:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm happy to appear before your committee for the first time as the President of the Treasury Board.
I have with me, as I indicated, Mr. Wayne Wouters. I didn't indicate the title of Mr. St-Jean. Of course, he's the Comptroller General of Canada.
Today I'd like to update the committee on the activities of the secretariat in four areas: the implementation of the Federal Accountability Act and action plan, the expenditure management system, the accrual budgeting issue, and large IT projects.
I will begin with some brief remarks, after which I'll be open to answering questions.
Improving accountability in government has been our number one priority since we took office. Our commitment to accountability did not stop with the introduction of the Federal Accountability Act on April 11, nor with royal assent on December 12. We've delivered and will continue to deliver by ensuring that all aspects of the act and its companion action plan are implemented. Together they provide measures to reduce the influence of money in politics, protect whistle-blowers, and improve government contracting.
They strengthen financial management and internal audit functions within departments and ensure more consistent discipline for those who deliberately break the rules. They ensure that agents of Parliament, like the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, have the power they need to be effective, independent watchdogs.
But accountability is not just about putting in the right controls and rules to make government work better. It is also about accountability for real results for Canadians. Every year, some $27 billion is transferred to individuals, corporations, and NGOs through grant and contribution programs. Yet time and money are being wasted administering rules and processes that add little to results and nothing to accountability.
I'd like to take a moment to thank my predecessor, , for the good work he did in this department and the initiatives he commenced. They have certainly made my transition much easier.
My predecessor appointed a blue ribbon panel to recommend ways to make the management of these programs more effective and efficient. The panel will be making its report public in the next few weeks, and I'll be making the government's response public at the same time.
We are also reforming government procurement policy. There is a new code of conduct for procurement that applies to both suppliers and public servants. There is a procurement ombudsman to review practices across the government, consider complaints, and help resolve disputes. These are just a few of the elements of accountability that we are working diligently to put into effect.
I would like to take a few minutes to explain in some detail how we are implementing the act. Let me begin by saying that officials at the secretariat and across government are doing their part to put the act into effect as quickly as possible.
Getting the act passed into law took a lot of hard work. Implementing this complex piece of legislation will take even more time and effort. This is because we need to ensure that all the pieces are in place to ensure a smooth transition.
Some of the major activities that need to be completed are as follows. We are developing several sets of regulations. Those regulations are evident from the act itself, for example, those around the administrative penalties under the Conflict of Interest Act. Some of these will require significant public consultations, and the regulations around the new provisions of the Lobbying Act are a good example of this.
So it's not simply a matter of the act coming into force and simply proclaiming a regulation; consulting needs to be done to ensure that this is done in an appropriate way.
A number of Governor in Council appointments will need to be made. Most of these, including the appointment of the new Commissioner of Lobbying, will require Parliament's review.
A number of the government's administrative policies will need to be amended, including the government's financial management and procurement policies.
Finally, in some cases organizations will need to put new work units in place to administer the new requirements. For example, crown corporations that will now be subject to the Access to Information Act will need to have personnel in place to administer ATI the day it comes into force.
Communications and outreach will also be critical. We will be informing the public, as well as departments and agencies, of the new provisions of the act as they are brought into force. We will ensure that all interested parties are aware of the implications and have the capacity to respond.
The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is a case in point. In order for this to be brought into force, several critical steps need to be completed. These include establishing the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal; ensuring that organizations are ready to fulfill their new responsibilities; and approving the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to administer the act.
With regard to the last point, we are doing our part to select a strong candidate. When we bring forward our nominee for this position, I hope I can count on you as parliamentarians to ensure that the vetting process takes place as efficiently and as fairly as possible.
Training is also critical to the effective implementation of the FAA. We will be working with the Canada School of Public Service to update existing courses and to ensure that appropriate training is provided.
We have a lot to do to implement the act, but we are moving forward to implement the commitments in the federal accountability action plan. For example, there are several reviews under way to make government work better for Canadians, especially those who interact with government on a regular basis. These initiatives include the ongoing renewal of the government's management policies and the blue ribbon panel review of grants and contributions that I mentioned earlier.
In summary, we are working hard to bring the act into force as expeditiously as possible, but each of these activities will require time and resources to ensure that every organization is ready to properly administer the new activities and to comply with the law. The timetable for implementation will be finalized soon, after consultation with affected stakeholders. In the next few weeks, Treasury Board will begin the process of considering the enabling regulations that will implement the act. We will keep working at it until it's done and done right.
Madam Chair, the Federal Accountability Act was this government's first step in enhancing accountability in government. Improving how spending is managed through a new expenditure management system is the next step to ensure Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars are well spent. That's why, in November, we announced the directions for a new expenditure management system. Our goal is to ensure that every tax dollar spent is well spent. For new spending, that means making decisions in the context of other spending in the same area. For existing spending, it means an ongoing systematic review to make sure programs are still relevant and are achieving the intended results and that funding is adequate.
Simply put, our new approach to expenditure management will support managing for results by establishing clear responsibilities for departments to better define the expected outcomes of new and existing programs. Secondly, our new approach will support decision-making for results by ensuring that all new programs are fully and effectively integrated with existing programs by reviewing all spending to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, and ongoing value for money. Finally, we will support reporting for results by improving the quality of department- and government-wide reporting to Parliament. Ultimately, this new system will ensure that all government programs are effective and efficient, focused on results, and provide value for taxpayers' money.
In the time I have remaining, I'd like to address some of the committee's other concerns: the use of full accrual accounting for departmental budgeting and appropriations and our approach to large IT projects. I have received perhaps more briefing on accounting in the last month than I've received in quite awhile, and I'm beginning to understand how diligently my staff work at these issues. I know they're very much interested in what the committee has had to say on these issues, and I intend to work with the committee and work with the department to ensure that any changes in that respect are implemented carefully and indeed benefit Canadians.
I would like to thank you, Madam Chair, and the members of your committee for your efforts in improving financial management and reporting by the Government of Canada.
The benefits of accrual accounting are well accepted. The accrual method of accounting could improve transparency in financial management and therefore accountability. I'm sure you appreciate the complexities involved in designing and implementing such a system. That's why the secretariat is studying the issue carefully. Our position, which will be included in our response to the public accounts committee, will form the basis of the government's position to be presented in the debate on the concurrence motion for your committee's report. Until that time, I don't want to prejudge the outcome of our deliberations.
Another way we are working to improve accountability in government is by strengthening our ability to manage and implement large information technology projects. Specifically, we have developed an action plan, which builds on the progress made, to address the Auditor General's concerns in this area. That includes developing clear expectations with new policy and a directive on the management of IT projects, providing new guidance and tools, training and development programs, and strengthening the secretariat's oversight of large information technology projects.
Madam Chair, the technology underpins the delivery of almost every program and service we deliver to Canadians. That is why we take the management of these IT projects so seriously.
The theme that runs through every one of the activities I've talked about today is about improving accountability in government. I'm proud of the ongoing efforts on behalf of the people of this country that we as parliamentarians have made. Certainly in passing the Federal Accountability Act, we're working hard, I believe, to restore trust in government by ensuring we have the right measures in place to enhance accountability and manage spending, to provide value for money and real results for Canadians. We won't stop until the job is done.
Thank you. I'm prepared to answer questions.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to all again.
I want to beat a dead horse: accrual accounting as mentioned by Madam Thibault. Of course, I was involved with the public accounts committee where we did the study, and here as well, and certainly I'm not an expert on accrual accounting, but I got my indoctrination or baptism by fire ad nauseam.
The difficulty that I and we and both the committee on public accounts and of course this committee have seen is that there has been a great deal of hesitation for a great many legitimate reasons. I can recall that both Mr. St-Jean and Mr. Maloney, who is sitting in the audience, had some very well-founded, serious concerns on behalf of Treasury Board that would pose some difficulties for implementation. They were well-received and definitely were part of the equation that we have wrestled with as well, so we recognize that it isn't just a total upside. There are problems and difficulties with the implementation process.
But that having been stated, both public accounts and now this committee unanimously have recommended in a very strong manner that we feel unequivocally that there should be an immediate adoption of that principle and an implementation process should begin ASAP.
So my concern with your response, and I'm encouraged, quite frankly, with a 45- to 90-day response potentially coming back--I think that's encouraging, and I would also ask the minister to remain vigilant and see if we can maintain that timeframe, because what we don't want to do is get into another year and another year. This has been going on for years, and there's no doubt that there has been a lack of efficiency or transparency simply due to an accounting system that isn't fully giving us the results we need, and accrual accounting was deemed to be a definite advantage.
With that preamble, I would encourage the minister to respect the will of these committees when they unanimously went forward with these actions and strongly urge the government to give us a quick response. We see we have one coming to public accounts. Should this be in isolation and/or a separate one to this particular committee? Can we act in tandem? What are your thoughts, Mr. St-Jean? Obviously, when we have two committees, we don't want to end up in conflict with ourselves on this issue. How do you see that we best receive this information?
Something that I know I raised with your predecessor, Mr. Minister, concerned some cuts that were made last fall. I know there was a lot of concern in my community about those cuts, specifically the cancellation of the court challenges program.
There was great concern about the impact on human rights and the potential inability of people whose rights might be breached under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be able to access legal assistance in order to challenge the law and have their rights protected. Of course, we have lots of examples, whether it's francophones, people with disabilities, or gays and lesbians who have had the ability to have their rights fulfilled because of the court challenges program. That was one area.
A second area was the cuts to Status of Women. I have to say there is great concern among women in my community and across the country about the cuts that have been made, the offices that have been closed in the Status of Women program, and a seeming reorientation of that. I appreciate that the details are best asked of the Minister of Heritage, but it's the cuts that really concern women.
The third area that I heard the most about was on the cuts for touring arts. I know internationally acclaimed writer Margaret Atwood wrote an opinion piece in The Globe and Mail about this and how important it is in terms of Canada's projection of its image abroad and our culture and in terms of giving opportunities to aspiring or up-and-coming artists to have our international touring program. The loss of funds to those kinds of programs is really of great concern to the arts community.
We did, of course, ask these questions to your predecessor, but I feel obliged to raise this with you as well, because of course these cuts are ongoing and the funding has not been restored.
:
There are a number of things. As parliamentarians, you can provide us with ongoing advice.
I do note, just before I answer that question, that when you're working in a line department, for example, that will be affected by an act's coming in, you don't want to spend too much money and time on any particular thing if in fact that act is going to be defeated. There was never any guarantee that the act was going to be passed. So managers are put in a very difficult position.
How much money and time do we invest in something that may never come to fruition? That was one of the problems we faced as ministers in a line department. For example, when we implemented the Director of Public Prosecutions position, we were able to bring that into effect virtually immediately upon the coming into force of the act, but that's not without its risks. I could see there being the criticism that after having done all that work and expended the money, suddenly the act wasn't coming forward, and you had expended money. So it was frustrating that the act was held up, I think most of us would admit, for an unduly long period of time in the Senate.
Now that the act is, in great part, in force, one of the things that parliamentarians must consider is how you can help the parliamentary vetting process. I think the act gives unprecedented control to parliamentarians in terms of the appointment process for some of these individuals. The appointments requiring parliamentary oversight include those of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner as an officer of Parliament, the Commissioner of Lobbying as an agent of Parliament, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner as an agent of Parliament, and the Director of Public Prosecutions. At the present time we have a temporary person in place for the latter, and there will be a permanent one in place.
Again, the reviewing of all of these individuals and that process requires, I think, if not camaraderie, at least a willingness to work together to ensure that the best individuals are put in place.
:
But perhaps I should say that this is a question that interests me a little more than some of the other questions, but that doesn't mean, on an objective basis, that they aren't all good questions.
Just because there are a lot of rules doesn't necessarily mean you're getting value for money. That was pointed out very clearly by the Auditor General, looking into the sponsorship issue. The Auditor General indicated that there are lots of rules in place, the rules were broken, and so the emphasis needs to be not so much on rules but on accountability.
I think we're taking a positive step forward by actually holding officers accountable, the deputy ministers. As you will recall in that sponsorship situation, a mid-level bureaucrat was able to circumvent the deputy minister and report directly into a minister's office. That was not appropriate; it broke the rules. The deputy in that situation was able to say he was not responsible because he was specifically told to mind his own business in that respect. So what we need to do is to emphasize the accountability, without having a lot of unnecessary rules. What I hear from many organizations, and I tend to agree with them—very good organizations that are doing a lot of good work--is the amount of paperwork they are burdened with to get even small amounts of money.
So, again, what I believe we should be doing in the public service is to hold managers and others responsible for the decisions they make. But where honest mistakes are made, we understand that honest mistakes are made and we try to do better in other situations, but we come down hard on situations where there has been a deliberate breaking of the rules.
Again, I'm very encouraged by the passage of the Federal Accountability Act and the new fraud and criminal offences that have been brought into force as a result of the FAA. I think that is going to ensure that there is a stronger measure of accountability generally, that they know they're held to an objective standard and will be measured accordingly. So I think the FAA is going to help us not to simply create more rules—we have enough rules—but to bring accountability into the situation. Also, of course, we are awaiting the blue ribbon panel on the web of rules, as it's called, to see what we can safely jettison without undermining the integrity of the grants and contribution system.
:
Thank you, madam Chair. There is going to be a vote and the meeting will have to stop anyway.
Minister, Treasury Board is the employer for the public service. Are you in any way concerned, like several of us, by the present situation relating to official languages, forty years after the Act? There are still today in the public service, especially in the ranks of higher management and the mandarinate, people who are not fully bilingual even though they may be the heads of organizations. I am not referring here to governor-in-council appointments but to the positions of assistant deputy-ministers, branch managers and so on. In other words, we still have top-level managers who are unable to work effectively in both official languages. Do you find that acceptable, forty years later? As the new minister, do you intend to do anything about that?
I hope that the president of the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency will come before our committee. That agency has a crucial role to play, especially with the Public Service modernization Act, but we have heard that it is facing difficulties in implementing its mandate because of a shortage of qualified personnel. That is an example.
A few minutes ago, you talked about prosecutors — and I have nothing against them — but are you concerned by what is happening at that level? Do you believe that there has been good enough planning over the past months and years to ensure that there will be enough qualified resources to replace those who will retire?
A while ago, my colleague talked about the need to reach the targets established many years ago. I have just talked about bilingualism but this also applies to visible minorities and disabled persons, whatever the nature of their disability.
Do you intend to change this situation in order to reach those targets established a long time ago?
Thank you.