PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 13, 2000

• 1608

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

We have a short agenda today: pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), consideration of the request dated May 18, 2000, from the Secretariat of the Treasury Board respecting a waiver of publication in the Public Accounts.

Our witnesses are Mr. Richard Neville, deputy comptroller general, financial management policy sector and expenditure analysis and operations sector; and Mr. John Morgan, director, financial management and accounting policy, comptrollership branch. They are witnesses to deal with that issue.

At 4:30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, we have consideration of the Order in Council appointment of Mr. Frank Claydon as Secretary of the Treasury Board and Comptroller General of Canada. This was deemed referred to the committee on April 11, 2000, pursuant to Standing Order 32(6). Our witness will be Mr. Frank Claydon, who is now the Secretary of the Treasury Board and the Comptroller General of Canada.

To go back to the first issue, Mr. Neville, tell us what you'd like to do.

Mr. Richard Neville (Deputy Comptroller General, Comptrollership Branch, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure to be here. But I would like to make a small correction in terms of the titles if I could. I have a new title these days. I am the deputy comptroller general of Canada. The new Richard Neville is really Rod Monette, and I'm pleased to introduce Mr. Monette. He is the assistant comptroller general and the assistant secretary, financial management policy and analysis sector. I'm pleased to have Mr. Monette with us.

• 1610

The Chair: Are you telling me that they now have split? Mr. Claydon is the Secretary of the Treasury Board and Comptroller General.

Mr. Richard Neville: No. Perhaps I could make it a little easier. I'm really replacing Mr. Colin Potts, who previously was the deputy comptroller general. He has left to go back to the private sector.

The Chair: Yes, I know.

Mr. Richard Neville: So I'm now the new deputy comptroller general.

The Chair: Oh, you're the deputy comptroller general.

Mr. Richard Neville: Right. I report directly to the Comptroller General. So it would go Comptroller General, who is Mr. Frank Claydon, who is also the Secretary of the Treasury Board. He has two titles, but he receives only one pay cheque.

The Chair: I'm glad you clarified that.

Mr. Richard Neville: Then there is the deputy comptroller general, and then Mr. Monette, who is the assistant comptroller general and assistant secretary, financial management policy sector, also with only one pay cheque.

The Chair: Thank you for that clarification.

Mr. Richard Neville: I'm pleased to have with me today Mr. John Morgan, who is the senior director, financial management and accounting policy within the Treasury Board Secretariat.

We are pleased to be here today to deal with this issue of ex gratia payments of special benefits to merchant navy seamen.

Mr. Chairman, on May 18 we sought this committee's endorsement of a proposal not to publish the individual names and amounts of those merchant navy seamen who receive ex gratia payments under this $50 million initiative, as approved in supplementary estimates B 1999-2000.

Ex gratia payments do not normally have prior approval of Parliament, as do program payments, and they are made on the authority of the executive. This requires that each payment must be reported to Parliament after the fact unless an exemption is obtained. In this case prior parliamentary approval was obtained.

Listings of ex gratia payments by department are contained within the Public Accounts of Canada, volume II, part II, section 10. Based on an estimated 7,400 merchant navy seamen recipients, the listing of all payments would require approximately 58 pages in the public accounts. At the request of the department, we have undertaken to seek your exemption to the requirement to list these individual payments in the public accounts.

This committee has approved similar exemptions in the past. These included a 1989-90 summary listing of ex gratia payments related to the human immunodeficiency virus, HIV; thalidomide victims, and the Allen Memorial Institute patients in 1992-93.

[Translation]

Given the prior parliamentary approval at these payments and the added cost of printing, we do not believe that their detailed listing in the public accounts should be necessary. At the request of the committee, the Department of Veterans Affairs would make the detailed listing available for its perusal. Approximately 700 payments were made in 1999-2000 and the remaining payments are expected to be made in 2000-2001.

We recommend the committee's approval to exempt these payments from detailed listing in the Public Accounts.

We thank the committee for its consideration of this request and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have at this time. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Neville. The clerk has prepared a motion, which we have distributed. Mr. Neville, you were indicating that this is going to cover two fiscal periods.

Mr. Richard Neville: Yes.

The Chair: Perhaps we should amend the motion to include that, Mr. Clerk, so that if we agree to the motion, it's clear that this approval would cover two fiscal years.

Do you have any questions, Mr. Mayfield?

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): No, sir, I have no questions.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, do you have any?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): I am afraid that there is a terrible conspiracy and that you want to hide everything from us.

Some voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Seriously, I don't see any problem with your request. I am thinking about the idea of publishing 58 pages to list all of the payments. That is not why I would grant you an exemption, but I would encourage you to proceed in the same way as often as possible.

I would like to repeat my suggestion about sending a notice on paper or by E-mail to members' offices each time you publish a new document. Members could fill out a form and send it back to you if they want to obtain the document. It seems to me that that would be preferable to sending printed copies to everyone and wasting paper.

• 1615

I agree with your proposal and I encourage you to continue to proceed along those lines.

Mr. Richard Neville: Mr. Chairman, you are undoubtedly aware that another committee examines the reports that are tabled in Parliament, as well as the way in which they are presented. Your suggestion can undoubtedly be considered in this context, and we would like to follow up on it as part of that initiative.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Are you ready for the question? The clerk has circulated the motion and I'll just read it for the record:

That the committee accede to the request for the publication waiver respecting the ex gratia payments of special benefits to merchant navy veterans, as requested in the letter dated May 18, 2000, from Richard J. Neville, Deputy Comptroller General, provided that the nature, the number and total amount of payments is published in the Public Accounts—

I'm making an editorial change here.

—of Canada for 2000 and 2001, and that a detailed list of individual recipients and payments is made available by the Department of Veterans Affairs to any person requesting the information.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): So moved.

The Chair: Moved by Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Neville.

Mr. Richard Neville: Could I have a clarification? You're using the term “2000 and 2001”. In our terminology that's the same fiscal year, but I want to make sure it's crystal clear with you—

The Chair: Okay, we'll just change it: “for the fiscal years ending March 31, 2001 and 2002”.

Mr. Richard Neville: Okay.

The Chair: Is that correct?

Mr. Richard Neville: That makes it a lot better for us. Thank you.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: It is only two years.

The Chair: It is only two years that this will cover.

Mr. Richard Neville: I think that should take care of the majority of them. If there's anything more than that, we'll deal with it at that time.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: You could also say “2000 and all succeeding years” or something.

The Chair: Well, I'm not sure we just want to give a blanket authority. If he needs more, he can come back. It's not a painful exercise.

A voice: Is this the fiscal year ending 2000?

The Chair: No, fiscal 2000 and 2001.

A voice: Are you sure?

The Chair: Okay, let me just clarify: “for the fiscal years ending March 31, 2001 and 2002”.

Mr. Richard Neville: First of all, there's a fiscal year ending March 31, 2000—

The Chair: You've already paid out—

Mr. Richard Neville: We've paid 700 payments so far.

The Chair: That's one. Okay.

A voice: You've paid them all.

Mr. Richard Neville: No, we haven't paid them all. We've paid 700 so far. So it would be for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, and for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001.

The Chair: Okay. Are you all happy with that?

An hon. member: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Just out of interest, since you're with the Treasury Board, how much money did it save us by not proceeding in this direction?

Mr. Richard Neville: I haven't costed out the saving, but there is a saving. I just haven't costed it out, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Okay.

The Chair: Are we ready for the question?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: For the record, we have a quorum, by the way.

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: May I ask Mr. Neville another question?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, you can ask a question.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Will the same process be used for ex-Canadians held prisoner in Hong Kong?

Mr. Richard Neville: I seem to recall that a specific amount was set aside in that context.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Do the payments come from the same source?

Mr. Richard Neville: Yes, they are included and an additional $4,000 has been earmarked for these people.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: We'll ensure that you get a copy of the motion that has been approved, Mr. Neville.

The orders of the day require that Mr. Claydon arrive at 4:30 p.m., which is a few minutes from now, so I'm going to suspend the meeting to the call of the chair, which I expect to be in a few minutes.

• 1619

• 1621

The Chair: I call this meeting back to order.

As I mentioned earlier, pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, we are going to consider the Order in Council appointment of Mr. Frank Claydon as Secretary of the Treasury Board and Comptroller General of Canada, which has been referred to us by the standing orders.

We have as our witness, and we welcome to the committee, Mr. Frank Claydon.

Your CV has been distributed to all members, so I would ask you to give us a brief opening statement and tell us a little bit about who you are and what your role is as Secretary of the Treasury Board.

Mr. Claydon.

Mr. Frank Claydon (Secretary of the Treasury Board, Comptroller General of Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here.

As you see from my CV, I used to work in the Treasury Board, about 15 years ago, in the area that deals with the review of all of the programs of the Government of Canada. Coming back now as the Secretary of the Treasury Board brings me to a much broader agenda, a much broader management agenda, I think, than when I was in the Treasury Board 15 years ago.

Certainly I hope that you've all had a chance to look at the great document, Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the Government of Canada, which I can say I had nothing to do with because it was produced before I came to the Treasury Board. To me, it's a good framework, in which we at the Treasury Board Secretariat, with the President of the Treasury Board, hope to be trying to work to provide an overall framework in terms of the work of the secretariat, which will, I hope, improve the way we help departments provide services to the people of Canada.

In terms of my role at this point, it's an incredibly varied role. I'm sure you know a lot about it. It varies all the way from the collective bargaining side of things—and we're getting back into another round of collective bargaining right away—through to all kinds of important policies that deal with administration and procurement and so on.

Certainly it involves the role of the Office of the Comptroller General, and I am the Comptroller General. I'm still finding out from Rick exactly what that means, but I'm sure I'll get that all straightened out after a few meetings with your committee. I'm sure you'll straighten me out on that.

As for things we also do at the Treasury Board Secretariat that are sort of new and different, we have a major role in delivering government online. As you know, we've made a commitment to have, by 2004, essentially all government departments online and delivering services through electronic means—not just providing information through electronic means.

It means that you'll be able to get your passport electronically. You'll be able to get all kinds of government cheques and so on directly online. You'll be able to apply for different things directly online. That's going to be a major transformation of the public service, which we're certainly involved in.

We also are involved in other program delivery items. For example, the new infrastructure program that has just been recently announced is something in which the secretariat is key in terms of the delivery.

Perhaps I'll just stop there, Mr. Chairman. I understand there are a few members who might want to ask some questions or make some comments.

The Chair: Well, let's find out.

Mr. Mayfield, do you have any questions?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Yes, sir. I would like to ask a couple of questions, if I may, please.

The Chair: I think we'll just go for a four-minute round; I don't think we'll go eight minutes. Is that acceptable to everybody?

Some hon. members: Yes.

• 1625

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Well, I would like to take the opportunity to welcome you to our committee. I hope this is the first of many fruitful discussions we will have, Mr. Claydon. Welcome to your job, welcome to committee, and thank you for coming today.

There are a couple of areas I do want to open up with you. As you know, we spend a fair bit of time looking at the Auditor General's reports. He has had a number of reports dealing with Treasury Board. I don't want to restrict the conversation to any one area, but one area that comes immediately to mind is the letting of contracts and how that is done, just the general supervision of the business of the government through Treasury Board.

How do you see these reports of the Auditor General in relation to the work of your department?

Mr. Frank Claydon: Perhaps I can refer back to my experience at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. That's really the experience I have in terms of dealing with the Auditor General. I must say, we had a good working relationship in the department with the Auditor General. We always felt that his reports were not always easy on the department but they were always helpful. The Auditor General provides real value in terms of the AG's role in the federal context.

I've met with the Auditor General a couple of times already since beginning my new job, and I intend to work very closely with him. I think the work I've seen certainly is going to be an important part of making sure we run government properly.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: One of the frustrating things that I experience in reading the Auditor General's reports is when he comes back and says, for instance, “Ten years ago these were issues that we dealt with, and there's not been noticeable improvement.” Are those matters of concern for you, and would they be for your department?

It seems to me that when the Auditor General highlights a difficulty, it should receive fairly swift attention as an improvement in the operation of our government that he's pointing out needs to be made. I'd like to have your response on how perhaps your department, and other departments as well that you relate to, might perhaps move a bit more quickly in those areas.

The other area I want to open up, if I may, is the accountability of the departments, and today Treasury Board specifically, to Parliament. I'm wondering what your attitude is to the flow of information in the sense of being accountable to Parliament.

Mr. Frank Claydon: Just to respond quickly to those, in terms of follow-up on observations by the Auditor General in areas where departments have not completely done all that was asked of them, that is an area of concern to the Treasury Board Secretariat, and it's certainly something we intend to be working closely with departments on.

Not to make excuses, but I know from working in a line department that you take on board the Auditor General's comments, you set in train a plan, which you hope is going to deal with all of the issues, and sometimes it doesn't deal with them. Sometimes it's a couple of years down the track before you know that in fact you haven't been able to deal with a particular issue.

In a sense, though, that's not really an excuse. I think we need to be diligent in terms of following that. Certainly Mr. Neville is here in the Treasury Board Secretariat to help me with that task.

In terms of accountability, I feel it's not only a question of accountability for me. I think it is important that departments are able to account for the resources they've used and to show how those have been used to help Canadians and produce goods and services that are important to Canadians. The other side of it for me, though, is that it's an opportunity for the departments and agencies of the federal government to show Canadians and to show parliamentarians that in fact they have made an incredibly important contribution to Canada.

• 1630

So I look at it not so much on the obligation side as on the opportunity side of demonstrating what we've been able to do. I think it's really important for both accountability and for showing what we can accomplish. This is important to me, certainly.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I would like to continue a bit more afterwards, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau, please, you have four minutes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Claydon, I congratulate you on your new appointment and welcome you here today. When looking at your CV, I see that your career has unfolded normally and properly. I wish you the best of luck.

I would like to start by asking you if you are paid in French or English. On the French document, it says that your salary is between $173,000 and $205,500, whereas in the English version, it says that it is between $173,000 and $203,500. I would recommend your being paid in French, because you would be making more money.

Mr. Richard Neville: Which salary range is higher?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: The one in French.

Mr. Richard Neville: The one in French.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: As Secretary of the Treasury Board and Comptroller General, are you responsible for this matter for the entire public service?

Mr. Frank Claydon: Yes, as the employer.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I had asked Mr. Massé to ensure that the competition posters posted on the Internet be corrected, but I did not check to see if he had followed up on my request. One of the conditions they contained was inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They stipulate that to apply for a job in the Canadian public service, a candidate must live in the National Capital Region. So a person living in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver would not be eligible. I was under the impression that this condition was still on the competition posters a short time ago. Could you look into that?

Mr. Frank Claydon: I could do that.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: To me, that seems to directly contravene the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, since it states that there cannot be any discrimination based on the place of origin, especially when we're talking about the same country.

That is my only comment. Once again, I wish you the best of luck, and I hope that we will be able to work together constructively on the various matters we consider.

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

Ms. Jennings, please.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I want to congratulate you, Mr. Claydon. I am not sure that the condition Mr. Sauvageau mentioned runs counter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because in certain cases, it is possible to limit the geographic region during recruitment. Moreover, there have already been some exemptions for the federal public service in order to promote the recruitment of visible minorities. But let us set that question aside.

My question deals more specifically with the federal Public Service Commission. I was very happy when I read the government's response to the report prepared by the Perinbam task force on the participation of visible minorities in the federal public service.

Moreover, I was very happy yesterday, when the certificates of excellence were handed out, to hear the President of Treasury Board announce that starting next year, a new category would be created and certificates would be awarded for excellence in equity.

It seems to me that the federal Public Service Commission is an organization that is not very representative of Canadian society. If I am not mistaken, none of its members are part of a minority nor are they members of a visible minority or cultural community.

As Secretary of the Treasury Board, as one of the heads of the Commission, what can you do to change that?

How do you plan to implement the Perinbam action plan, both within Treasury Board and within the Public Service Commission? That's a good question, isn't it?

• 1635

Mr. Frank Claydon: The Public Service Commission is an independent commission and it is not up to me to recommend that certain members be appointed to it.

The Treasury Board is currently preparing its action plan with a view to implementing the recommendations contained in the Perinbam task force report. I believe that equity is a very important cause, and I am proud to see our department equipping itself with an excellent plan to meet the objectives set out in the report.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Following the official government response provided in the House by Ms. Robillard, I heard that a deputy minister had already convened all of his assistant deputy ministers, associate deputy ministers and senior management in the regions to tell them that even if objectives had been set for the year 2001 in the Perinbam report, he expected to see concrete results in his department this year.

I would have liked to have heard a similar response from you, since members of the public service work at Treasury Board. You should not wait. Through steps taken within your own department, you should display leadership for all of the other departments.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: He's just telling me I have to shut up now—and I'll bet you're happy.

[Translation]

Mr. Frank Claydon: No, no.

As I said, we are currently preparing an action plan that should be ready by the end of the summer. So we will be able to make some progress this year.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Claydon.

Mr. Harb, four minutes.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I too want to congratulate you, Mr. Claydon. I think Treasury Board will do very well with your leadership.

I do have a question that is on the minds of a lot of people who work for the Auditor General's office or other agencies, and that is the pay equity affecting those employees who work with those agencies. It strikes me as being an issue of unfairness that if you didn't sue the government, you just can't obtain justice. That seems to be the argument that's being put on the table now. Because you were not part of PSAC, and because you didn't take the government to task, then you just don't qualify.

It's my hope and my aspiration that with your leadership, and that of Mr. Neville and those who work with you, you will bring about a fair and equitable resolution to this issue as quickly as possible. These are our employees, whether they work for an agency of the government or a department of the government, and I think we should apply the same rules in a very equitable and just manner.

I would appreciate your comments on that.

Mr. Frank Claydon: Perhaps I should just say that it's certainly something that has come to my attention. We're having some discussions with the Auditor General's office, and I hope we're going to be able to resolve this in a fair and equitable manner.

Mr. Mac Harb: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if we have in front of us the people who are in charge of negotiating the infrastructure program with the provinces.

Are you that hands-on, Mr. Claydon, that you'd be at the table with those negotiations?

Mr. Frank Claydon: No, that would be left to my staff.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So is there anything you can tell us in terms of... I mean, the program that was announced is a sum of money—$2.6 billion, I think—but it's fairly broad in terms of the issues that can be covered, whether it's core infrastructure, housing, or other cultural facilities, all of those kinds of things. I'm under the impression that the negotiations will lead hopefully to a deal by the end of this year.

Is there anything you can tell this committee about either the progress or any of the problems, or whether there is hope that all of those issues will be addressed? Are the provinces willing to match the contribution by the federal government so far?

• 1640

Mr. Frank Claydon: I have just a couple of comments around that. We're just about ready now to start into the formal negotiations with the provinces. There's been lots of work with the provinces so far, and my understanding is that all of the provinces and the municipalities involved have agreed to a one-third, one-third, one-third cost-sharing arrangement in terms of the program.

We're hoping to get into discussions very quickly, so we can have these agreements done as soon as possible. We think getting on with the projects is important, so we're going to push as fast as the provinces want to go. We don't think we need to have agreements with all the provinces before we can start work, so we're hoping to move as quickly as we can with those provinces that are ready to go.

In terms of the interest we've received from the provinces, the overwhelming first priority for spending is in the area of green infrastructure. We see that as being the major area where these dollars will be spent. As you say, there's a list of other priorities that will certainly be eligible for spending, but we expect to see a fair amount of the money going into infrastructure for water and, in some cases, various developments to reduce air pollution and so on, so it's an exciting agenda.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Priorities may change with the Walkerton situation, I presume. They might be more interested in water, and protection and safety along those lines.

Mr. Frank Claydon: My sense is it would strengthen the priority on green infrastructure. The whole question of dealing with pollution would be included under the idea of green infrastructure.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: What's your understanding of who would have the final call on the project? The 1993 program was highly successful. If there was a glitch in it, it was that perhaps some decisions were made, driven by the local community, that would perhaps not really qualify as infrastructure—at least not in my definition of it. Is there a mechanism that allows us and your ministry to have input into whether or not a particular project being put forward actually qualifies under this?

Mr. Frank Claydon: Certainly. The projects will have to qualify, or they won't be accepted. The mechanism varies a little, province by province, in terms of the role the municipalities will play in the process as well.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Phinney, please.

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Welcome. I imagine we'll see a lot of you.

I want to follow up on the infrastructure question. On last year's programs—or the ones before—we had a problem in Ontario because the Ontario government insisted on having the total say. They did the presentations and wouldn't tell us or the other two levels of government they were doing it. They made sure they got 100% credit.

Are you going to make sure it's written in there that one level of government can't monopolize and get all the publicity? That's what did with some of it. We were never invited to the opening ceremonies announcing it, or anything. It was really quite bad.

Mr. Frank Claydon: I've heard that criticism before, and I made it very clear to my negotiators, and the President of the Treasury Board made it very clear to the negotiators as well, that this was absolutely essential. There has to be a sharing of information about the projects and appropriate federal visibility for all of these.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Also, in the choice of projects with the first level we did, we left it almost totally up to the municipalities. We had a final say. We said okay, we thought they were good. But in the next projects that came along, the provincial government in Ontario decided totally what the projects were going to be; the municipalities had no choice.

I don't want to get into that topic, but I'd like you to be aware of that situation.

Mr. Frank Claydon: That does vary by province.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Okay.

I have one more question, but I first want to congratulate you. I have a friend who has a son who's about 28 and can't work under normal circumstances. He has had two or three part-time jobs with the federal government. He got a call out of the blue, and a form was sent to him saying that under pay equity he was entitled to a whole lot more money for some job he did seven years ago, I think, and some others along the way he's been doing since, when called in for part-time work.

• 1645

I want to congratulate you on following up on these people. He's a part-time worker, he's not on anybody's full-time staff, and he's been told he'll get some more money. So I just want to say that something's working there.

My next question is on the role of the Auditor General. You mentioned you've already been talking to the Auditor General. Now, a lot of people talk to the Auditor General, but it's my impression that his role is to say whether or not this policy or structure that's been created is working properly. He can say it should be fixed or not. But he lets people know when something is not working, and doesn't create policy. Am I correct?

Mr. Frank Claydon: I have to be careful about what I say about the Auditor General, but certainly my impression is—

Ms. Beth Phinney: How do you see his role?

Mr. Frank Claydon: —that his role is to audit what the federal government does and to tell us whether it is functioning properly or not.

Ms. Beth Phinney: But I'd like to ask you this, and you can say if you don't want to answer. If that's his role, and he's already told you if something doesn't work in the Treasury Board or someplace else you're responsible for, why would you be meeting with him?

Mr. Mac Harb: The next question is, have you ever been a member of the communist party or are you a member of the communist party?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Beth Phinney: You're laughing at me. Lots of people meet with the Auditor General, and I don't quite understand that. He's supposed to say “This doesn't work” and then we fix it, if we agree with him. I don't understand why people meet all the time with the Auditor General.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: He's a nice guy.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes, he is a nice guy. Is he going beyond his role?

The Chair: There's a question, Mr. Claydon.

Ms. Beth Phinney: I'll ask the questions, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We have lots of other people butting in trying to answer for you.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Let's just see what his answer is.

Mr. Frank Claydon: Certainly in terms of meeting with the Auditor General, it's important to have a good working relationship with him. Certainly the Auditor General shares their plans in terms of things they're planning to do. That's important for us in terms of being prepared to deal with the outcome of some of their reports. So it's a working relationship that I think is important.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Phinney.

Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to come back to where we left off, Mr. Claydon, in talking about accountability to Parliament. You mentioned an opportunity, as perhaps opposed to the obligation, of accountability. We were talking about the Auditor General, who has a good deal to say about accountability. On behalf of Parliament, he makes these examinations and writes these reports, and we're a parliamentary committee that looks at them.

I understand that transparency and accountability are perhaps a bit of a burden as well as an obligation. I like the word “obligation” because if it's an opportunity you may only do it if you feel like it. But is there some sense that your department is looking at the issue of accountability to your department and the burden that imposes on the department to maintain that accountability? Is this an issue that's being discussed in your department at any level right now, or going to be discussed?

Mr. Frank Claydon: Just to clarify your question, when you say “the burden of accountability”, are you thinking of the workload that would imply for the department to prepare the various documents required by Parliament?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I mean the cost, the workload, the interference with the routine of your department, if it's not a built-in part of the routine. Is there some examination taking place now, or going to be taking place, of the Treasury Board's accountability to Parliament? Is there some look at perhaps restructuring that, rethinking it, changing it?

Mr. Frank Claydon: We're definitely doing some work in terms of trying to improve our reporting to Parliament. We'd like to have reports that parliamentarians find useful, so we certainly have a project underway now. There have been some interviews with parliamentarians to try to seek their views on what's appropriate in terms of reporting.

Obviously if there are ways we can reduce the burden on departments by trying to simplify the reporting requirements, so we're giving parliamentarians what they want and not a bunch of things they don't necessarily want that take a lot of time to prepare, we're interested in that as well—in making it as useful but as streamlined as we can.

• 1650

So we're looking at all of those elements on an ongoing basis. But as Mr. Neville was saying to me, we have a project underway right now to try to improve the way we report.

I'm not sure I'm giving you a good answer to your question, I'm sorry.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I would like to have a sense of hearing you say that transparency is a pretty fundamental part of your philosophy of government. This committee just sent a subgroup down to Washington to talk to different bodies down there, including the General Accounting Office, about transparency and perhaps how we might open this issue up in other countries through a liaison of parliamentarians, legislators. I would like to have a sense that this obligation to accountability and transparency is really a vital part of our own government life here; and I'm asking you, is that the direction you're seeing the department move in as you step into this position here?

Mr. Frank Claydon: I would like to say that's definitely the direction I see it moving. I was very pleased to see the document that Madame Robillard tabled recently, the document called Results for Canadians, because that's very clear in terms of wanting to see a transparent process for all Canadians to understand what happens in the Government of Canada and the kinds of things that are produced. And that applies to parliamentarians as well.

Personally I've always worked to try to provide as much information as possible to Parliament, so that will certainly be my personal goal in terms of this job.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your answers, sir.

The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Thank you very much.

You touched on the issue of government online, which interests me. Could I ask you the opening question, would you consider yourself computer literate?

Mr. Frank Claydon: How about semi-literate? I certainly use the Internet and I e-mail Mr. Neville on the weekends and things like that. But if it comes to designing new systems or whatever, forget it.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Fair enough.

It is a concern, because the one thing we do notice is that's the material you have to work with: bureaucrats who are not that literate in the first place and find that they're inhibited by the process of change.

There are a number of parliamentarians, I can say from the meeting I had, who don't really believe that the 2004 criteria are doable because of the inertia that exists. I guess what really is required to make it work is significant leadership to make this happen.

On top of doing some of those things, there's also the evolution of information technology. The evolution of information technology today is such that we're trying to do this horizontal interface rather than the traditional bureaucracy stovepipes, and I'm wondering how you're going to deal with that change.

Mr. Frank Claydon: That's an excellent question. I think it's one of the major challenges that the government faces on the management agenda over the next couple of years, and it's not going to be easy. In addition to the challenges you mention, this is also a cultural change for the people who work in the government. It's a different way of working. And that's not going to come easy. It's going to take a lot of, as you say, leadership. It's going to take a lot of getting people used to doing things differently. And it's got to be done in a short timeframe. At the same time, the technology is changing so fast that you think you're getting people geared up to deal with the technology and, lo and behold, the technology has changed and you have to retrain them to catch up to something new. So it is an incredible challenge.

But what drives me in this is the new ways that we'll be able to serve the citizens of Canada. Rather than citizens having to run around and search out things in various departments and agencies across the government, we should be able to bring that all down to a citizen-centred kind of delivery, where you go into the O Canada site, for example, and you have everything there at your fingertips across the span of the government without having to search through all the departments and agencies and so on that you would have had to in a phone book or whatever before.

So it's going to be an incredible change, I think a very positive change, for Canadians when we get this done, and so that's what drives me on. I think it's going to be a very exciting time.

• 1655

I think, for example, that the new Customs and Revenue Agency, which has had e-filing for the first time this year, is really at the forefront around the world in terms of some of the changes that are going to be needed. It's a challenge, but I guess I'm not pessimistic in terms of the abilities that we've shown in some departments to get on with the task already.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Do you have a measurement agenda of where you want to be, say, a year from now, some performance measurement that you can relate to?

Mr. Frank Claydon: We have two overriding performance measures.

One is that by the end of this year, by the end of 2000, the goal is to have all information online, so that anyone will be able to access any of the information from government online. And 2004 is our goal to have government online, which means that you'll be able to access services—as I said, replace your passport, and so on, all by electronic means. So that's for 2004.

We are, though, working on ways in which we can monitor how well we're doing in terms of getting to those objectives, because obviously you don't want to wait until 2004 and then find out you didn't quite make it. So we're working at performance measures that we'll be able to come and show you an a regular basis in terms of the progress we're making.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Shepherd.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too would like to welcome you, Mr. Claydon. I notice that you were responsible for the economic portfolio in the program branch, and as an analyst, but since then, in the line department, you've been with agriculture. Since I'm the only member of the rural caucus on this committee, I want to say I think that someone had their rural lens on perhaps when they appointed you as comptroller, and it's a welcome sight, because we have lots of problems with agriculture, as you know.

I have two questions. One question goes back to what others have asked. We've done some studying on the full accrual accounting and moving government books and bookkeeping to that method, and I'd like to know your opinion of that and where we are on it.

The other thing is that you've obviously been involved with the WTO negotiations and so on, because I notice that your responsibilities were supply management and farm income, and now marketing and research, and sustainable development, as well as the agriculture support programs, which we've had a lot of use for in the last two years. I hope that experience will stand you in good stead and that when we go next to negotiate in the WTO, we can count on your support with respect to maintaining our agricultural system, which I think makes a great deal of sense.

Mr. Frank Claydon: Let me start with your second question first.

A lot of people have said that they like to count on my support in terms of the agricultural side of things now that I'm moving to Treasury Board. And obviously in my role in Treasury Board, I have to be very careful and impartial about the resource requirements of all areas of the government. But I think it is important for a person in charge of the Treasury Board to have a sense of the legitimacy of the mandates of line departments, how hard they're working, and how important it is that they're properly supported. So in a general sense, I certainly agree with you that it is really important that we're sympathetic to the needs of the line departments.

In terms of accrual accounting, I know what it is, sort of, and—

Mr. John Finlay: I do too, sort of.

Mr. Frank Claydon: —certainly it's a very strong commitment that we have to get it done. If you want more details, I could ask Mr. Neville to talk to that. But certainly it's something that I think we're making good progress on and we're on schedule with, and we're willing to come back at any time and explain to you how we're doing in terms of our further progress.

• 1700

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau, please.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Claydon, I have a question for you as head of the Canadian public service. I have travelled with several unilingual English public servants who held interesting positions in the Canadian public service. They told me that a bilingualism or a bilingualization program was scheduled for 2000- 2001 in the federal public service. Can you tell us if it was something they dreamed up or profoundly hoped for, or is there really a plan to allow these people to improve the quality of their French?

Is knowledge of the two official languages required in order to get positions at a certain level in the public service? I often ask this question of Mr. Mayfield, but since the person in charge of this matter is here before me, I would like to ask it of him. Can a unilingual anglophone or a unilingual francophone hold any position in the federal public service?

Mr. Frank Claydon: In response to your first question, I would say that all departments are in the process of organizing language development programs for all their teams. I hope that training for all public servants will be organized before the scheduled date.

As far as positions go, some are bilingual, are others unilingual. Incumbents must be competent in both official languages in order to get a bilingual position. I think that is the correct answer.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Do you understand my scepticism? The Official Languages Act is a federal law that dates back to about 1975. When we are told that people are on training, that means that they have been working in the federal public service for 25 years. Stop wasting money. They are going to be retiring soon. I am not a manager, but can you understand our scepticism when people tell us about programs that are about to be set up? It seems to me that if this program has been in place for 25 years, we have a clear demonstration that it is a total failure. Might I be mistaken? That is my question.

Mr. Frank Claydon: We have had a great deal of success in the past. Much remains to be done, but I think that all departments are on the right track.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: When will they be ready? If we were to set a deadline, when would it be?

Mr. Frank Claydon: The deadline is 2002.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So, in 2002, all public servants will be bilingual?

Mr. Frank Claydon: All public servants with bilingual positions will be bilingual.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So you tell me that some public servants are in bilingual positions and are not bilingual.

Mr. Frank Claydon: Yes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: How did they manage to get a bilingual position?

Mr. Frank Claydon: They have to take language training. But it is possible to hold a bilingual position before getting the training.

Mr. Richard Neville: Mr. Chairman, allow me to explain that individuals can be appointed to a bilingual position provided they agree to take language training. This becomes a criteria of confirmation of their position. The individuals receive an offer and get their training later.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have one final brief question. If public servants fail the training, do they keep their jobs?

Mr. Richard Neville: There are some specific rules. Everything depends on the individual situation. This is reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Jennings, please.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I would just like to ask for some information. The fact that individuals can occupy a bilingual position provided they take and pass language training to become bilingual was accepted during Pierre Elliott Trudeau's time, I believe, when he was prime minister. The idea was to increase the number of French Canadians in the management of the public service. So, initially, this program was more for French Canadians, and was subsequently broadened to include anglophones.

• 1705

I have two questions. One is about the infrastructure program. Unless I am mistaken, in the other phase, two provinces agreed to consider universities and colleges eligible to grants to improve their physical infrastructure. Three other provinces agreed to the same thing informally. A report published by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, specifically on infrastructure, estimated that it would cost some $3.5 billion to upgrade properly the infrastructure of Canada's universities and colleges.

That is the overall amount, but I believe the most urgent work would cost $1.5 billion. The AUCC is calling on the federal government to ensure that the issue of universities and colleges would be reviewed in its negotiations with the provinces. I am therefore passing on the message to you. I should tell you that there is a university in my riding that is very much in need of renovations and repairs to its infrastructure.

My second question is about the government's online program. Am I mistaken to say that the Canada Post Corporation would like to be the supplier of this program? Is this the program for which Canada Post Corporation wants to do a call for tenders or to be the sole supplier, something that has been challenged by the private sector?

[English]

Is it that one? That's like a litigation without being before the courts.

Mr. Frank Claydon: It's not that Canada Post wants to deliver the government online; it's that they have an interest in being part of a consortium that would be responsible for one of the major structural underpinnings of government online. It's a major pathway through which all departments can communicate with one another.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Right.

So the newspaper articles on this issue are not quite correct, because they're saying that Canada Post wants to be the supplier, and that the private sector is contesting this and saying that at the most, they would be prepared to include Canada Post in the plans they wish to submit—as one of the partners. But that would be the most, and only if the federal government insists that Canada Post has to be part of the package.

Is that accurate? Because it's quite serious if it is accurate.

Mr. Frank Claydon: Well, I feel a bit constrained in terms of answering that question. This is something that is still being considered by the government, and I feel it wouldn't be appropriate for me to go into those details at this time.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: So you can't say whether or not the newspaper articles are accurate?

Mr. Frank Claydon: No, I'm afraid I can't.

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Madam Jennings.

Again, like all the other members of the committee, Mr. Claydon, I'd like to congratulate you on your appointment as Secretary of the Treasury Board, and I know you will discharge the duties and responsibilities in an able and competent manner.

But I would like to point out to you that I see the role of the Treasury Board as a central manager of government. Mr. Mayfield talked about accountability, and everybody has to be accountable to somebody in this world in order to maintain good service, good quality, good productivity and efficiency, and so on. I would like to see the Treasury Board take a much more hands-on management of departments.

• 1710

You're aware of the problems in HRDC of late. There have been a number of audits over the last number of years of various programs within HRDC that really haven't caused much action there. The Auditor General tables reports, and—it was on education and natives, I think, or was it the immigration one—10 years later there are basically the same problems.

I hope you would see your role as a central manager of government, and that you would ensure the internal general audit teams in each department are doing their work, and that you, as the Treasury Board, audit or spot-audit the departments to ensure their accountability is correct. In the same same way as we have to go back to our constituents every few years, DMs, deputy ministers, should be accountable to somebody, rather than thinking they're running a little fiefdom on their own. I would hope you see yourself and the Treasury Board in that role. Do you?

Mr. Frank Claydon: I think the answer is yes, we do see ourselves as looking at the activities of all departments. In a sense, it comes down to a question of means and what's an appropriate way for the Treasury Board to try to assure there's a level of prudence in the use of government funds. I think that's a kind of evolving thing.

The Chair: But it's more than just the prudent use of government funds.

Mr. Frank Claydon: Yes.

The Chair: All departments have to be accountable to someone, and Treasury Board is a central manager. In essence, you are the writer of all the rules in government, and as a writer of all rules, you should be policing these rules, have some methodology for policing them.

Now, there are the internal audit teams in each department—and I used HRDC just as an example, because it's in the news of late. As I've said, there have been several audits in that department that really haven't changed the way the department has done things. I would have thought it would be the role of the Treasury Board to check up to see that departments implement the recommendations of our own audit teams, for example. Do you agree with that?

Mr. Frank Claydon: I agree with the sense of what you're saying. The Treasury Board has a role in terms of ensuring things like that are followed up on.

The Chair: It's called accountability. And again, it's with the Auditor General's part of the accountability process as well.

I know any time you come back here in front of the committee to answer perhaps an Auditor General's report, that's the type of question I'll ask: do you hold departments accountable? I think everybody needs to be held accountable. That's the democratic system. When we take a look at other countries whose governments are ineffectual, inefficient, and corrupt, it's through a lack of accountability.

Mr. Frank Claydon: There's just one thing I would like to clarify, though. I don't really see that departments are accountable to the Treasury Board in terms of their overall management. I think they're accountable to Parliament in terms of their management.

Certainly there's a role that Treasury Board plays in terms of trying to ensure departments do a good job, and to check in terms of how they're doing. But accountability is one of those things, at least in my view, that is not just simple, straight, and direct. There are multiple accountabilities. I can certainly tell you, as a deputy minister, that I face the burden of multiple accountabilities every day of the week, some of it to the Prime Minister, some of it to my own minister, some of it to the Clerk of the Privy Council. It's a complicated system.

I think you're right, though, and certainly it's our duty and responsibility to see that we do as much as possible to ensure departments are doing what they should in terms of their programs.

The Chair: Thank you again for coming before the committee. On behalf of all the committee members, I wish you well. We are quite confident you will discharge the duties of Secretary of the Treasury Board in a capable manner.

On that note, we will say thank you again.

The meeting is adjourned.