TRGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 23, 2002

Á

1135

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound, Lib.))

Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.)

Á

1140

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Moore

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Moore

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Moore

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. Moore

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Á

1150

Mr. Moore

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Moore

Ms. Carole Swan (Associate Secretary, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

Mr. Moore

Ms. Robillard

Mr. Moore

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Á

1155

Ms. Robillard

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Robillard

Â

1200

Mr. James Lahey (Associate Secretary, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Williams

Mr. James Lahey

Mr. John Williams

Ms. Robillard

Mr. John Williams

Â

1205

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. John Williams

Ms. Robillard

Mr. John Williams

Ms. Robillard

Mr. John Williams

Â

1210

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Ms. Carole Swan

Mr. John Williams

Ms. Carole Swan

Mr. John Williams

Ms. Carole Swan

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Dave Bickerton (Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates Directorate, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Dave Bickerton

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Dave Bickerton

Mr. John Williams

Â

1215

Ms. Robillard

Mr. John Williams

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. John Williams

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. John Williams

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.)

Ms. Lucienne Robillard

Mr. James Lahey

Â

1225

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Mr. James Lahey

Mr. Alex Shepherd

Ms. Robillard

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Â

1230

Ms. Robillard

Â

1235

Ms. Roberta Santi (Associate Deputy Comptroller General, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

---

NUMBER 066

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 23, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1135)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. I'd like to start the proceedings. The minister will be here until 1 p.m. We are meeting pursuant to Standing Order 81(6), regarding the main estimates and the votes.

    I want to welcome Minister Robillard, the President of the Treasury Board, along with secretariat members Carole Swan and James Lahey. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.

    Madam President, it's the usual. Give us a dissertation and then we'll open it for questions.

[Translation]

    Hon. Lucienne Robillard (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Treasury Board Secretariat's Report on Plans and Priorities, and how we are continuing to modernize government to better serve Canadians in the 21st century.

    Two years ago, the Treasury Board Secretariat published Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the Government. In that document, we promised to achieve excellence in management focused on four commitments: service to citizens, values, responsible spending, and results.

    That vision of management excellence for the Government of Canada continues to be our guide today. It comprises three main strategic outcomes: effective stewardship of federal financial resources, effective management of human resources, and improved service to Canadians.

    First, let me say that the Treasury Board Secretariat is looking on the next three years as a transition period. The changes to our mandate that translate into different ways of doing things while pursuing our strategic outcomes have been or are in the process of being finalized. To this end, the Treasury Board Secretariat has taken steps to better align its resources with the government's priorities and commitments. As an example, our Service Canada Initiative, following a successful pilot phase, has been transferred to Human Resources Development Canada and to Commuincation Canada. In addition, as you know, the responsibility for infrastructure was recently moved to the Deputy Prime Minister's office as a result of the realignment of federal responsibilities announced last January.

    The coming fiscal year will see the completion of the work of the Task Force on Modernizing Human Resources Management in the public service and is also shaping up to be a transition year for our management practices.

[English]

    The three strategic objectives I have just mentioned have been at the heart of our mandate since the Treasury Board Secretariat became the government's management board in 1997. They are the mainstays of our commitment to Canadians.

    Let me now highlight the Treasury Board Secretariat's main activities to date and our priorities for the years ahead.

    The Treasury Board Secretariat is in the midst of a number of modernization efforts with one end goal--to help the government provide the highest-quality programs and services to Canadians. Effective stewardship of the government's financial resources is an important part of this.

    Our modern comptrollership initiative, for example, has been contributing to effective stewardship by shifting from a primarily financial focus to a broader management perspective. It provides a framework of policies that allow managers the flexibility to innovate while providing a strong basis for accountability. Modern comptrollership gives us better performance information, sound risk management, and appropriate control systems. At the same time, it reinforces values and ethics while improving the government's accountability to Parliament and Canadians.

    After pilot testing of the initiative showed the positive effects of modern comptrollership on decision-making at all levels of government, we launched the initiative government-wide last June. In 2001-02, the number of departments and agencies actively implementing its methods increased from 15 to 64, and others will begin implementing them this year and next. The full implementation will take several years to accomplish. It requires learning how to do things differently in an integrated way, making appropriate cultural and structural changes, and strengthening the capacity of organizations to do these successfully.

    In addition to our efforts to reform government's oversight of its financial resources, the Treasury Board, in its employer role, is working to modernize the management of its human resources. If the Government of Canada is to be the best it can be, our workforce must be the best it can be.

    We are going ahead with classification reform, which is our system for evaluating and compensating work in the public service. The new system will be a balanced approach that reflects labour market realities, treats men and women equitably, and makes it easier to recruit and retain the people we need to serve Canadians in the years ahead.

    We are as committed as ever to making the modernization of human resources management a hallmark of Canada's public service and will pursue this goal vigorously. The public service must be able to attract, keep, and develop highly motivated men and women. To do this, our modern, streamlined, decentralized human resources management system must be based on trust, respect, and accountability.

    Guided by the work of the task force on modernization, we will soon begin reforming our human resources management practices. The task force is presently preparing its recommendations to the government, which will include a number of changes to the public service legislation. The resultant legislative framework will enable us to build a public service better adapted to the realities of the 21st century. However, we have not waited for legislative change to begin adopting and implementing a range of policies to improve the day-to-day lives of our employees.

    Our efforts to modernize human resources management also focus on creating a work environment that is healthy and enabling. To that end, we have recently introduced a continuous learning policy that will help attract and retain bright minds and ensure that ongoing knowledge and skill development will create a productive, sustainable workforce.

    Under this policy, learning is an integral part of the job and is in line with the deeper cultural change we are making as part of our commitment to create a skilled workforce and exemplary work environment.

Á  (1140)  

[Translation]

    Improving service delivery is central to our vision of excellence. In this area, we remain committed to our Government On-Line initiative. In the December 2001 budget, we secured stable funding of $600 million over four years for GOL and extended the target date to 2005.

    This initiative meets the needs of Canadians for better service delivery because it delivers government services in the most efficient way, in the official language of their choice. Already, Canadians are interacting with the government electronically. They can now apply for employment insurance benefits and file their taxes on-line, and there are more services to come. We are also working to ensure Canadians can conduct electronic transactions with the government in a secure environment.

    These efforts are paying off. In its annual survey, the business consulting firm, Accenture, ranked Canada first in the world for e-government leadership for the second year in a row. The Accenture report looked at on-line-government offerings in 23 countries and ranked countries according to how well citizens are able to access a wide variety of government services on-line. This recognition of Canada's leadership for our GOL initiative is the result of our commitment to put Canadians at the heart of our service delivery stragegy.

    Improving the delivery of services and programs also requires innovative and efficient methods. Last winter, we introduced a new Policy on Alternative Service Delivery. Among other things, when the government is contemplating alternative service delivery, this policy requires that the decision-making process include public interest criteria. And this is only one of the policies we adopted recently that allow us to fulfill our commitment to serve our fellow citizens.

    Mr. Chairman, I have attempted to highlight some of the most important ways the Treasury Board Secretariat is working to achieve excellence in management focussed on service to citizens, values, responsible spending, and results.

    The structure of the Report on Plans and Priorities submitted by my department demonstrates how we hope to achieve this, and speaks to our belief that accountability is paramount. The Report on Plan and Priorities is organized according to three strategic outcomes or long-term benefits we aim to produce through our actions: effective stewardship of financial resources, effective management of human resources, and service improvement.

    This new structure stems from the adoption of results-based management and reporting. It links results or outcomes with the actions required to achieve them. It also puts in place a solid basis for reporting and assessing the department's success in fulfilling its mandate as the government's management board.

    It is in this spirit of accountability, and transparency, that I have come here today to discuss the operations of the Treasury Board Secretariat. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any question by members of this committee with the assistance of my officials.

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Minister Robillard.

    Our first round of questions will come from Mr. James Moore of the Alliance.

    Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): I guess I'll be embodying the spirits of my opposition colleagues.

    I appreciate the minister coming to committee. She spoke about the Treasury Board Secretariat and why it was a good office, but I have to ask a question that, frankly, I think most Canadian citizens would ask if they were put in my position.

    The Auditor General said senior public servants broke just about every rule in the book in the recent fiasco associated with Groupaction. How can the minister assure us that the secretariat for the Treasury Board is doing their job and providing better government service when this is the reality?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, that is the reality. I must say, as President of Treasury Board, we're very concerned about the findings of the Auditor General. I asked my officials to meet right away with the officials of the Office of the Auditor General to study in detail the findings of the report of the Auditor General. So we're already working on that with the officials of the Auditor General.

    As you know, we already found some problems through an internal audit a year and a half ago, in September or October 2000. There was an internal audit on sponsorship programs especially. We worked on an action plan with the department to monitor what happened after that internal audit.

    So we're on the way to working with the officials of Public Works to correct what happened there and bring in more control measures.

    Mr. James Moore: When will your internal audit, which you just described, be tabled?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: The internal audit was already tabled. It was tabled in October 2000.

    Mr. James Moore: But if I heard you correctly, didn't you say you were looking into new ones?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No.

    Mr. James Moore: Okay.

    I would ask you to comment, and again, these questions are perhaps more subjective and maybe they give you more latitude to dance out of them. When the Auditor General, Ms. Fraser, reported, she didn't ask the government to call in the RCMP. She called in the RCMP herself because she didn't have faith in the system, in the structure of accountability that exists there. She felt she had to go straight to the RCMP and get the RCMP to do it. I don't know if that means she didn't trust the government to call the RCMP. What can Canadians take from the fact that the Auditor General herself didn't trust this government to enact the appropriate accountability mechanisms?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I don't think it's a question of trusting the government or not trusting the government. I think this is a question of assuming the responsibility she has as an officer of Parliament. It was her duty to do it when she discovered the fact. One of the reasons she referred the case to the RCMP was the lack of documentation in the files.

    To go further, she didn't say that she found any specific illegal action. She said the bureaucrats didn't follow the rules. They didn't follow the Financial Administration Act, and there was no documentation in the files. That was serious enough, I think, to assume her responsibility to refer the case to the RCMP to further an investigation, and that's what she has done. That's why I'm very concerned about it.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. James Moore: I have a numbers question. Table 5.1 of Budget 2001 shows that in that fiscal year, the federal government expected to collect $430 million from the new $24 air security tax. The same table suggests that $462 million will be spent on a new approach to air security. Yet part 1, section 37 of the Budget Implementation Act states that “The amount of 340 million dollars is appropriated to the Minister from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for payment to the” Canadian Air Transport Security Authority.

    There are two questions associated with that. One, we can't find a record in the estimates of the transport minister receiving the $340 million from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or paying out that money to the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. Where would those amounts be listed if we were to look further and harder? I would assume that by law they're supposed to be there, but we couldn't find them.

    The second question is that the budget promised a payment of $462 million, but the Budget Implementation Act only mentions $340 million. Where is the other $122 million?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, I will ask my officials here if somebody has the answer. This is not in the plans and priorities of the Treasury Board Secretariat, you understand. You're referring to part 1 and part 2 of the budget, right?

    Mr. James Moore: Yes.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You're referring specifically to the transport department? You're looking at the estimates of the transport department here?

    Mr. James Moore: Yes.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: That's part 2 of the budget, yes, but today we're studying part 3 of the Treasury Board Secretariat. So it's quite different.

    The Chair: That doesn't come under the purview of the minister, but if she has an official who could do that, then maybe she can. The clerk informs me that it's really out of order, but we'll see.

    She says she doesn't have it.

    Mr. James Moore: I have another question. I actually wanted to ask this yesterday, when we had Minister Collenette here, but time didn't permit, so I'll ask it of you because maybe this is more your area of expertise.

    Can the minister tell this committee, and clarify once and for all for Canadians, in law what is the difference between a tax and a fee?

    Ms. Carole Swan (Associate Secretary, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Fees relate to charges made for rights and privileges for regulatory programs where there are advantages conferred and for issues where users receive a larger benefit than the general taxpayers. These are things that are attributed more or less directly to the service or to the regulatory program in terms of cost recovery.

    Mr. James Moore: Right. Therefore, given the definition that a fee is related directly to a service, and it's generally accepted that a fee is dedicated to the appropriation of that service on a cost-recovery basis, would not the $24 air tax be considered a tax, not a fee, as the minister keeps defending? The air carriers, when they collect the tax, cut a cheque to the Receiver General, not to the independent air security authority. It would be a tax, right?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: But I would say that for the tax recovery in the fees, generally speaking--and as you know, we have 400 programs right now where you would find some fees or some cost recovery--the money doesn't go directly to the departments. It goes to le Fonds consolidé.

    Mr. James Moore: Therefore, it's a tax. The $24 air tax is a tax.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): No. Just because it goes to the Consolidated Revenue Fund doesn't mean it's a tax. All funds go there.

    Mr. James Moore: That's not true.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, of course.

    Mr. James Moore: That's fine. I won't use the balance of my time.

    The Chair: Thanks, James.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I think this is an interesting point. We've had a debate many times about the EI fund. The Auditor General said proper accounting is that all of the funds go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. We don't have dedicated taxes so that every dollar you collect from the fuel tax, for instance, has to be spent here. There isn't a colour coding of dollars. That's the way we operate.

    Maybe the minister or her staff would like to comment generally on the administration of funds and that depositing it into the Consolidated Revenue Fund does not mean by definition it's a tax. That is just not the case. Maybe the minister or her staff would comment on that.

    The other area on which I wanted to get some elaboration from the minister or her staff has to do with a matter that was raised before the public accounts committee when the Auditor General reported to it. It had to do with human resources policy and the hiring of full-time people versus contract people. This is a very significant issue in terms of public policy. The Auditor General reported to the effect that the process involved in hiring full-time employees was so convoluted, complex, and time-consuming that in terms of the culture of human resources management, it had driven senior officials to revert to hiring people on a non-full-time basis. I don't recall whether it was contract, part-time, or a combination.

    Minister, this is an area that affects the whole of government in terms of policies and practices to do with human resources. I hope you'll be able to give us an idea of how we have responded to the observations of the Auditor General with regard to those human resources practices. What plans have we included in our plans and priorities to ensure that we are in fact able to attract and keep full-time employees, rather than be subject to a process of convenience, which simply has led to high turnover and in fact extra cost to the government?

Á  (1155)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Let me say first, Mr. Chair, that I agree with what the Auditor General told the members of the public accounts committee, and we are also concerned when we look at the numbers. She explained to the members of the committee that the complex system we have right now.... I wouldn't say complex, but rather outdated. We did not revise the legislation on that for more than 30 years. So we have an outdated system. I think the Auditor General said that on average it would take more than six months to hire a permanent employee. A manager won't wait that long, and that's why they found different ways to do it. More than that, with the demographic challenge we face right now to attract new people to the public service, I don't think people will wait six months if they have another job offer from the private sector.

    Having said that, I think that's why we need to revise the legislation. I'll give you an example. In the current legislation there's no definition of “merit”, and you know that we have a system based on that. What's the consequence of that? It means that over the years we have accumulated what I would call jurisprudence. We now have 12 different recourse mechanisms in the system.

    We have to modernize that regime. That's why the Prime Minister appointed a task force, which is chaired by Ran Quail. It is supposed to recommend to the government a few weeks from now a new legislative framework that will be more efficient for our HR people.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Do I have any more time?

    The Chair: Sure.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

    It's encouraging that we do this. In terms of a culture within the civil service, Treasury Board can certainly provide the framework, the leadership, etc., but can you give us an idea of whether or not there is a recognition of, say, the hypothesis that the culture is so deeply embedded that even to change or to modify these roles is not necessarily going to translate into the operational activity within various government departments?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, I wouldn't be ready to conclude that. I have to tell you--and perhaps my associate responsible for that file could add something about it--that last summer I travelled across the country to meet managers all across the country, not only in Ottawa, to know what's going on there. I would tell you, from discussing these matters with the managers, and especially the middle managers in different regions of the country, that the middle managers are very anxious to bring in some reform here and to be more efficient. When we bring significant changes into the system, we need some cultural change at the same time, and we will have to work on that too.

    On the side of the employees, when we did a survey in 1999--it was the first time we had done a survey among our employees--we discovered some realities that perhaps we were not sufficiently aware of. This year we are conducting the same survey again to be sure we know exactly what's going on in the public service at large, not only in Ottawa.

    James Lahey is the associate secretary. Jim, perhaps....

  (1200)  

    Mr. James Lahey (Associate Secretary, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): I think, Madam President, you covered the points there.

    I might just add briefly with regard to the previous question about term employment that one of the features of the contract settlement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada that we entered into last fall is a joint study between the Treasury Board Secretariat and the alliance on the use of term employees, and how that could be better managed within the existing legal arrangement. That might be looked into this fall.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I have another question, but maybe I'll wait until the second round. How's that?

    The Chair: Mr. Williams.

    Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, Madam Minister.

    I noted in the Calgary Herald in an article dated May 9, 2002, that the “feds” scrapped a $100 million pay equity scheme. It sounds as if that whole concept of UCS is down the drain. Is that correct?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Jim, is that correct?

    Mr. James Lahey: Yes...no....

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. James Lahey: Not as stated. What the president announced on May 8 was that we have decided not to pursue a universal system for classification reform; that we will tailor our approach by group, as the minister mentioned in her opening remarks. As for the investments we've made so far, we expect to be able to get a lot of value out of what we've done, in that we expect to build on the standard--the basic framework of 16 elements for describing work that was developed--in the group-by-group approach. Also, we expect to be able to use the job descriptions that were prepared in that format as we convert, group by group, over the coming years.

    Mr. John Williams: But the universal part is down the drain?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, you're right. We've decided that after so many years of working on it, in the end it would be unrealistic, especially when we consider the diversity of jobs in the public service. To apply one standard to all the different jobs we have would be unworkable. Also, to be more realistic with what's going on with the labour market outside the public service I think is essential to being able to attract new people in the next 20 years.

    Mr. John Williams: Mr. Chairman, I would just say, welcome to the real world. I said back at the time they introduced the universal classification system that you cannot ignore market forces, unless you live in a Communist world; that way, you can legislate them out of existence. We fortunately don't live in a Communist world and we do have a market that says the market pays what people deserve, depending on the shortage, depending on the skill and availability of workers, the mobility of workers, and so on. This universal classification system was a bureaucrat's dream and an administrative nightmare that has turned out to be totally and completely unworkable. I am disappointed it's taken the minister so long to come around to recognizing that the universal classification system didn't have a prayer of working in the first place, and now it is being scrapped.

  (1205)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: I do understand that you are disappointed and satisfied at the same time.

    Mr. John Williams: Disappointed and satisfied? I would compliment the minister on the fact that she is moving forward to try to ensure civil servants are properly compensated and so on, but this notion of a universal classification system never, ever did have a prayer.

    The Chair: You didn't like 78 different classifications?

    Mr. John Williams: No, because they'd try to roll it into one. It would never work. The point I'm really trying to come to is that the bureaucracy has been looking backwards, saying we've got all these problems we want to fix.

    But I understand this. Take the economics profession, Mr. Chairman. Somebody analysed the number of men and women in the economics department. They found that exactly half of the economists were women and half were men. There was obviously no discrimination in the hiring of economists. So why are we even trying to go down this road at the expense of $100 million? I would like either the minister or Mr. Lahey to explain why they thought it was important to go down this road.

    It is a rearguard action to satisfy the human rights tribunal, which seems to have its own agenda. When she appears before the public accounts committee later this afternoon, we may hear from Ms. Falardeau-Ramsay why she feels she has to push this agenda, which is an unworkable one.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Let me tell you something first.

    When we discussed the universal classification system, the objective was to modernize the classification. It was a good objective. We have to modernize the classification. If you were to see some of the job descriptions right now, you would realize they are completely outdated. So we don't have any choice: we need to modernize the classification.

    How do you do it? You do it with the approach we have been working on for some years--the universal one--or you do it by targetting some groups and really try to understand what's going on with these professions, and to have the right balance and evaluation of them.

    Now, depending on the tool you choose, it doesn't mean you put aside the pay equity principle. You're referring to the pay equity principle, which we're still committed to.

    How do you apply it? This is another thing. I think we have to look very closely at it. I would agree with the member that in an ideal world, where you find each profession divided 50-50 between women and men, perhaps we won't have any problem with pay equity. But this is not the case in all jobs. We also have to be realistic about it.

    Mr. John Williams: On the slightly different subject of demographics of the public service--which we all know is going to become a serious problem--are you going to give any directives to the President of the Public Service Commission, who didn't feel it appropriate to comment--or couldn't find the extra pages to write in his annual report--about the serious demographic problems you are going to be facing? It's a problem in all sectors, but the public service is going to have a serious demographic issue.

    When I asked the President of the Public Service Commission about this, he didn't feel it necessary to inform Parliament of his particular views on the looming problems. Would you pass on to the President of the Public Service Commission that you expect Parliament to be kept informed of these issues?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Williams knows quite well that the Public Service Commission does not report to the President of the Treasury Board. The President of the Treasury Board doesn't order or give directives to the President of the Public Service Commission.

    Having said that, I am sure and expect that the president will answer to the demands of parliamentarians, because his commission reports to Parliament.

    Mr. John Williams: Thank you.

    I'm going to change the subject again, Mr. Chairman.

    I refer to the Auditor General's Report of April 2002. On page 24 of chapter 8, in the section, “Other Observations”, the Auditor General refers to the Treasury Board Secretariat and departments receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in grants before receiving Parliament's approval. The Treasury Board is using its contingency fund to advance funds to different departments prior to Parliament's approval.

    Mr. Chairman, the whole estimates process--the foundation of our democracy--is based on government not spending money until Parliament has appropriated funds. In the report of the Auditor General, we're now finding Parliament is being ignored or end-run.

    Do you have any comment on this?

  (1210)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes.

    Carole, my associate, will start.

    Ms. Carole Swan: As you are well aware, vote 5 has both temporary and permanent allocation elements involved with it. The temporary aspect really contributes to the efficient and orderly conduct of government business. It provides limited discretion and flexibility to respond quickly to unforeseen expenditure requirements.

    These are temporary allocations, which are identified for Parliament in the supplementary estimates, and they're returned to vote 5. This is something that we try to make minimal use of, that it is not a very large aspect of the usage of vote 5.

    Mr. John Williams: Let me quote the Auditor General here. She's saying:

In the 2001-02 fiscal year alone, departments used temporary authority from the Government Contingencies Vote to pay, for example, $95 million in grants to the airline industry and $50 million in grants for sustainable development technology. In our view, these were not miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses. Moreover, at the time the departments made the payments, Parliament had not authorized them to do so—a view we believe is supported by Speakers' rulings on this issue.

    The Speaker speaks for Parliament, and Parliament grants the money. If the Speaker says you shouldn't be doing this, my question is, why do you think you should be doing this? Why do you think you have the authority to be doing this?

    Ms. Carole Swan: If I might, I'll ask Dave Bickerton to speak about the Speaker's ruling and how that is affecting us.

    In terms of the airline industry, though, I would point out that the payments that were made to the airline industry were unforeseen.

    Mr. John Williams: Not according to the Auditor General.

    Ms. Carole Swan: This was in response to the events of September 11, and they were unforeseen.

    Mr. John Williams: Well, I quoted the Auditor General:

In our view, these were not miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses.

    You had the authority to come to Parliament and seek a supplementary estimate if you needed to give $50 million to the airline industry. I'm not questioning whether they should or shouldn't have got the money, but you had the time to come to Parliament to seek the approval before you did so. That's my point.

    So can we have an assurance that when these types of issues come along, when you do want to spend $50 million of taxpayers' money, that you come to Parliament and say, “May we?” before you do? Is that too much to ask?

    Mr. Dave Bickerton (Executive Director, Expenditure Operations and Estimates Directorate, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Mr. Chairman, there have been several questions asked, and perhaps I could deal with them in turn.

    The Auditor General, when she was making her references to the airline industry, I think somewhere in the report--I don't have it in front of me--indicated that it was indeed unforeseen. I think her question was, was it “miscellaneous” and “minor”.

    Mr. John Williams: Let me quote again:

In our view, these were not miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses.

    That is a direct quote from page 24, chapter 8, of the April 2002 report.

    Mr. Dave Bickerton: Again, I don't have the comment. I do not doubt that that was said.

    Mr. John Williams: So my question is, when you decide to spend $50 million on a particular issue, don't you feel you should come to Parliament first to get that authority? The minister knows she can run in anytime she wants with a supplementary estimate and seek authority.

    Mr. Dave Bickerton: Mr. Chair, the supply process is very fixed. It is negotiated with the parties. There are three supply periods during the course of the year. The first one ends in December. This happened to occur prior to that. It was deemed by the Minister of Transport that in the case of the airline industry it was urgent to provide relief to that industry.

    Mr. John Williams: My point is, we have the President of the Treasury Board here, who presumably authorized the spending of vote 5 to the Minister of Transport, who is not here to explain his position, but I'm asking the President of Treasury Board, why couldn't you have come to Parliament with a supplementary estimate for $50 million saying, can I have the authority to make this grant to the airline industry, which is in trouble? It would have taken three days.

  (1215)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: You know that we come back to Parliament twice for supplementary estimates, and this is at fixed times in the year. When there is a situation like that--and this is why we have vote 5--the department asks the Treasury Board Secretariat to analyse and look at the criteria we use to permit vote 5. It is presented to the ministers of the Treasury Board and the ministers of the Treasury Board approve it. After that, as you know, we report to Parliament.

    Mr. John Williams: My whole thesis, Mr. Chair, is that rather than getting hung up on this--we can only report twice a year.... When they want to spend $50 million on a specific project--and I'm not debating the merits of the project; it's the principle of seeking parliamentary approval beforehand. The headline of the article is that departments are paying hundreds of millions of dollars in grants before receiving Parliament's authorization.

    We either have a Parliament that authorizes the expenditure...because what can we do after the fact except rubber-stamp what has happened? I'm asking the President of the Treasury Board, can we please recognize the supremacy of Parliament and require that they ask for our authority on an expenditure of $50 million before it happens rather than afterwards?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Chair, it is clear that after my discussion with the Auditor General.... I never understood, and perhaps this is the point of view of the members, and then this is quite different. If the member is against any use of vote 5, he should state it very clearly. This is not the point of the Auditor General, and this is not the point of the Secretary of the Treasury Board either.

    The Auditor General found that perhaps we should be more coherent in our use of vote 5. The secretary has committed himself to revising the criteria to be sure that we apply it in the right way. We'll do that, but it is certain that we need vote 5 for what can happen in an emergency situation.

    Mr. John Williams: I agree with the use of vote 5 for emergencies, Mr. Chair. I'm not disagreeing with it. The question, of course, is, what constitutes an emergency?

    We have $1.4 billion in heating fuel rebates paid out under Governor General's warrants when Parliament could have been recalled after the election to approve this. The Auditor General says out of $1.4 billion, $1 billion was wasted because the program wasn't properly designed. We weren't able to debate it in Parliament because the Prime Minister hadn't recalled Parliament. They went out and spent $1.4 billion without parliamentary approval.

    Now we have another $50 million here and $54 million somewhere else, and these are significant expenditures. These are planned, they're debated within government, and there is nothing to stop government coming to Parliament with a supplementary estimate saying, there's an issue, and there may even be a crisis; they need help, so what do you say?

    Parliament is supreme, and that is the point I'm trying to make. Parliament has given vote 5 for emergencies, but not just so it becomes a rubber stamp after the fact.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: No, and I don't think we use vote 5 as a rubber stamp after the fact, Mr. Chair. We have to be very clear here. All the expenses that were approved under vote 5 or other tools we have were approved according to the legislation we have right now and also according to what we have done over the years and what has become a tradition in Parliament as well.

    I think we had a problem with one specific item, and that's why we had the Speaker rule. We were able to redress the situation in supplementary estimates (B), as you know, and we answer to the ruling of the Speaker.

    Let me assure the members of this committee that right now we are reviewing the guidelines on the use of vote 5 and that there are also specific interests from the president to follow all the cases where we use vote 5. I think we do that in a transparent way. We can disagree on the use of it, but in the end, if we agree we need a vote 5, let's look at the guidelines and how we use it. This is what we'll work on.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: Thanks, Mr. Williams.

    The minister has said they do look at the Auditor General's recommendations.

    Mr. John Williams: I just have one final point, Mr. Chair.

    Does the minister agree that Parliament is supreme and that the criteria for vote 5 should be narrowly defined rather than widely defined?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: When I say we are reviewing the guidelines, it's because we want to review the guidelines and how we use them and because we should use vote 5 in a coherent way for all files. That's why we've agreed with the Auditor General that we should review the guidelines.

    The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): It's clear what we're debating here is a matter of opinion. Unfortunately, Mr. Williams invariably recites everything the Auditor General says as gospel truth. It may not be a bible as such. It's a matter of opinion.

    On the issue to deal with the votes of about $50 million for the airline industry, at the time, I can vaguely remember there was a suggestion that Air Canada was going to come to a ground stop and air transportation in this country would be significantly disrupted.

    Getting back to the definition of vote 5, it seems to me it would be an inappropriate use of the vote.

    On the issue of the foundation, for instance, it has confirmed to me that, I believe, supplementary estimates were subsequently placed before the House of Commons and were approved by the House of Commons. If I recall, the whole foundation was a matter where something was announced in the budget prior to the actual implementation. There was parliamentary involvement in the process.

    I'd like to ask you a question about the universal classification. Some people have said it's $100 million that we wasted. What are your views on it? Have we in fact wasted the money?

    Getting back to the selective criteria, you're trying to do away with 72 classifications and get some kind of convergence on job descriptions. How do you think the whole issue of pay equity is going to unfold in the process?

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: If I may, Mr. Chair, I will ask my associate, Jim Lahey, to answer the question.

    Mr. James Lahey: Mr. Chair, in regard to the question of the amounts of money that have been spent in relation to classification reform, as I was indicating earlier, we are going to be able to build on the vast bulk of the investment we've made.

    Most of the investment really went into two activities. First, it was to develop and refine a standard or tool for describing the variety of work in the public service that has 16 elements and is balanced between male and female work, and so on. We're going to use it as the foundation for tailoring to individual groups so we will be able to build on it.

    Second, many tens of thousands of jobs were described, written, and so on. This work can also be built upon. Obviously, as we finalize standards, they'll have to fine-tune the job descriptions to make sure they're in line and up to date. We'll be building on the foundation. We feel the vast bulk of what has been invested is useable and is not lost.

    On the question of how all of this relates to pay equity, I guess we're saying we will, in the first instance, tailor the classification standards to the individual groups. You will be doing it with a tool we believe is, as we say, gender neutral. It's an important part of it.

    Second, there is, as the president already stated, an issue on how you apply the principle in the Canadian Human Rights Act of equal pay for work of equal value. In fact, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour set up a task force under Professor Bilson of the University of Saskatchewan last year. It is looking into the question of how pay equity ought to be applied, so to speak, in the modern world. They're to report on it early in 2003. We're cooperating with their work. We're looking forward to their recommendations to help us formulate how best to apply pay equity.

    I would also perhaps elaborate slightly by referring to something that came up before and is relevant. There is a trend in the number of highly paid professions of an increase in the proportion of women relative to men over the last 20-plus years since the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed.

    One of the members referred to the case of economists. I think it was around 20%, 20 years ago, and now it's about 50-50. We see similar trends in areas such as lawyers and other highly skilled professions.

    This doesn't eliminate the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. Employment equity, the promotion of more equal participation of men and women among other groups in the workforce, is contributing to greater fairness in pay and in the treatment of employees of both genders.

    I don't know if that answers all of your questions.

  (1225)  

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: How do you address this critique that's often made? We have a group of people over here who are primarily engineers, and we go back to our graduating schools and we see that in fact 80% of all the engineers are male. And then they say the whole system is biased against females, because you're working a pay structure based on engineers. People don't seem to see the forest for the trees, that the pay is based on engineers, not on gender. That seems to be a common complaint.

    Mr. James Lahey: I guess I would make two points on this. The first one is that you're right that we need to reflect the realities of the labour market. If engineers are paid at a certain level and you want to get good-quality engineers, you have to be in the ballpark if you want to attract the people you need. As it was also alluded to, if we're going to have as many as half of the public service eligible to retire over the next decade, we're clearly going to be competing with the private sector to get the quality people we need.

    Secondly, engineers are actually another group that has shown a marked trend towards a larger participation of women in terms of those employed in the public service. I don't have the figures in front of me right now, but I can assure you that there's been a dramatic increase. They're not at 50% yet, but they're well up there in terms of the proportion of women. So it's the combination of pay equity and employment equity that I think will ensure fairness for men and women in the public service.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: I would like an update on the reforms that are presently bubbling through the system on how to change the way we contract for services and so forth. I would like an update on the Quail thing and where they're going.

    We talk about meeting certain deadlines to the modernization of the civil service. Time is clicking on here. The age of the civil service is increasing, and obviously there are going to be more retirements and so forth. Yet in this town in particular the high-tech industry seems to be paying their people a lot more than for similar jobs offered in the civil service. I am wondering how we're going to attract those people.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Yes, you're right. One of the reasons we announced the human resources modernization task force was so we would be able to attract new people and face that demographic challenge we have ahead of us.

    I have to tell you that right now I don't see any delay. I hope we'll be able to deliver. The plan is to be able to bring in legislation this fall. So the task force is working right now on the final recommendation to the government. I think this fall all parliamentarians will have the opportunity to look at the proposal and be sure we have a better system to be able to attract these new people and also to retain them in the system.

    So this is the legislative part of it. Aside from the legislative package, if I can call it so, there are also some policies that we have to work on, like the policy on continuous learning. We had one, but it has not been revised for some years.

    I think we also have to modernize on that side. When people come to the public service for a career, they should also feel they can develop their own potential. It's important to have other HR policies, and the Treasury Board Secretariat is working on that.

    The Chair: Are there any further questions?

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I have a small question, yes.

    The Auditor General has reported in a couple of prior reports on the issue of ACANs , advance contract award notices. It's an issue that has seized the House from time to time with regard to awarding contracts. Often, the statement is made that ACANs are in accordance with Treasury Board policy.

    My understanding is that because the Department of Public Works and Government Services has the responsibility of being the department that represents the interests of all departments, in terms of contract requirements, it would be inefficient for the department to actually take each request, whether it be a sponsorship or an acquisition of an asset, etc., and put those out to tender for a competitive bid, as we know is the classical process, each and every time a department wanted something.

    What I understand is done when we have something like advertising or sponsorships, and virtually every department will have requests for advertising services, instead of obtaining a competitive bid on each one of those, we go through a process of pre-qualification where companies are asked to provide their credentials, their experience and expertise, and in fact to put in a blanket bid with regard to offering services to the Government of Canada through the Department of Public Works.

    After reviewing those expressions of interest, those who are identified as having met the requirements of the request for proposal, there are suppliers who are so-called pre-qualified by Public Works. As requests for, say, advertising come in, these pre-qualified suppliers would be called upon to provide those services, based on the ones that would be best qualified but subject to certain conditions, one of which is that not one of them could get, say, more than 25% of all the business under that blanket.

    With that as a kind of preamble, this is a question of whether the Auditor General considers ACANs not to be a competitive process but the Government of Canada does consider it to be a competitive process. I wonder if you can help, because it falls under so-called Treasury Board guidelines. Can you say whether or not the process of ACAN, pre-qualification and advance contract award notices, does satisfy the spirit of a competitive process and provide for an efficient delivery of services, such as the advertising or sponsorship that Public Works administers on behalf of the government?

  (1230)  

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: On that matter--the approach we have and what we think about ACAN, the advanced contract award notice--I would say very clearly that with the Auditor General we agree that we disagree on that matter.

    We consider ACAN as a competitive process. She considers it's not. I'm saying to the Auditor General that she cannot say this is a sole-source contract. This is different. Perhaps this is not as open as the other process when we have a bid, but there's a chance here for the suppliers who want to come forward. They know about it. It's not like a sole-source contract, not at all. It's in-between. But she says it's non-competitive and we say it's competitive. So we disagree on that.

    When she looked at how we apply it, we saw that we had perhaps some weaknesses in the way we applied it. We have a specific policy, so we revised the policy. We strengthened the policy to be sure the approach that is followed is very controlled.

    Perhaps, Roberta, you can elaborate on that.

    Roberta Santi works at the comptrollership branch.

  (1235)  

    Ms. Roberta Santi (Associate Deputy Comptroller General, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Over a year ago we did revise the ACAN policy. We put new measures in place. Some of the things we actually modified were that we made it much more clear in the policy how the requirements for a specific contract have to be set out, that there has to be a specific period of time for making sure this notice is up on the Internet--it's actually 15 days--so that there's some uniformity on that front.

    We are also encouraging suppliers when the notification is put up to indicate whether they feel they could carry out this contract. We've put in place in the policy some independent review of any suppliers coming in, indicating that they can proceed with this contract. If the supplier is rejected, there has to be some independent review of that particular rejection. So we actually have put in place a number of new features with respect to the policy.

    In fact over the last couple of months we've hired Deloitte and Touche to go back into the five departments that were at the heart of the AG's review on this matter to determine whether our new policy is being complied with. We've received very good results back in terms of putting this policy in place in departmental practices.

    There are still a couple of areas where we have to strengthen things, and we're talking to departments about this. But there have been significant changes. We have a review that indicates that these changes have in fact been put in place.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

    The Chair: Okay. Any more questions?

    Thank you very much, Minister, for coming.

    Ms. Lucienne Robillard: Thank you.

    The Chair: We appreciate you being here to answer questions.

    Mr. St-Julien, we need nine for a quorum. That's what we have.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Restez ici, s'il vous plaît. The minister's worth five.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: Okay. We'll suspend for a couple of minutes.

  (1238)  

---

  (1240)  

    The Chair: We'll do it next week, and you'll get a report as well, the committee's report. You should get it. What's probably easiest is next Tuesday, and we'll vote on it on Tuesday.

    We're adjourned.