head, I would say on average our senior folks probably have 20-plus years' experience in the public service. The individual analysts would have less than that, but I think you would have to look at it as part of a continuum; if there is an inexperienced analyst new to the job, the weight will be taken up by people senior to them in the process. It's an engagement that takes place from my level down to the analyst's level, depending on the nature of the issue, or the difficulty or sensitivity of the issue. By no means is it a role that's just left to individual analysts.

Á  (1145)  

    Ms. Judy Sgro: So a variety of people follow the files in each department to ensure that the accountability is there, and they follow through, and you do continue on an ongoing basis with the various departments to ensure that the spending is going where it was supposed to initially?

    Mr. Jim Judd: That is certainly the effort. I can't guarantee you, obviously, that we're 100% successful, although I could if I had a halo and wings.

    We are a small organization relative to the rest of the government, and much of what we do has to be done on a risk management basis in terms of our approach. I think we do a fairly good job, by and large, but there are inevitably problems that come as a surprise to us or to others. Our hope is to try, over time, to minimize those and eventually make them disappear.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Something we've been trying to deal with for many years is being better able to coordinate our departments. Given your role with the Treasury Board Secretariat, how do you see the next five years when it comes to being able to successfully coordinate many of our various ministries a little bit better than what we had been able to do previously?

    Mr. Jim Judd: Personally, I would say that is one of the larger challenges we have. The fact of the matter is, there is very little the federal government does now that does not involve a host of different players, in some cases through established programs, which are dispersed across a number of departments and agencies, or in other cases because of a particular crisis. To give you a current example, SARS is probably an issue that involves 12 departments and agencies, coordinated by the PCO.

    Our problem--and I think it's an issue this committee has been looking at--centres around three issues on horizontality: one, how do you better manage it; two, how do you better define accountability so that you know, if you have a posse of people dealing with an issue, who the sheriff is; and three, how do you publicly report on it? I think your committee has been looking at that latter issue. When you have a program or an activity or a policy that is dispersed across a number of departments, how do you as a citizen or a member of Parliament get the whole picture of what's actually being done across that?

    To go back to what Madam Robillard said at the outset about our interest in working with parliamentarians on this, from the secretariat's point of view this would certainly be one of the top issues where we would want to see where you are in terms of your own reflections. We have some suggestions, obviously, as to what could or should be done, but we don't want to presume your own conclusions.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Judd.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you very much.

    In your general role as a coordinator and evaluator of budgets, are there any departments that remain unresponsive to Treasury Board leadership, or are there any areas of stewardship in which the responsiveness across the government presents a special challenge? If so, should the Treasury Board performance reports themselves not be identifying them? Where in your own reporting do you lead by example to talk about perhaps the areas you're having difficulty with in getting departments to be up to the standards and in the direction in which you want to get going?

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Jim Judd: I don't know that I would identify particular problem children in our universe. There are circumstantial issues where an organization is perhaps completely overwhelmed for some period of time by an operational issue that sort of diverts senior management attention almost wholly to that policy or program issue, which may lessen their ongoing monitoring and activity on the management front. By and large, though, I think all of my colleagues are very conscious of our collective need to continue to improve our performance as public service managers.

    There are issues we have to deal with, including workload and changing policies and practices. Quite frankly, one of the issues we have to deal with, and are trying to deal with, at Treasury Board is getting better clarity around what are our policies with respect to management and what are our expectations about delivery of the management agenda. As I think Madam Robillard mentioned, we are in the process of trying to finalize something, called a “management accountability framework”, that provides much greater definition about this. Later this summer I'd be happy to come back and talk to you further about this.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Well, there's the old principle, if you can't describe it, how can you follow it? If we can't find out where we've been and clearly describe the trail of where we have come from, we don't have much ability to then make some estimation as to where we might be going.

    Now, certainly you recall in the House of Commons where the opposition made great hay at one time or another about various boondoggles or waste or about contract rules not being followed. I'm certainly sure the minister herself has at times been sinking low in her seat, wondering what in the world is happening with some of her colleagues. We can have all the manuals on the shelf, and all the rules, but what about the incentive regime for following it, such as consequences for failing to follow, or even a reward? It's not necessarily just saying, “Bad boy, go to the back of the class.” Besides having rules and systems, such as a speed limit, in order for them to have any meaning at all there must be some consequences as well, both rewards and negatives.

    So how do we enforce with substance all of the wonderful things Treasury Board is laying out for government?

    Mr. Jim Judd: On the issue of consequences, Mr. Forseth--and I think the minister mentioned some of these issues in her earlier remarks--these can vary organizationally or personally. Organizationally they can lead to the freezing of funding or the imposition of new conditions on the reporting, management, and organizational structure. They can lead to the withdrawal of delegated authorities to an organization. They can lead to the imposition of reporting performance requirements. And at a personal level, all deputy ministers in the federal government have part of their annual assessments based on their management capacities. That extends as well to people below them at the assistant deputy minister level and further down in the EX cadre.

    I would also say that in some instances where there have been particular problems, it has adversely and significantly affected careers. So there are consequences.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Looking at it from the public perspective, I came on the Hill here in 1993, and there must be a number of cases since that time where some significant blunders could be recorded in the public media. I'm wondering, has anybody since 1993 ever been turfed from their job as compared with in the private sector? There, if a senior manager really blows it, they're bounced out the door, but it doesn't seem to happen in the public service.

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Jim Judd: It probably doesn't happen in the same dramatic fashion that it may happen in the private sector, but I can assure you, there are in fact personal and career consequences for people in those circumstances.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Forseth.

    Anecdotally, I actually have some data on dismissals for cause in the public sector and in one large service organization. In fact it's higher in the public sector, contrary to popular belief.

    Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, on the same topic, I would like to point out that you chose to give managers a great deal of power in Bill C-25, which will probably be passed.

    We are trying to modernize the public service to ensure transparency and to guarantee that it is done in a non partisan manner, but unfortunately, the only thing protecting whistle blowers are policies rather than legislation. Several countries around the world have that type of legislation. Several people told us that the issue was outside of the scope of Bill C-25 and that it was not part of its mandate.

    I would like you to tell me today whether you will wait five years, seven years before deciding whether the policy you implement will be effective. We all know that when Bill C-25 is passed, the only two grounds for challenging an appointment will be the following: not getting an interview in the language of one's choice and the abuse of power. We spoke about the major problems and I gave several examples. No one, neither the public servants, the ministers or anyone else, could confirm whether whistle blowers would be protected. I gave specific examples, and no lawyer or other person representing you could guarantee they would be protected, since it would be very difficult to establish any proof.

    So you decided to grant that discretionary power to managers. If a public servant, regardless of his level, sees that he is not protected, he will hesitate even more so because he will be "protected" only by a policy, and you know what happens in that case. There will be no transparency and we will not have a non partisan public service. It will become increasingly restrictive. That was confirmed to us by Canada's information commissioner. He told the committee that public servants keep fewer and fewer notes and documents so that they cannot be obtained through the Access to Information Act. Consequently, the public service, which is an essential institution, will become increasingly unable to provide information that all Canadians and Quebeckers should have access to. You are creating a monster.

    In light of the aforementioned, I would like to ask you the following question: what has been done, and at what point will you legislate, as other countries have done, including several G-8 countries, in other words, when will you pass legislation to protect whistle blowers and to ensure access to information?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Lanctôt, we have already discussed this matter together. The government made a choice a few years ago after reflecting on disclosure of wrongdoing. This matter was discussed as part of the broader study on ways to reinforce values and ethics in the public service. Whistle blowing was never targeted separately. We discussed ways to reinforce the values and ethics in the public service. We looked at the steps to be taken by our employees if they were aware of wrongdoing in the workplace, what they were to do, how they should disclose the information, how they should be protected.

    We looked at what was done in other countries, we looked at their legislation and we tried to see why a legislative approach was taken rather than adopting a policy. There was not even any policy in Canada. So we had to explore a whole range of options, in light of Canada's situation, history and public service traditions, and we opted for a policy, which was then defined.

    I understand your committee passed an amendment to include a legislative basis to this policy in Bill C-25, which is the equivalent of requiring Treasury Board to always have a policy. I would like to remind you that, in accordance with this policy, we appointed a public service integrity officer who is not tied to any department, Mr. Keyserlingk, who, I believe, has appeared or will be appearing before your committee. His role is precisely to help employees who find themselves in such a situation.

    That said, I have always claimed that even though the government opted for a policy, we will always be open to assessing that policy, and it must be reviewed in 2004. At that time, we will be able to see whether the policy helped us reach our objectives and decide whether we would prefer other means.

  (1200)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Lanctôt.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Minister, within the ministry's summary vote, the only significant area in which there is some control in your budget really is in vote 1, under operating expenditures. And it's only $151 million, not a major portion, but this is where there is some variability. The operating expenditures are expected to increase by 28% over the prior year. I'm wondering if you could advise us on the nature of the increase and how this relates to prior years or will in fact reflect on future spending patterns.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: This is about the increase of $33 million in vote 1?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Correct.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I can give you the details on that. I would say half the increase, so $17.2 million, is about the initiative Government On-Line; $8.8 million is for classification reform; $3.4 million is for human resources modernization; $3.1 million is for the collective agreements, which represents the departmental share of salary increases; and $2.2 million is for our initiative on government travel modernization. We have other increases, regarding official languages, of $1.9 million.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay. So in looking at your operating expenditures, which normally would be considered to be under your control, most of those items in fact are not discretionary. They are in fact recorded by you, in your ministry, in vote 1, but they are driven by the activities of others.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: In a certain sense, yes. This is not only for the secretariat but also for the federal public service as a whole.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Sure. Government On-Line alone is not your initiative; it's that of the Government of Canada's.

    I raise this just as an example that to deal with numbers in the estimates is very misleading at times. It would be easy to make a case numerically that you have a 28% increase in your operating expenditures. That would be unacceptable for business purposes, but within the structure and silo of expenses, it's going to take a lot more work for MPs to do a better job in reviewing the estimates.

    That's a good way, Minister, for me to get into the real question I had. You're going to be rising before the House after all the estimates are reported, or deemed to be reported, back to the House, and you're going to be asking for Parliament's approval for the funds necessary to run the government. That has to pass, otherwise we don't have a government operating.

    Now, from the last figures I received, about 80% of the standing committees do not even conduct a review of the estimates. Under the rules of the House, those that are not reported back are deemed to be reported back without change. A recent change in the standing orders allows the opposition to select a minister or two to appear before the House for five hours, almost as a penalty for not having the estimates being reported.

    That aside, does it not concern you, when you stand up before the House to ask Parliament for those funds--and you are there to say with certitude that they have been properly reviewed by Parliament, that these are the funds necessary--and the committees in the main have not done the work? Do you have a comment to make on the relative importance of a review of the estimates by members of Parliament?

  (1205)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I would say that we always encourage departments and ministers to go in front of Parliament or committees to explain their estimates and to answer all questions that parliamentarians might ask. Now, if some committee decides whatever they want, and they don't revise the estimates of a particular department, I think we still need the approval of Parliament to get funding so that the department can function. I think you would agree with me on that.

    So your question, Monsieur Szabo, I think is more for parliamentarians on the role of parliamentarians. I think your committee here wants to be a leader in that, to try to put some incentive on other committees of the House to look at the estimates of each department. That's what I understood from your....

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Finally, since I think you agree that parliamentarians should take this more seriously and your responsibility is to encourage at least your minister or colleagues to appear before committee, would you undertake to issue a directive to ministers that they must appear before their committees on the estimates and make plans in their calendars to be there? Although I know you can't order them to do that, if they don't appear would you support that a minister who will not appear or a committee that does not review would have to appear before the House to explain why? Would you support that?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Monsieur Szabo, don't ask me if I would issue a directive like that; I don't have any direct authority over other ministers. What I'm saying to you is that as president of Treasury Board, I encourage all other ministers to appear in front of committee, and the leader does exactly the same thing. I think it is the responsibility and the duty of the minister to appear in front of the committee when he is called for. But he has to be called for, too.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: We can't subpoena ministers.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

    Thank you, Madam Minister.

    Madam Folco.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Madam Minister, I would like to ask you two questions. The first is on Canada's latest demographics. The Human Resources Development Committee carried out an extensive study of the Employment Equity Act. The government has a certain amount of control over the companies to which it awards contracts, but in this case, we are dealing with the public service itself and the way it reflects diversity.

    If I understand correctly, diversity means women, visible minorities, disabled persons and aboriginals. What measures has Treasury Board implemented to ensure that diversity and how do you assess the results? If there is an improvement—and I hope there is—how will you be able to conduct an unbiased assessment of the results of these initiatives?

  (1210)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Of course we are subject to the Employment Equity Act, and in fact there is a special report that I table in Parliament myself every year on the results, and our rankings in the four categories mentioned in the Employment Equity Act. So for each of those categories, we look at the available manpower across the country, and we see whether there is the same percentage within the public service based on our figures.

    For example, our current data on the labour market will show that there are 48 per cent women—I think it is 48.7 per cent to be precise—that are available for the labour market. So how many women are there in the public service? We have 52.5 per cent. So I say we have achieved employment equity. I do the same thing for aboriginals. Their labour market availability was 1.7 per cent, and they represent 3.8 per cent of the public service. The same applies to disabled persons. They represent 4.8 per cent of the labour force, and the public service has 5.3 per cent. So things are going relatively well in terms of numbers for those three categories. But those are the numbers in terms of raw data.

    Now if you look at the positions these people have in the public service, that is a different challenge. For example, you will find that although there are sufficient numbers of women, you do not find them at all levels of the public service, especially not in the upper echelons. You find that aboriginal people are concentrated in certain departments. And they have the same problem of also not being in the upper echelons.

    But if I look strictly at the numbers, the category where we still have trouble is visible minorities. Labour market statistics show that 8.7 per cent of disabled persons are available, but only 6.8 per cent of public servants are disabled.

    So what are we doing about it? We set up a special action plan with objectives to be met in 2004 and 2005, first to try to identify all of the potential barriers for discrimination, starting with the make-up of our selection committees, etc., all of the barriers that could exist right from the beginning.

    Secondly, we decided to also look at the recruitment process. The Public Service Commission worked with us—because you know that it is the Public Service Commission that is responsible for recruitment—, and even held employment forums specifically for visible minorities, and it is thanks to a group from outside of the government that we now have this action plan. When I look at the demographic changes occurring in our country, I realize how important it is to have a representative public service.

    So a lot of effort is being made right now to increase the presence of visible minorities, but I would say our efforts must be redoubled if these people are to climb to the upper echelons of the public service.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Do I have any time left, Mr. Chairman?

  (1215)  

    The Chair: A little bit.

    Ms. Raymonde Folco: Precisely. I would say that we have reached the point in Canada where access is—I don't mean to say that it is fairly easy—but it certainly is easier than it has been for most groups including the handicapped, because of the changes that have been made to office buildings to make offices more accessible to persons with disabilities, for example.

    Now, I feel that the problem lies not so much in physical access as—you just mentioned—in having access to the upper echelons. And access to those upper echelons depends partly on the extent to which the target groups, or designated groups, have an understanding of the corporate culture. The corporation in this case being the Public Service of Canada. So, on the one hand, there is this issue of the extent to which those groups that we would like to see more of in the senior levels of the public service have an understanding of the corporate culture, but on the other hand, we also have to consider how the public service would react to those groups being given much broader access to senior positions. I am not talking so much about women, since their numbers are in fact relatively good, but I am thinking especially about Aboriginal people and visible minorities, because that is where this understanding of the corporate culture seems to be a major issue.  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes. You are quite right in mentioning that. With respect to visible minorities, for example, there is a committee in the public service composed of people from various visible minorities. The committee has worked hard to create awareness by helping individuals gain a better understanding of the culture and by targeting senior managers. Over the years, we have tried to designate what is called a champion in each department, and these champions develop incentives to promote this aspect. Two years ago, we established the Employment Equity and Diversity Award to recognize the efforts being made in some departments and by certain groups to reach this goal. I would add that the clerk himself, in the agreements that he has reached with various deputy ministers, emphasizes this aspect in order to increase awareness at the highest levels.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you very much.

    On May 5 the Auditor General's office appeared before the committee on the progress made by the Treasury Board Secretariat—that's your section—regarding comptrollership and financial control. The Auditor General folks said to this committee that the Treasury Board Secretariat still had to move toward “active monitoring”; I think those were the words they used.

    What have you done to respond to that kind of criticism about the active monitoring the Auditor General's office was pointing out?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I will ask Mr. Neville to answer that.

    Mr. Richard Neville (Deputy Comptroller General, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): A number of steps have been taken at this point. We have been working closely with the Office of the Auditor General to ensure that we use the same terminology in terms of understanding what their meaning is of “active monitoring”.

    As you can appreciate, a lot of work has been done. We do have a policy on active monitoring. Currently, as Mr. Judd mentioned earlier, we are reviewing the TBS suite of policies, which is intended to rationalize them and work more closely with departments in providing the best possible policies available.

    We do carry out risk identification within TBS in terms of improving and monitoring high-risk situations. In that context we have developed some initiatives, again in the context of various components of the Treasury Board Secretariat, in order to have a better knowledge of the management situations within departments.

    As well, if you want to come back to what we had discussed earlier, there is the initiative on doing departmental reviews, which will mean that over five years we will review all of the non-statutory programs. We're also carrying out the horizontal reviews to which Mr. Judd referred.

    So those are some steps we have been taking to address the situation.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I heard an interesting term there, “risk identification”; it sounds like the profiling that policemen do.

    At any rate, I think the Auditor General emphasized that the Treasury Board Secretariat would have to ensure that departments, first of all, clearly understand what comptrollership is in providing direction and guidance concerning the monitoring progress. And they offered three pretty clear criticisms: one, departmental action plans either did not specify timeliness or did not establish targets or milestones by which to measure progress; many managers did not understand the concept of modern comptrollership; and three, departmental plans did not include estimates of the cost to implement modern comptrollership.

    I'm asking specifically, what did you do to adjust to that, or was the Auditor General wrong?

  (1220)  

    Mr. Richard Neville: Mr. Chair, we are of the view that the Auditor General has obviously spent quite some time looking at this, and we're working with the Office of the Auditor General and the departments concerned to try to remedy the situation.

    In terms of modern comptrollership, we have gone from, three years ago, five departments that were pilots, then to fifteen, and we're now with the mandate of having this government-wide. Close to 90 departments have signed up to participate. We're obviously seeing a lot of progress in the context of getting the capacity checks, but once capacity checks are done, it's still a question of developing the action plan, and we're focusing on working with departments on making sure that action plan gets implemented. Additional funding has been provided to assist departments along the way.

    I guess to close on that, Mr. Chair, there's a responsibility on our part and the departments to carry through with this initiative, and we're doing that as we speak.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Well, it's interesting that you say you're getting departments “signed up”, because I didn't know that obeying the law was optional. It's like you're doing a human relations exercise--you know, “Let's get together, and it would be sure nice if we would all cooperate.” It gets back to my earlier point about Treasury Board and its wonderful role. If it doesn't have active monitoring and looking at risks and having consequences and a regime of both incentives and consequences, all of this is just a feel-good exercise.

    Mr. Richard Neville: If I may, just one moment on that--

    The Chair: Briefly, on good feelings.

    Mr. Richard Neville: In those 90 I was talking about the bulk of departments and agencies. There are some small agencies of two, three, or five individuals, and therefore those are still left.

    I would add also that the Clerk of the Privy Council has instructed the deputies in the 2003-04 performance requirements to actually implement modern comptrollership. So there is a requirement from the highest level to impose this.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: A memo.

    The Chair: And a good memo.

    Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We were talking about contingency funds. I know very well that it was the same thing in 2002-03, but I am amazed that this $750 million amounts to about one quarter of the total contingency fund. Could we have a better and more detailed definition of contingency, or is it impossible to be precise?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You would probably have to refer to the information in the Treasury Board estimates, to what is called Treasury Board vote 5, which is the contingency fund for the government as a whole. This ties in with what Mr. Szabo said earlier. When we look at the Treasury Board votes, we see that this amount is intended to cover all contingencies that the government might face. That means that the $750 million has to be considered in terms of the Treasury Board Secretariat's overall budget. Total government spending amounts to $170 billion. The $750 million is part of this vote 5 that we sometimes talk about in the House of Commons.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Does that mean that the total contingency fund for each department is $750 million? Or is this amount in addition to that?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: We have $750 million. Let us take a concrete example. If Health Canada, because of the SARS crisis, needs extra funds and cannot wait for the next supplementary estimates, it can ask for access to vote 5, and the funds provided will be reimbursed once the supplementary estimates are passed by Parliament.

    Basically, this money is available to cover any unexpected expense between two estimates tabled in Parliament.

  (1225)  

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: So it can vary each time. Every department has its own funds to deal with various contingencies. Is this money included or not in the overall amount of $750 million?

    Mr. Richard Neville: If I may, Mr. Chairman, the $750 million is approved by Parliament at the beginning of the fiscal year, and these are the funds used by the departments.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: So it is a total envelope of $750 million for all the departments.

    Mr. Richard Neville: That is correct.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That is all, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Monsieur Lanctôt.

    Madam Bennett.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I had two questions, mainly just following up on the horizontal piece. I really think you've made great efforts in terms of results-based management.

    With SARS it may be easy to see what everybody is doing, but I still want to know, is there a protocol within Treasury Board for...? If there are little pockets of money for violence against women in every department, or a little pocket of money on early childhood, how do you, in terms of the stewardship, make sure that we're getting good results and that there's no duplication or overlap?

    I guess one of the things that has bugged some of us is that even on the skills and innovation agenda two departments had to come up with two different reports rather than show they could work together to actually go forward as a government on something that important.

    Do you have any ability to say, “Look, go work this out and figure out who's the sheriff”? And how are we going to get better value for the money and better ultimate results?

    Mr. Jim Judd: We do have that ability, and we do that on a number of occasions. We suggest that two similar programs be merged or put within the same portfolio.

    I think the problem we have is an inside-outside problem in the sense that we have a fairly good sense within the secretariat as to the horizontality of programs and policies and so on. But there are the three issues I mentioned previously on the management, the definition of the accountability around it, and most importantly the reporting element, so that the public and members of Parliament actually get a full-scope picture.

    In part it goes back to, in the case of the Treasury Board, the issue that Mr. Szabo raised. That is, we have funding in our budget that stays in our budget for about a nanosecond, because it's all shovelled out to other parts of the government for specific initiatives. I quite agree with his point that we haven't captured that effectively in our reporting, which I would like to do better in the future. But that also applies to big, big initiatives or policies and programs--aboriginals, health issues, and so on and so forth.

    So before we ourselves get definitive about solutions, I think we would actually like to hear back from parliamentarians as to how best, from your vantage point, these kinds of issues might be addressed.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Okay. I think we can talk about that in terms of the indicator project and all of things in terms of the whole of government piece.

    I have one big question about citizen engagement. I think there's been an ongoing fight on the role of Parliament and the role of the public service. There's no question in my mind that how we deliver programs must have some engagement of the people who will then be asked to deliver those programs, whether it's the voluntary sector or whatever. The success of a program has to be making sure that the people now being asked to implement it had some say earlier on in order to prevent mistakes.

    Last week at an International Association for Public Participation meeting, Miriam Wyman and David Shulman's paper, From Venting to Inventing, I think was lamenting the fact that the guidelines on citizen engagement seem to have been stillborn. But I was more upset to realize that at DFO in the Atlantic region they have no capacity to do citizen engagement.

    When some of us are celebrating what they did in Holman by involving that community in counting the seals, counting the char, and setting quotas much tighter than any DFO official would ever have done, and when you see the excellence of that up there, involving the community to set some quotas, and you realize there's zero capacity in Atlantic Canada to do any citizen engagement...and then you wonder why we're in trouble.

    Does Treasury Board have some ability to set some guidelines on this stuff, not in terms of the “what”, because I think it's Parliament's job to ask Canadians what programs we need in what kind of Canada, but in terms of the “how” you deliver them. That has to be the role of the public service, and they have to set some priorities on this.

    I guess the deal this paper presented last week was should it be mandated, and could Treasury Board have a role in mandating some sort of role for citizen engagement on this?

    My other little tiny question is, if we had a more transparent government, how much money would we save on all these access to information requests in little pockets all over the place? And--

  (1230)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bennett, I think you've posed the question now. We'll have a response and move on.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: To the first point you raised, Madam Bennett, I don't know if you remember when we tabled Results for Canadians. There were four principles outlined in that for our management framework. One of them was citizen focus, a citizen centre, that when you deliver programs and services you should have citizens at the centre of it. That should be your point of reference. That means you have to engage the citizen, as you said, at the front end, not only when he receives the service.

    I would say a better example would be the GOL initiative, where they apply that principle. Really, they put the citizen at the centre of the initiative and receive feedback on a continual basis on how to deliver the services through the web. It is very specific.

    I would say it should be part of all activities in the department, so I'm surprised when you say that there was no capacity there at DFO to engage the citizens. But more than that, I would say we also want the departments to be able even to evaluate the satisfaction of citizens with the services they are receiving. We have a specific objective and a specific result we want to achieve over the years, but I'm sure this is a place where a lot of improvement needs to be done on that side.

    I don't know if Jim wants to add something to that.

    Mr. Jim Judd: The Treasury Board's focus, as Madam Robillard has said, has been on the Citizens First surveys and work that's being done on delivery of government services generally to Canadians.

    On the issue of guidelines, I will have to check to see whether or not something on this is not covered in the current communications policy. We can get back to you on that.

    On the ATI requests issue, I seem to recall a number. I can't dredge it out of my brain at the moment, but I will get it to you. There was an assessment done last year on how much it cost to administer in the government.

  (1235)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, we did a study on that. I don't remember that number either.

    I agree with you that more and more, with the technology we have right now, it's easier to be more transparent, to give information, to be proactive on that side. For instance, people were very surprised to discover suddenly that all internal audit reports in Parliament are put on the web. And this is mandatory. You don't need access to information to get those reports, you have it on web.

    So I think more and more we should do that, generally speaking.

    The Chair: To Mr. Judd, if you're making the information available, please make it available to the chair, and we'll circulate it to all members.

    Mr. Jim Judd: Absolutely.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Minister, one of the things we learned in our review of the public service renewal is that notwithstanding the good work of «La Relève» and the recommendations that came out of that work, there are many departments where the department head or the deputy minister are not really that actively involved in human resource development plans.

    If you look at government, people are the assets, and it seems to me this shouldn't be delegated three layers down. The deputy minister or deputy head of a department or agency should be involved in the human resource development planning within their organization.

    What are you planning to do about that, if you agree that's an issue, or is that something that would reside in the PCO or the Public Service Commission? How do we fix this?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I will share with you exactly that view, that human resources shouldn't be in the hands of managers but first of all the deputy minister, and not the professionals of human resources in each department. It has been the case over the years, and I would say that through Bill C-25 we've tried to identify more clearly the responsibilities of the managers.

    Managers should be in charge of a chart, from the deputy minister along the way from the...and also the middle managers in the regions everywhere. They should be in charge of their HR, including the relations with the unions. I think over the years it was not the case, and this is exactly what we want to do through the legislation but also through non-legislative initiatives that we're having right now on the side of HR, that they should in be charge.

    I would say that from the clerk, with the deputy minister community now, having to follow that over the years, that will need a cultural change in the public service. We always say that, “cultural change”, but that's true on the side of HR, I think, to again give priority to that.

    I don't know, Jim, if you want to add something.

    Mr. Jim Judd: At the moment, Mr. Cullen, it is an issue that is getting more and more priority with deputy ministers. Currently, in anticipation of the possible adoption by Parliament of Bill C-25, I think I have a group of 12 deputy ministers who are working with me on the implementation, on actually putting it into effect over time. It's my hope that we will actively make those people part owners, if you will, of all of this so that they see themselves as having a stake in it.

    Going back to what Madam Robillard said, I think this is going to be a change. Deputy ministers are going to have to spend more time than some of them may have been spending in the past on these issues. It will be a bit of a cultural change, but it's something we would actually monitor from the Treasury Board on an ongoing basis. It would be one of the issues on which deputies' management performance would be assessed annually.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, and good luck with that. I think it's needed.

    I had a question that I had hoped would come out during the discussion on Bill C-25. Maybe it did and I just missed the meeting. I have some colleagues, especially those in Atlantic Canada and out in the west, who are concerned that when positions are posted by the Public Service Commission, people who are far away.... And I'm going to present this in very simple terms, because I have never been exposed to the detail of it. As an MP from Toronto, if something is posted by the Public Service Commission it's pretty close to Ottawa.

    At any rate, some colleagues argue quite strenuously that if you're in Atlantic Canada or in a western province, you're precluded from applying for many of the positions in the Public Service Commission if they're based, say, in eastern Canada or in Ottawa or Montreal or Toronto.

    What is the status of that? How does that work, and does Bill C-25 address it? What's the current status?

  (1240)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: This is what we call the area of selection. That means when you open up a job in Atlantic Canada or in the west, you can choose the area of selection. This is permitted through the legislation, and the complaints from parliamentarians to the Public Service Commission concerned how that concept was implemented in that a job in Ottawa could never be open to somebody living in Moncton or in Victoria. Parliamentarians were complaining about that, and some met with the Public Service Commission.

    Last year, and into this year, the Public Service Commission conducted pilot projects across the country, four or five different pilot projects. They reported on those projects to parliamentarians, and they are supposed to come back with their final recommendations this month or next month on how to improve the system.

    I've always said that I'm open to looking at their recommendations. Of course we have to look at the cost involved here. Right now, if they opened up completely across the country, I would say they don't have the tools to be able to manage all the applications they would receive, so we have to be sure they're able to manage that. Among parliamentarians, however, there was interesting debate, because some parliamentarians wanted to have all the jobs in the national capital region open to all Canadians, but when we come to a region in the west, as an example, should we open all the jobs over there to all Canadians? Suddenly parliamentarians were saying, “No, no, no, let's open that only in the west, or only in the Atlantic provinces.” So there was very clear consensus about the national capital region, but when it came to different parts of the country the opinions on that were more diverse.

    When the Public Service Commission reports back to Parliament on that, we'll be in a position to follow up.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

    I learned on the school ground that two wrongs don't make a right, and it continues that way.

    We had a budget two months ago, and there was a big announcement in that budget about reallocation of over $1 billion, the budget said. I understand the target in the budget was for sometime in May.

    Well, it's May now, and May is almost over, so it will be interesting to see how the news media will score the so-called winners and losers. Perhaps you can comment on that, and then take it further: What about fundamentally reviewing what government should not be attempting to do so that in the end it takes less of the fruits of labour of workers and it's more about the right-sizing of government rather than just reallocation?

    So talk about those two things.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: First of all, about the $1 billion in reallocation, as you said, it was written in the budget that it should be for May. We are now only at May 26, so I think I will be in a position in a few days from now to make that announcement, when the decision is taken. So you will be able to have an opinion on the decision.

    But it was clear that it was to reallocate money from lower priorities to higher priorities as outlined in the budget. So we will be in a position to discuss that a few days from now.

    On the size of the public service....

  (1245)  

    Mr. Jim Judd: We went through a large exercise in the mid-1990s, called “program review”, which I think changed fairly substantially the size and nature of large parts of the federal government and public service. It is I think hoped that the five-year cycle of expenditure and management reviews, which are also about mandates and policies and programs, will allow us to engage in a much more fundamental review of both individual departments and agencies and their mandates, programs, activities, management, and so on, as well as what the government is doing, in a cross-cutting fashion, across departments and agencies. Again, it's an area in which we hope Madam Robillard will be announcing details imminently.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Just as a supplemental, I understand that one the new concepts is moving heavily into public-private partnerships in so many enterprises. When that seems to work, then we ask the fundamental question, why is the public there in the first place? The private sector is doing very well, thank you very much, and it may be that government should regulate but not operate.

    That's getting to the issue of asking the fundamental question, should government even be doing the particular exercise at all? Then that reflects on how much it takes out of the economy and all the rest of it, right-sizing of government rather than just reallocation.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, you're right in saying that, and it's why we said we would build on the program review we had some years ago. We have to ask if we have value for money, but first we have to ask, should the federal government do that, or can somebody else do better? What about other jurisdictions who perhaps are delivering the same programs; do we have duplication here?

    So the fundamental question here for the whole program will be addressed in a cycle of five years. That's why I think it's more fundamental. This is only good management, so we have to do it.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Minister.

    I'm going to go to Mr. Szabo, who has a short question, and then I need a couple of minutes of committee time just to deal with a new piece of business.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

    Minister, each of the departments produces a report on plans and priorities, an RPP. The Treasury Board does a review or an audit of these, and they have certain criteria, certain specifications, certain areas that they must comment on and must include. In our review at the subcommittee on estimates, Treasury Board personnel advised us that this is a post facto review, and that in fact Treasury Board does not go back at departments when they submit their drafts to ask them to prepare them more comprehensively or in line with the requirements. The Auditor General has confirmed that as well.

    I'm wondering whether or not this is indicative of the fact--or the “possibility”, let me put it that way--that Treasury Board really doesn't have the teeth to be able to administer some of the areas that I think people feel Treasury Board should be doing.

    That may also relate to the earlier question I asked about the Treasury Board encouraging, and more than encouraging but instructing, ministers and committees that they must do the estimates so that we can all do a better job.

    Mr. Jim Judd: The short answer is that the current description of the process you have is correct. With respect to the future, we intend to try to operate differently. I would suggest to you that it's not necessarily a question of whether or not we have teeth but whether or not we have enough teeth. That's an internal resource allocation issue for me to deal with in terms of how we can change our approach on reports on plans and priorities to get more advance work done with departments in terms of what is or is not in there.

    I don't expect we'll be able to do it across the board, because I think there are somewhere in the order of 88 filed annually, but we'd certainly want to focus on specific organizations annually who we have developed a particular interest in for some reason or another.

  (1250)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Madam Robillard and Mr. Judd, thank you very much. We appreciate your time.

    Now, unfortunately, I'm wearing glasses that are 20 years old--I broke my two other pairs--and I can't make out Richard's last name here.

    A voice: Neville.

    The Chair: Right.

    Mr. Neville, thank you. My memory is not up to the task either, I have to tell you.

    Again, thank you, we appreciate the time. As always, we're interested in the dialogue.

    I have just a couple of quick questions for the committee.

    First, just for notice, we're meeting tomorrow at our regularly scheduled time on the main estimates of the Privacy Commissioner, and on Wednesday, May 28, we're meeting in room 371 of West Block for final consideration of the main estimates.

    I have one other piece of business. The committee has had referred to it two questions. When questions are put on the Order Paper, if they are not responded to within 45 days then they are referred to this committee and we can decide whether we wish to take any action on them. There are two questions currently that are approaching that position.

    Question 177 is a question from Mr. Reynolds of the Alliance, and question 186 is a question from Mr. Ritz. In both cases, I am informed....

    On the first one, they believe the question will be answered today or tomorrow. So they're right at the outer edge of this, but unless the committee feels otherwise, I don't see any real need for us to take action on it.

    On the second one, where they still have a few days, they tell us they'll be answering it today.

    Perhaps, Monsieur Lanctôt, you could take that back to your colleagues, and if that's not done we'll bring it back to the committee.

    Okay? Fine.

    So tomorrow we will meet at our regularly scheduled time of 3:30, in room 362, to do the main estimates of the Privacy Commissioner, and on Wednesday it will be in room 371 at 3:30 just for the consideration of the main estimates. That's just for the formal votes on them.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Will the appropriate notices be sent to our offices?

    The Chair: The notices will be sent to your offices.

    Thank you.

    We're adjourned.