NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 18, 1999

• 1105

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Good morning, colleagues.

It's my honour to open this Thursday, March 18, meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations. I am pleased to welcome to our committee today Mr. Mel Cappe, who is Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet. It's not written here, but I'm sure we all know, and for the record, this means he is head of the public service of Canada.

I guess, Yvon, he's the big boss. He's also the Prime Minister's deputy minister. He is here to discuss with us the main estimates for 1999-2000 and anything else that might be on members' minds.

With that, Mr. Cappe, welcome. I invite you to introduce your colleague as well.

Mr. Mel Cappe (Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

I am accompanied by Ms. Élisabeth Nadeau, the Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for corporate services at the Privy Council.

We are willing to answer your questions, but if you don't mind, I would like to begin by making a short presentation to describe my current responsibilities.

[English]

I thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to appear before the committee. It's my first opportunity to meet with members in my new job, and I look forward to this exchange. I know you'd rather ask me questions than listen to me, so I'll try to keep this short.

If I have a theme for what I want to convey to members of Parliament today, it is that I'm a public servant and I'm proud of it. I want to talk a little about what that means, and I'll come back to that as I go through this.

Today is actually my two-month anniversary on the job, so perhaps it's propitious that I'm here talking to members of Parliament. For the last time, I will tell actually what I said to the Prime Minister and what he responded to me. I won't usually do this, but when the Prime Minister called me and asked me to be the new Clerk of the Privy Council, I said I was honoured and I looked forward to helping him make Canada a better place. The Prime Minister responded by saying “That's the name of the game.” That's sort of what's guiding me, as I approach my new responsibilities.

I really believe the public service plays a fundamental role in Canadian society, and that I and every public servant have an important contribution to make. Because we serve elected people like you, we help make the aspirations and the values of the people they represent a reality.

Each day thousands of public servants help make Canada a better place. Each day hundreds of meteorologists answer questions and give information to Canadians about the weather. Each day tens of thousands of seniors call and get reassured or informed about their pensions. Much of the work goes unnoticed, and yet it is vital.

When I was a deputy minister of a line department, I used to say I'd like to be taken for granted, because if we do a good job and Canadians get well served, nobody notices. But in fact, what we are about is serving Canadians. Each day food is kept safe through careful inspection, cutting-edge research produces concrete results that benefit every sector of society, and benefits are paid out to the less fortunate to ensure their livelihood in hard times.

My job brings home the importance of the whole of government. The challenge is going to be to enhance the collectivity of deputy ministers, without having too heavy a hand from the Privy Council Office, so we collectively, as deputy ministers responsible for service, can help make Canada a better place. It will be essential to exercise a supportive, participatory kind of leadership, where direction flows both up and down, in open communication.

[Translation]

You won't be surprised if I don't make any major statements about matters of policy or management here today.

• 1110

As I was saying, I have been on the job for only two months and am still trying to identify my priorities early on in my term.

[English]

I would like to take a few seconds to focus on my initial thoughts as I assume these new responsibilities, on the challenges I see ahead for the public service and on my approach to tackling them.

As the chairman indicated, I have three basic responsibilities. In my role as deputy minister to the Prime Minister, I provide advice and support to the Prime Minister on the full range of his responsibilities and functions as leader of the government. I also head the department that supports the Prime Minister, and in that regard I must promote the excellence of the Privy Council Office. Perhaps the most important thing I do is to make sure we have a strong Privy Council Office, and I want to strengthen it yet again and use it as a training ground for good public servants.

As the secretary of the cabinet, I must ensure that the processes of governance are healthy and promote an effective cabinet decision-making system. In this capacity, I provide support and advice to the ministry as a whole and oversee the provision of policy and secretariat support to cabinet and cabinet committees. This position also gives me a role in federal, provincial, and territorial relations, and I attach a great significance to this. I've already met with a number of my provincial and territorial counterparts, and in June I will be hosting, in conjunction with the deputy minister to the premier and cabinet secretary of Saskatchewan, a meeting of all the cabinet secretaries to the provincial and territorial governments.

As head of the public service, I'm responsible—this is my third role—for the quality of expert professional and non-partisan advice and service provided by the public service to the government and to Canadians. At this particular point in time this role for me means to renew the public service, to rejuvenate our human resource capacity, and to bring the workplace in line with new management values.

I will fulfil all of these roles with the principle of respect for the supremacy of Parliament in a Westminster democracy, and I think this is an important element of the constitutional role of the Clerk of the Privy Council.

As parliamentarians, I know you have a special interest in the health of the public service, so allow me to go on and say a few words about this institution before going to the heart of the estimates.

Essentially the role of the public service is to support the government in fulfilling its goals. The public service does this in several ways. It provides objective, non-partisan advice; it develops and implements sound policy; it conducts research in labs and facilities across the country for the benefit of all Canadians; and of course it delivers service directly and indirectly to Canadians.

As head of the public service I am concerned with how good a public service we are and how we can make Canada a healthier society, how we can make Canada more competitive, and how it can help position Canada as a force for good in the world.

In order to constantly reflect the changing needs and aspirations of the Canadian population, much has been done in the past to constantly improve and adapt the way the public service plays its role. I intend to build on the success of my predecessors in this regard. In particular, I want to build on La Relève, to continue reinforcing our policy and science capacity, in modernizing our management of human resources and in improving the efficiency of service delivery. The La Relève initiative also outlines some challenges that we still have to overcome and that I want to address yet again as head of the public service.

As a national institution, the public service of Canada, in order to serve Canada well, is faced with particular challenges, and that is its own internal renewal. We must become an organization that attracts and retains the best employees, people who have a real sense of public service, people who are leaders in their field, but also people who find satisfaction in their work as public servants and have an opportunity to grow personally and professionally.

To bring renewal, we must work mainly on three fronts: recruitment, retention, and the quality of the workplace.

Recruitment is essential after 15 years of minimal new entries and years of downsizing while the majority of employees get ready to retire. As we recruit we look for the best and brightest and we pay attention to making the public service more representative of the citizens it serves.

Retention strategies will have to take into account competition from other sectors to reposition the public service as an employer of choice.

[Translation]

Given the range and variety of questions we are privileged to deal with, the Public Service can be an exceptional working environment.

• 1115

I also want to make sure that it is a working environment that stikes a proper balance between one's private life and one's career, and that it is healthy and provides a supportive working environment for employees.

[English]

I approach my job and these challenges with the following basic principles paramount in my mind. I'll go through these four principles because I gave them in my opening remarks to deputy ministers when I held my first deputy ministers' meeting after my appointment. I did this when I arrived in the Privy Council Office with all of the staff of the Privy Council Office as well.

I talked about openness, professionalism, teamwork, and respect for individuals. When I refer to openness, I think of an attitude where information is shared and never used as an instrument of power. I think of a corporate culture where communication is a foundation of how we work together, how work is done, and where people are heard.

Professionalism entails ensuring and promoting merit and attracting and developing the best people and keeping them. It means providing the best professional advice in the public interest, being courageous when needed, and sensitive to public issues as appropriate.

[Translation]

Proper teamwork means that an initiative has the support of everyone, and their commitment towards a common goal. Concretely, it means a coordinated effort to achieve the best results.

[English]

Finally, respect for people is essential in improving the quality of the workplace. It entails the recognition of employees' efforts and their value, as well as their need for balance between work and private life. The success of the public service, although difficult to measure, is seen in the success of our society as a whole.

This is not merely true in theory. Every survey of public servants, as recent as Linda Duxbury's study on career advancement in the public service, confirms the motivation of public servants to make a difference and to serve their country. I'm one of those. I said at the outset I'm a public servant and I'm proud of it. I choose to be in the public service and to contribute to the welfare and prosperity of Canada. It sounds corny sometimes, but I think it represents a reason why many members of Parliament come to Ottawa as well. In the pursuit of these objectives, I look forward to working with you as members of Parliament, who also share those values.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be pleased to answer questions.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cappe. It's much appreciated.

We're going to start questions with Yvon Godin, and then over to Reg.

Yvon, you did say you were ready? Okay. We'll start with Ghislain, then Reg.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Cappe, I would like to begin by congratulating you on your recent appointment.

You said somewhere that you had exceeded your 1998-1999 budget. I know that it was done by means of supplementary budgets. You said that the Privy Council budget is used to support the Cabinet. The total is $81,603,000. If I understand you correctly, it is thanks to this money that ministers travel to our districts, flit about and shoot off their mouths. Is that where it comes from?

Mr. Mel Cappe: I'm not sure whether that's bad or not, but the answer is no.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: In fact, I don't find it particularly good.

Mr. Mel Cappe: I know, but ministers have a travel budget in their departments. The Privy Council budget affects the decision- making process. It is primarily for the government's decision- making process, but also for the Prime Minister's Office itself. Most forecasts affect the way officials are organized within the Privy Council Office.

Our forecasts increased slightly; to be honest, the figure is only 11.2%. Given that I am a former Treasury Board official, I reviewed these forecasts virtually to the last cent.

• 1120

Last year or this year, we suggested that we be granted supplementary budgets to increase our resources so that we could do what needed to be done.

Collective agreements were signed with most public servants, who received an increase of 2.5%. There was an increase for the new Cabinet committees and for the support they needed.

We also increased the budget to support the interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians.

Thus we increased the budgets, but it was for specific reasons.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I want to make sure I have understood you properly, if only to pass on the information to voters who have asked me. There is $81,603,000 per year for the Privy Council. The Privy Council is very small. It is the Prime Minister, his ministers and the officials who support the machinery of government.

Mr. Mel Cappe: Yes.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: A total of $81 million for the image of the Prime Minister and his deputies is enormous. It is costing us an arm and a leg. Don't you think so?

Mr. Mel Cappe: No, not at all, because most of this $81 million is used to pay the salaries of the public servants who support...

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: How many are there?

Mr. Mel Cappe: It is not at all for the image of the Prime Minister, as you said, but primarily for the whole process, for the decision-making machinery. Thus the money is used mainly to pay for Cabinet committees and for the research required to manage interdepartmental matters. There are many current issues that go beyond the boundaries of individual departments, and when this is the case, the Privy Council plays a coordinating role among the departments.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: How many employees are there at the Privy Council Office?

Mr. Mel Cappe: We have 739 employees, but we also support five departments, including the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Leader of the Government in the Senate. We have so many employees because we need to provide them with support.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ghislain.

Mr. Bélair.

Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr. Cappe, congratulations on your appointment.

I would like to ask you a few brief questions, the first of which relates to morale in the Public Service.

A few years ago, there was a fairly substantial exodus to the United States because our senior public servants were dissatisfied, because they did not feel appreciated and for a variety of other reasons we could mention. Not long ago, the Privy Council offered them very substantial increases. Did this yield results?

Mr. Mel Cappe: You're talking about pay increases?

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Yes, pay.

Mr. Mel Cappe: The suggested pay increases came from an Advisory Committee to the Treasury Board President. The Advisory Committee was chaired by Mr. Lawrie Strong, the President and CEO of Unilever Canada. Representatives of the private sector sat on the committee.

Did it have an impact? Yes. We have seen a change since the increases were introduced. I have not conducted a scientific survey to support my view, but I have the impression that senior government officials have changed their mind about their satisfaction with their work.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Did it affect their attitude, for example?

• 1125

Mr. Mel Cappe: I have noted a change in attitude. Their salaries are still a source of irritation, I must admit, but there are nevertheless signs that the government is taking the issue of their salaries seriously. The issue is not whether senior officials should receive pay levels comparable to those of the private sector. Treasury Board policy is not to pay them competitive salaries, but to recognize that the nature of their work is completely different and that there has to be a form of compensation that will attract and make it possible to keep good people.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Have we been able at least to stop the haemorrhaging?

Mr. Mel Cappe: It is too early to say with any certainty, but I have noted some change in attitude.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Here is my second question, Mr. Cappe. I assume that the leadership network announced by the Prime Minister last June came about as a result of what we have just discussed. Some $10.7 million were allocated in the last budget to the leadership network. Could you tell us a few activities that will be undertaken with the $10 million, and the mandates you have been assigned to achieve your objectives?

Mr. Mel Cappe: The leadership network was an innovation. We wanted to attempt to build, throughout Canada in the Public Service, a network of people who could make a difference in the workplace, as well as to support a process of collective management among Assistant Deputy Ministers. The exercise was conducted by the Public Service Commission, and it is now under the leadership network.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: How about some concrete activities? What, precisely, are you going to do?

Mr. Mel Cappe: I could summarize two or three of the programs that they manage.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: OK, how about the major ones.

Mr. Mel Cappe: For example, there is a “pre-qualified pool of ADMs”. A way was found, within the Public Service Employment Act, of establishing a program designed to pre-identify people qualified for appointment at Assistant Deputy Minister level. Considerable resources are required to manage the program. Tests have to be administered and interviews conducted. It is managed by the Deputy Ministers through the leadership network.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Can a person who is working now in the Public Service apply to undergo one of these tests, provided that they have the required level of productivity?

Mr. Mel Cappe: Such conditions have not been provided for, but when we speak of paying our salaries, it must be said that part of our pay is at risk. The whole thing is managed by all senior officials, but the goal is to identify in advance people who possess the skills needed for appointment as Assistant Deputy Ministers. Afterwards, if a Deputy Minister has a position open, it will be possible to identify the best qualified person for the position. There will be no need to interview people and no need to go through all the stages usually required.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: One final question, Mr. President. Is it appropriate to ask you a question about pay equity?

• 1130

Mr. Mel Cappe: You can ask me the question, but I may not be able to answer it. Go ahead.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: I nevertheless have a small statement to make. I am speaking for my constituents now.

An hon. member: That's all very well for you.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Yes it is. Back in my riding, there is a small Human Resources Development office where the vast majority of the labour force consists of women. Needless to say, this concerns them a great deal. We and they are impatiently awaiting a Court decision.

In the future, once the current problem has been dealt with, what measures do you plan to take to solve the problem once and for all to prevent its recurrence?

Mr. Mel Cappe: I should first say that this is a question you should ask the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Justice. However, I can draw your attention to the fact that at the most recent collective bargaining sessions, the Treasury Board, as the employer, signed an agreement with the PSAC in which the issue of pay equity was treated not retroactively, but with a view to the future.

For example, employees in the CR category received an increase of 11.2%, if I remember correctly, in their collective bargaining agreement. It was about 11%. Included in that was a portion designed to address the issue of pay equity.

At Treasury Board, there is a program under which all positions in the Public Services are being reclassified.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Are they being defined as well?

Mr. Mel Cappe: Yes, all positions are being redefined under a new system of categories to avoid any possible confusion with respect to equity issues. All of this will thus be avoided in the future.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Thank you, Mr. Cappe.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bélair.

We have Yvon Godin, and then we have Roy Cullen.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadia—Bathurst, NDP): Good day Mr. Cappe,

First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment to your new position. However, I do so with hesitation. I want to be honest with you. I am not the sort of person to hide behind a tree to say something. I speak straight out.

When you were the Deputy Minister at Human Resources Development, a great deal of damage was caused. In your statement, you said that it was a good opportunity to contribute to the welfare of Canadians, but we know that 50% of people are not eligible for employment insurance because of the changes made by the Department of Human Resources Development. It has to be said.

When the Prime Minister says that the essentials have been understood, it would be nice to hear him speak about what is essential for a better country, made up of human beings. People should not be hurt.

I have a great deal of respect for senior public servants and for all those who work in the machinery of government, but there are human beings in all of this, and you have the opportunity to make truly important recommendations. A change in your vision would be welcome.

I would like to make this comment. Changes to employment insurance harmed many Canadians, particularly women. When the new Employment Equity Act was passed, it was said that it would give more women working in a variety of jobs, a better opportunity to count all of their hours. In spite of it all, they are not working 35 hours a week and have been seriously affected. I felt it was necessary to make this comment.

I would like to ask a question. You spoke of public servants and salaries. Is it true that senior public servants receive a performance bonus in addition to their salary? Is it true that the more senior public servants save money for the government by reducing employment insurance spending, the higher their bonus? I would like you to clarify that. One way or the other, I intend to find out.

• 1135

Having been the Deputy Minister for Human Resources Development, you are surely aware of what I am talking about. Letters were sent to Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and no doubt to other places in Canada. They said: "Because you obtained enough money, layoffs were avoided at Treasury Board." I would like you to clarify all these things for me.

Mr. Mel Cappe: I will begin by answering the question about pay for senior civil servants. I will refer back to my answer to Mr. Bélair's question. The pay system was changed to place part of senior public servants' pay at risk. We wanted to find a way to manage performance. It's a matter of performance management. People were told that they had objectives, and that part of their pay would be given to them only if their performance was good.

Mr. Yvon Godin: It's a bonus.

Mr. Mel Cappe: It's not a bonus. It's something that has to be earned.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Could you explain in detail what it is? I see it as a bonus. If a person works hard, it is received. If a person saves the government money, that person receives a bonus. You can call it whatever you want, but it's a bonus. If you want to save your skin, you'd better find a good definition of it for me.

Mr. Mel Cappe: Yes. I would imagine that everyone, including MPs, would like excellence to be a given in the Public Service.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Not at the expense of human beings, but carry on.

Mr. Mel Cappe: I return to the question. I have already indicated that it is not only money that motivates public servants. It is not a matter of making the Public Service comparable to the private sector in every respect, but rather at the beginning of the year setting performance objectives, and if someone achieves these objectives...

I will give you an example that just came to mind. For example, if the goal is to hire visible minorities or to achieve pay equity, this objective may be set at the beginning of the year and someone can earn part of his or her pay, the part at risk, by achieving these objectives. Objectives can also be set with respect to improving service to clients.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Fewer answering machines.

Mr. Mel Cappe: The goal may be to reduce the time spent on hold when people call to obtain information about a program or about a cheque. Thus an objective may be to reduce the time spent on hold. If the Public Service succeeds in reducing this time, part of the pay at risk may thus be earned.

In 1981, the government cut the salaries of senior public servants and established a system of bonuses, as you have just said. On the heels of Mr. Strong's report, in which a committee reviewed pay for senior public servants, the bonus system became a system of pay that had to be earned. I cannot discuss the specific issues about which you just spoke, but for me, the question is the following: Do managers have specific objectives, and will they be paid if they achieve these objectives?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Monetarily.

Mr. Mel Cappe: I have never spoken of the quotas you mentioned.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I will send you the letter that was received from your former department, and you will see. I haven't got it straight in my head yet. You called it pay at risk. What is this pay that is at risk? Is it money?

Mr. Mel Cappe: Yes.

• 1140

Mr. Yvon Godin: If they do not meet their objectives...

Mr. Mel Cappe: Which is re-earnable.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Which is re-earnable. That means that they will not receive the money. I call that a bonus. I used to be miner.

Mr. Mel Cappe: I do not define that as a bonus.

Mr. Yvon Godin: When I was a miner, when I mined so much ore, I would receive only my regular wages. When I got more, I got more money. If I did not mine any more, that extra pay was at risk. I can use the same language as you. I did not earn as much as I might have.

If a public servant cuts enough from programs and saves the government enough money, because that is the objective... I will send you the letter from your former department. The letter, addressed to lower level public servants, if they did not meet their objective, they risked losing their job. For them, the pay that was at risk certainly represents more than half their pay; it is all their pay.

Mr. Mel Cappe: I never saw...

Mr. Yvon Godin: You can use the term “bonus” or the term “pay at risk”. There is certainly a basic salary. Then if you tell people that if they meet a specific objective and save the government money, their pay will be raised, this will encourage them to make further cuts.

Mr. Mel Cappe: I have not yet read the letter you mentioned and therefore cannot comment on it. I can, however, assure you that the criteria to be used will not be monetary quotas to save the government money. But there is some truth somewhere in there, and that is that resources will be available to do a job. If the job disappears, then the resources will not be required for it.

It is not a matter of quotas. In any event, I have stated my point of view. I do not think that pay that is at risk is related to the letter you spoke about.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Yvon.

Roy Cullen, and then Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Cappe.

Mr. Chairman, I assume by the line of questioning that we can deviate from the strict discussion of the estimates and get into some—

The Chairman: You'll know by the answers.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes.

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes, exactly. I'm coming from the same angle. You'll let me know if I'm out of order, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to touch on three topics, if I might. The first is the budgeting process for the Senate, the second is the social union health accord, and the third is the privacy issues.

On the budgeting for the Senate question, Mr. Cappe, I'm sure you're not going to comment on the political games that can be played around this issue from time to time. In terms of the Senate, whether we have a Senate or not is not the issue on the table right now as far as I'm concerned. But in terms of the Senate budgeting process, maybe you could shed some light, as the Clerk of the Privy Council. How is the Senate budget developed? Is there any role at all for elected members of Parliament in that process?

Maybe you could give me some of the philosophical answers, if you like, around different points of view that I've heard. One is that the Senate is its own entity and answerable to itself, and therefore the House of Commons has really no role in that process. On the one hand, I can see some rationale for that. By the same token, when we are presented with a budget in the House as elected members of Parliament, of course we have the ultimate choice whether or not to vote for the Senate budget. But I'm wondering if you could shed some light on the process itself, some of the philosophies behind how that has been developed. And what role, if any, do elected members of Parliament play in that process?

Mr. Mel Cappe: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad Mr. Cullen has given me the out here in saying that I don't have to deal with the political arguments around this.

Let me use the analogy of the House of Commons, which I actually know better from my days in Treasury Board. The Board of Internal Economy prepares the estimates for the House of Commons, and the House ends up voting on those estimates. You decide, but it has to go through the Senate, and the Senate passes on the House of Commons estimates. So there is an established process according to the constitutional roles of both Houses, and you play out your role according to your constitutional responsibilities.

• 1145

Mr. Roy Cullen: What you're saying, then, is that as far as the budget for the Senate is concerned, we elected people finally get involved when the estimates are presented in the House, and that's it.

Mr. Mel Cappe: You're faced with the estimates as proposed, and the appropriation bills as they come through the House.

Mr. Roy Cullen: But there's no role leading up to that point for elected people to be privy, to play the devil's advocate or ask questions. As it's constituted now, there is no role, as I think you've expressed. If there isn't, could you give me the public policy underpinnings to that, or the philosophical underpinnings?

Mr. Mel Cappe: I really don't have a view on the philosophical underpinnings, except to say that in my experience in taking estimates—and again, this is going back three jobs, to when I was with Treasury Board back in the early 1990s—the estimates of the House of Commons and of the Senate, the estimates of the Parliament of Canada, are presented to Parliament for passage. You therefore have your own mechanisms for establishing how you deal with them. And in the House of Commons, you have the Board of Internal Economy, and there's a comparable organization in the Senate, but I really don't have much more to add to that.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay, then I'll move to the social union and the health accord. And by the way, I think what was negotiated was good for Canada, so don't get me wrong there.

On the social union agreement, was it the view of the Privy Council Office, the PCO, that the Province of Quebec would likely, possibly, eventually sign a social union? What were the scenarios that you looked at?

Mr. Mel Cappe: I really wouldn't get into what we thought, because I don't think that's particularly relevant. To pick up on your question, though, just to report on the facts, the Prime Minister called a meeting of first ministers. You had a process that preceded that, in which 13 governments were involved, headed by ministers, including Ms. McLellan for the federal government. You then had the Prime Minister call a meeting and Mr. Bouchard, the Premier of Quebec, came to the meeting.

Was there an anticipation of an agreement? You can come to your own judgment about that. I really don't have much of a comment. But there was a meeting to discuss the social union framework, and all ten premiers and the leaders of the territories came.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Clearly you're not prepared to share anything, but there must have been some analysis and thinking in the PCO on that point. I can understand the sensitivity of it, but as it was outlined, it just seemed to me that the probability of Quebec signing was quite remote. Nonetheless, we'll move on to the health accord.

One of the things that concerns me is that we gave up something fairly tangible, something fairly concrete, in the health accord. We gave them funds, money. At the provincial level, that's what they wanted, and the quid pro quo was that we needed some accountability framework, some performance measures, etc.

Once they have the money, which they will, how do we ensure that the provinces move forward quite aggressively with this accountability framework and with performance measures? In my experience, particularly in health care or any other social policy domain, building benchmarks and outcome measures is very tough sledding. From a provincial point of view, it has to be seen as somewhat of an intrusion.

If I was advising a provincial government, I would say that we'd just drag this out because it's soft and fuzzy and, frankly, maybe we'd never get there. As a government, what can we do to ensure that the provinces push really hard on these outcome measures?

Mr. Mel Cappe: When people put money in my pocket, I don't think of it as an intrusion, so I'd be careful about that.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I'm talking about the other side.

Mr. Mel Cappe: Remember, the health accord was based on a letter that was signed—and this partly comes back to your earlier question—by all 12 premiers and leaders. It said that if more money was provided through the CHST, the money would be spent on health and the provinces would make public the performance of how the money was being used. Through the Canada health and social transfer, Parliament has a mechanism that guides how the money is spent and how the accountability measure is kept.

• 1150

I guess I take the commitment in that letter—actually, there was an exchange of letters, with the Prime Minister of Canada responding to all 12 leaders and premiers—at face value. They say they're going to do it, and I don't presume they won't.

We have in the social union framework an accountability regime that is quite elaborate and clear. In the case of health, you have this statement of letters and other agreements that the provincial, territorial and federal health ministers have been working on, so I assume they're going to keep their word.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Well, that might be a reasonable assumption, but surely we need to have some mechanisms or some plan B if some slack develops there. Is there no contingency planning?

Mr. Mel Cappe: I would just point out that in the social union framework agreement there is a dispute avoidance and dispute resolution mechanism. In the CHST, there is a provision for dealing with those differences as well. So it's building on the existing infrastructure, if you will.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Do I have a chance for one more?

The Chairman: One short one, yes.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay, with respect to privacy issues, then, one of our colleagues, Reg Alcock, is parliamentary secretary to the Honourable Stéphane Dion. He has been working on this issue with parliamentarians, and what may come out of this is a greater role for parliamentarians. I don't want to prejudge the outcome of those discussions on privacy issues, but as departments of the federal government look at integration of more information, of sharing data, I'm sure there are some efficiencies there. What kinds of measures or procedures do you have within the PCO to challenge departments that the privacy issues have been addressed or taken care of?

Mr. Mel Cappe: First of all, there is the Privacy Act. I hate to rely on goodwill, but I assume people respect the law, so I start from that perspective. Parliament also has a commissioner who's charged with being the conscience of departments, if you will.

The actual policy on access and privacy is a Treasury Board policy. Treasury Board ministers, as a statutory committee of cabinet, have provided or promulgated the policy on how governments operate. It's actually their role to see that departments abide by the policy that's extant. Again, I go back to Parliament passing legislation. In the end, that's the ultimate rule.

In the Privy Council Office, deputy ministers and I collectively spend a fair bit of time talking about these issues. Mr. Godin raised my last job. In my last job, I know we had large data banks, and we spent a lot of time worrying about the issue of privacy and how to protect it. I think we do a fairly good job on it. Can we do better? I think we could.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Gerald Keddy, and then Carolyn Parrish.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have a question for you before I begin. Are we to go to one o'clock today?

The Chairman: I'm not sure how much time Mr. Cappe has. We don't have to go to one o'clock. Is that what you...?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, I have several questions, but I will deal with them in two groups.

The Chairman: We've been going for about ten minutes each so far. Take your ten minutes now, and then we'll see where we are. How's that?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's terrific.

Along with the other members here, I'd certainly like to welcome you here, and I congratulate you on your new position. I don't know how often that happens from the opposition benches.

I certainly have a couple of comments on what you said earlier, and you'll see where I'm headed with those comments in a bit. On the fact that you're proud to be a civil servant, I find that most ex-civil servants I know—they were senior civil servants in the past and are now retired—were extremely proud to be civil servants, because they thought they did a job for Canada and for the citizens of Canada.

• 1155

Somehow that respect has been lost, and I think we're partly to blame as parliamentarians. Quite often it becomes a fractional issue for parliamentarians who want to find someone to blame for all the ills of the country. Civil servants, or sometimes the bureaucracy, are an easy evil to point the finger at. I think we have to recognize that. If we can do something to change that process and bring some respect back to the civil servants, I think that's a very important issue that all of us have some responsibility for.

There was some discussion earlier that appreciates the scope of the decisions that are being made within your $88-million budget, and that appreciates the fact that we're trying to do a better job at training the assistant deputy minister level of civil servant. At the same time, I see a number of things that I would say are working against that whole initiative. Certainly one of them would be the laying off of scientists in the civil service, in Natural Resources, particularly in Health, and certainly within Fisheries and Oceans.

A great number of public statements have been made in recent years, in the last three or four years in particular, about discontent within the civil service and about the fact that they don't feel they're being listened to. If you're aware of it, I'd like some estimate of the number of scientists we've lost. The last I heard was somewhere around 50 in Natural Resources alone. Is there any real initiative or drive to try to recoup those numbers and to try to bring that scientific community back into the civil service? There's also the fact that we're going to have to pay them adequately in order to attract them from private industry.

Mr. Mel Cappe: First of all, let me thank you for your comments on pride. I think you're right that members of Parliament can make a difference in this regard, so the fact that you said what you said is helpful in its own right.

In terms of the issue of scientists, when I talked about recruitment, I had in mind general recruitment but also some specific categories. In the scientific community, when I was the deputy minister at Environment—and you should add Environment to your list—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Yes, definitely.

Mr. Mel Cappe: —we had a lot of laboratory scientists.

We've gone through this period of downsizing during which we have lost a lot of good talent, but we have a lot of very good talent still with us. I think the quality of the scientific community in government is very good—and that's based on what I've heard from the presidents of universities, and from academic scientists and researchers in the private sector as well. The challenge now is partly to rekindle some of that pride, and partly to very deliberately make a concerted drive to ensure that when the people who are now between 50 and 55 all come to their retirement age at once—and there will be a block of them who do—we have the capacity to replace the scientific capacity inside government.

There are a number of different things we're looking at. Obviously there's just a natural recruitment process. We'll staff up as positions become vacant, but we are also looking at ways of trying to attract people who are polyvalent, people who can do more than one thing, but also people who are specialized in the right fields. You have to make sure you identify those fields properly so that you can attract the right kind of people for the right field.

In closing, I would just mention that there's a lot more science being done now in partnership with the academic community and with the private sector. I think that allows us to leverage that kind of scientific capacity and to provide a workplace for scientists that's much more attractive.

So I think there are a lot of things that we can do and are doing.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

It's been a very free-ranging—maybe that's a poor choice of words—a freewheeling conversation and discussion here this morning, and maybe this would be better asked to the Public Service Commission, but the discussion of pay equity came up. I'm more interested at the present time—and I think you've given your position, or as far as you would care to answer, on pay equity, and comments were made—in regional rates of pay. That's becoming a bigger issue and is a big issue certainly for PSAC and a number of civil servants.

• 1200

Mr. Mel Cappe: Frankly, I'd rather duck that, but I won't duck it entirely.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: That's fair enough.

Mr. Mel Cappe: The fact is this is a question you should pose to the President of the Treasury Board, and he'll give you the government position on this. I would just note again a factual point, that we've had regional rates in some of those activities for 70 years and so this isn't a new policy of the government.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, and I understand that, and in rebuttal of it, I think it is a disincentive for the development of the regions and development of the civil service in the regions. There's an argument on both sides, but surely in this country we should be able to get beyond the point where we have different levels of pay for the same job in different areas.

The other question, and I think you spoke to it obliquely, was the reduction early on after 1993 in the size of the ministers' staffs and the increase in the importance of policy advice coming to the minister from the public service and that change in role. Do you see that as a role that will be continuing, that you expect to see become greater in the future? You've talked about the various attributes of civil servants, and having to have expertise in more than one field. Is this part of that?

Mr. Mel Cappe: In terms of the change in role, I think ministers should have advice from a wide variety of advisers—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: They get it.

Mr. Mel Cappe: —private think-tanks, academics, the special interests even, and from the public service. I want to make sure the quality of the advice they get from the public service is the best professional non-partisan advice they can get, and that's what we're working on.

In that light, one of the things my predecessor began, which I am very keen to proceed with, and indeed am pushing, is a policy research initiative where we're trying to look over the horizon at the kinds of issues that Canada will face over the course of the next medium to long term. We want to try to keep the capacity to deal with the short-term issues that we need policy development on right away, but also have a policy research capacity that provides for the long term as well. And when we've gone through this period of downsizing, I think we may have in some places worried about the present at the expense of the future. So we want to build that back in, I think, and we're working toward that now.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Gerald.

Carolyn and then Dave.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I'd like to begin by welcoming you as well. I'm very pleased to finally have seen you. I've heard a lot about you. I'm sorry Mr. Lebel left, because I have a couple of comments first that I'd like to get on the record.

He talked about a huge budget and huge staff to build the Prime Minister's image. I had the very rare privilege of going to Poland on a state visit in January, and I don't think that staff builds the Prime Minister's image as much as it builds the country's image. I think the resources that go into presenting Mr. Chrétien in his best light is a lesson we should all remember, whether we're in opposition or in government.

When I was there, I watched a very small team of very dedicated people who worked very smoothly to make sure everything went well, and I must say that at the end of four days I was wiped out. I was so glad to be coming home and not have to go on the next six days of the trip. I don't know how the Prime Minister does it and I don't know how his staff does it.

I'm not saying this to put laurels on your shoulders, but that staff is amazing. It's well oiled, it's small, but the most important thing that comes out of it is that the people of Poland were so impressed with Canada. They didn't talk about Mr. Chrétien specifically. They talked about us as a country and the fact that they were really proud to be in partnership with us, and we opened a monument together. I watched Mr. Chrétien, with his funny beanie, get an honorary PhD, and they were just so thrilled that Canada was there. And everything ran so smoothly.

I'm sorry Mr. Lebel is not here, because I don't think that money goes into making Mr. Chrétien look good. I think it goes into make our country look good.

• 1205

The other comment I'd like to make is to follow up on what Mr. Keddy said. I was at the Medical Research Council dinner last night that they held to thank this government for the funding in the last budget and this budget for medical research. And I think the message that came through with them was that we've now put the money, as you see, into a partnership so that the people out in the field who are so immersed in scientific research are actually being given the funds to do the work, which is much better than we could do by having a bunch of bearded grey-haired scientists working in the bowels of one of our buildings here. I think they stagnate.

The third point—and I sound like I'm browning around for a job; I'm not—is the downsizing. If the people talk about a lot of public service people leaving, that was very intentional. We downsized 40,000 people. We did it with a bit of class and style. We bought people out and we moved people around and we kept, I hope, the best. I watched Harris's Ontario do the same thing, with thousands of people picketing Queen's Park. So I think whoever is in charge has done a really good job there.

I'd also like to build on Mr. Keddy's question, because he referred to the size of ministers' staffs being reduced in policy advice. And I'm a bit of a despot. If I were in charge of the government, when the Liberals came in after we'd win, we'd fire all the public service. We'd get rid of them and we get Liberals in there. I'm joking; I'm being very facetious.

I think what happens is that there's been a consistency—Mr. Cappe is an example of that—where you've moved through obviously several governments so that your prime interest has to be the good of the country more so than the political aspirations of whatever party is in power. So I think the idea of keeping valued civil servants on and keeping them as advisers is what makes our country run smoothly from one government to the next.

I'd like you to comment on the fact that the ministers' offices, as Mr. Keddy has mentioned, have been reduced. I'd like to translate it to say that political hacks have been reduced, and what you have more of is a bureaucracy that's been through several political upheavals and is focused on the good of the various departments and of Canada.

Mr. Mel Cappe: Thank you. That's an interesting set of questions.

But dealing with the last part, there is a very real role for partisan political advice to ministers. And that's a role for the minister's office, for his exempt staff, people who are not part of the public service of Canada. That's a valuable role. I don't want to diminish it at all.

So yes, this government reduced the size of ministers' offices by $10 million. That was a significant change. But having said that, I don't want to undermine the legitimacy of the role of those people who are there providing good partisan political advice. The role of the public service, though, is to, as you suggest, provide that dispassionate public service non-partisan advice on the implications and consequences of initiatives to reflect the variety of the public interest in Canada and allow ministers to make an informed choice.

I would note that in some regimes like the United States, where they turn over the senior ranks and they do what you were joking about—

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I wasn't really joking.

Mr. Mel Cappe: Well, they actually do that.

There are some advantages to that, some would say. I think there are more disadvantages than advantages, and the protection of a professional public service that allows ministers to get the best professional advice is one that I think is quite precious. There are many governments around the world where this is a foundation. In fact, in many developing countries that have been part of the Commonwealth, you have that capacity. Even in some very poor developing countries they have a very professional public service, and that helps in their process of development.

I would quote a former deputy minister who once said that the public service is the permanent custodian of permanent problems. Many of the problems tend to last around, and it's actually useful to have people who know something substantive about the issues and who can advise ministers on how to deal with it. That doesn't take away from the role of the political staff, but it is a complement to it.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: If I might add one more question, at this dinner last night I was quite impressed with the fact that they talked about the vision of the government. We keep hearing that this is not a visionary government. We keep hearing that we've been concentrating on deficit and debt reduction and we haven't done anything visionary yet. We've cleaned house and we've turned the corner.

I would assume that with you as the chief adviser to the Prime Minister, the next couple of years will continue with the sort of visionary budget that we came out with this time. Do you see directions and space and some breathing space for us to do things that are what I would call more exciting and more future looking?

• 1210

Mr. Mel Cappe: Again, this is a question that would be better posed to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. But in my interest of not ducking, I'll nevertheless say that I think there has been a clear focus. If you look back from 1993 through the sweep of the last budget, the Speeches from the Throne and the budgets have all had a clear focus. Certainly the 1995 budget had a clear focus, which was getting hold of the fiscal responsibility and fiscal sovereignty. The 1998 budget was clearly the education budget and the 1999 budget was the health budget—in the way the media has characterized them, at least. There's a lot more than that in each of them.

I think the Prime Minister is often criticized for not being visionary, yet many people tend to see the vision in it. So I think we should have more of the same, and the PM is clearly as visionary as he would like to be.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I have one more tiny question, Mr. Cappe. When you have a country with a $42 billion deficit every year and a huge debt, as we have...have the civil service—and I don't know if you can say this or not—received the fact that this has all been managed and put under control as a real boon, because now they can be more flexible and more visionary?

Mr. Mel Cappe: That's actually a really interesting question, because I think the answer to that is yes. Now, it varies across the country, and it varies at different levels. It is certainly true that the public servants who are working on some of the new initiatives the government has taken in the last two years recognize that this would not have been possible without some of the pain we've gone through since 1995. In my days at the Treasury Board during the Conservative government time, they were preoccupied with the deficit as well, and we went through incessant across-the-board cuts. So the public servants who have been in the system for that period have lived with almost a decade of cuts. In fact, I can remember that in 1982 Prime Minister Trudeau at the time came back from Bonn and had a $2 billion cut. So you can start quite a way back.

As we're starting to do positive things again, I think there's a recognition that this is only possible having reduced the deficit to the point where the government can now make positive choices and not just negative choices.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Carolyn.

Dave Chatters, please.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too would like to congratulate you on your appointment, because certainly to have gained the position you have has to be a dream for a federal civil servant, simply because the Privy Council Office has to be one of the most unaccountable areas of government. And that's the area I wanted to talk about just a little bit. I think Roy touched on it about the Senate a little bit.

Certainly I think we had a chance in this committee as elected officials to have a role in the development of the Senate budget, and for whatever reason, we didn't take advantage of that role. But certainly to say that our role is to deal with the estimates when they come to the House for a vote is being pretty naive, in a sense, I think. I know a number of people in the backbenches of the Liberal government have real concerns with the Senate, but because of the way the system works, the way the system has evolved, that accountability doesn't seem to be there.

Certainly the Privy Council Office also grows and it shrinks, and it seems to carry on its business quite secretly from public attention. It seems to reasonably consistently overspend its estimates and go back for supplementary estimates. How is it accountable? You say, well, you vote on the estimates when they come to the House. But realistically, you represent the Prime Minister's Office and the various ministers, and what backbencher in his right mind on the government side is going to stand up and vote against the estimates of the Privy Council Office? They know, and I'm sure you know, full well that there will be punitive measures taken against those individuals if they were to do that. So where's the accountability in the system to the public? It just doesn't seem to be there.

• 1215

Mr. Mel Cappe: There are a couple of points I'd like to make in response, if I may. The first is that you characterize the coming back for supplementary estimates as the Privy Council Office overspending its budget, and I just want to clarify that, if I may. This is the heart of the question, which is what is the process of appropriations in Parliament? You're asking some pretty fundamental questions about the role of appropriations.

I would not say that the Privy Council Office has in the past overspent its budget. It would be easy for me to say it has, because I wasn't there, but frankly that isn't what happened. What happened was that the government, during the course of the year, made decisions that allowed it to provide new services or take on new issues that it needed money for, and it came to Parliament and got the money. That's not unique about the Privy Council Office; that's the way the government works.

Indeed, in my days at the Treasury Board, at one point we had 10 royal commissions going, and as each of them was triggered, we had to come to Parliament to get supplementary estimates to fund them. And the amounts of money were enormous. But ultimately it was Parliament that was saying they were going to go ahead with this on the basis of a government decision. It was a choice. This comes back to the question of Ms. Parrish, that governments can make choices.

So I wouldn't characterize it as overspending. It was never a management or mismanagement question; it was that we're taking on a new function. We'll decide that we will take on that function, and if so, we need money and we'll go to Parliament for the appropriation.

On the issue of accountability and secrecy, I don't think the Privy Council Office is extraordinarily secret at all. In fact, the officers of the Privy Council Office are encouraged to work very collaboratively with colleagues around town in other departments. The accountabilities, unfortunately perhaps for some, or fortunately for others, are with those departments. So I have difficulty answering some of the questions that members have asked regarding some responsibilities of other ministers or other departments. There are other ways of holding those people to account.

So I don't think we're particularly secretive at all, and my proof of that is in what I see going out under access to information. It's quite extraordinary. We provide a lot of information.

As to accountability, you're asking a question that goes to the heart of the parliamentary process of funding government. There are a number of experts in the House and in the Senate, actually, who have studied or written books on this stuff. It's a fascinating set of questions, and it's rooted in the nature of a parliamentary democracy and it goes back to Cromwell. We could explore it that way. It wouldn't really address your question, so I'll avoid that.

But the fact is that the government is presenting to Parliament a proposal for funding the work of the government, and Parliament has to pass judgment on it. The whole supply process is based on the opposition parties being able to have opposition days and move motions against the government on various elements of this. So I think there's a lot of accountability. It's how you choose to exercise it and whether you choose to exercise it, and by “you” I mean opposition parties.

Mr. David Chatters: But an example of this is that you came before this committee today to talk about supplementary estimates. I haven't heard anybody talking about dollars and cents here today at all, because probably none of us members around the table here—well, partly because most of the information isn't available to us yet, and hopefully it will be—can decipher them in fine enough detail probably to ask those questions that need to be asked. But in general terms, the Privy Council Office seems to have a pretty free hand at coming up with new programs, new spending—a pretty free hand at asking Parliament to fund those things without any real checks and balances in the system.

• 1220

Mr. Mel Cappe: Again, I'll make a clarification. The Privy Council Office goes through the exact same budgetary process as every other department. So we would have to have a submission to the Treasury Board. Treasury Board ministers would decide whether this was a priority or not, whether they would like to see the government fund it. It would have to be accounted for in the Minister of Finance's budget or not, and then finally appear in the estimates before Parliament. So we don't have any back door.

Mr. David Chatters: I know you don't have a back door, and I don't hold you accountable for this, simply because it's the way the system has evolved. It works for the party in power, but it doesn't serve Canadians generally as well.

You made a comment about making Canada a better place. The fact is the Privy Council's Office has essentially the most powerful people in government. It's the Prime Minister and the cabinet. Those checks and balances that would apply to normal ministerial budgets, in my opinion, aren't held to the same checks and balances because of the power of the people involved.

Mr. Mel Cappe: I'm not going to get into an argument with you, but the system is in evolution. It always has been and always will be, I'm sure. But it isn't the way it was in the time of Cromwell. It has evolved.

We used to do this massive blue book with all these numbers in it that had very little real information in it. That was the estimates; that's all there was. Now we have part I, part II and part III. The part IIIs were introduced at one point to provide members of Parliament the more substantive description of the programs and what the money would actually be spent on.

We've now evolved to a process where the President of the Treasury Board will table the plans and priorities of each department in Parliament—and I believe it's planned for some time in the next few weeks—where you will get a fairly detailed enumeration, by business line, of what the government is going to spend its money on. We also have the performance report, which has replaced the part IIIs. It says, okay, we told you last time we were going to plan to do this; well, here's what we actually accomplished.

It comes back to the issue I was discussing with Mr. Godin when we were talking about performance. The performance management regime has become much more sophisticated, where we're now identifying real performance objectives, measuring ourselves against them, and then reporting to Parliament on how well we're doing.

So are we perfect? Absolutely not. Are we better than we were a few years ago? I think we are, actually.

Mr. David Chatters: Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We've had very good discussions today.

I think Roy has a short question, and then Gerald has a short question. I'm assuming they're short questions.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, mine is short.

Mr. Cappe, I just want to make it clear in my own mind on this budgeting process for the Senate. First of all, there is the Board of Internal Economy for the House of Commons and a separate one for the Senate. Is that correct?

Mr. Mel Cappe: I believe that's right. I'm not sure if they call it a board of internal economy, but I think there's a comparable body.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay. I thought I heard you say the budget for the House of Commons goes to the Board of Internal Economy for the House of Commons and then to the Senate. Is the reverse true?

Mr. Mel Cappe: There's an appropriation bill that is tabled in the House following on the estimates. You then vote on it and that appropriation bill goes to the Senate for them. Then it goes to the Governor General for royal assent.

The Chairman: It's mirrored down both sides of the legislative process.

Mr. Mel Cappe: But the appropriation bill includes both the House of Commons and the Senate.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Is that it, Roy?

Mr. Roy Cullen: Yes.

The Chairman: I guess we'll give the last word to Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Since that was such a short question, mine might be a little longer.

The Chairman: We'll see.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have two points and I think they deserve to be on the record.

In the discussion about scientists, and in Ms. Parrish's comments about scientists and public-private partnerships and that whole theme and where we're headed there, as a person who believes in the free enterprise system, I certainly see the value of that. I also see the value of keeping scientists in government departments, so we have some type of unbiased expertise to judge a lot of the scientific information we receive from vested interests in Canada. That's the reason we have scientists, and that's the only reason we need them.

• 1225

We've also developed a number of areas from the war years when we got into science in a major way, and they kind of held over. But I think it would be abundantly clear to everyone here that we should not get rid of scientists in government; we need scientists in government in order to give us some objectivity and some institutional memory. We shouldn't forget that.

The other issue is, if we don't do that, we will have to depend upon vested interests and lobbyists who represent vested interests to give us our guidance and our policy initiatives. The influence on policy—and I'll get away from that—is a big issue.

You talked about openness, but I still haven't received a number on the scientists we've lost. I would appreciate that. I realize you may not have that at the top of your head, specifically for the four departments we discussed.

I don't think, Mr. Chairman, with your discretion, I can avoid leaving this debate without discussing, just for cinq secondes, the Senate. The discussion has gone around the table. I really don't know where it came from or where it was headed.

Whether we agree with the Senate as it exists in Canada or not, I would hope, as members of Parliament, we recognize that we abide by the Constitution of Canada, that we're responsible to it, that the Constitution allows for a bicameral government, that as representatives of the people who pay taxes we have to approve the budget. But I think it would be incumbent on us to improve it. We don't have another system at this present time, so how could we be so hypocritical to say we would not approve the budget?

We gave ourselves a 12% raise. Are we going to deny the Senate a 6% raise? It should be on the record; let's be serious about it.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Mel Cappe: Mr. Chairman, just on the first point regarding the scientists—

The Chairman: Yes, we'll leave the Senate out of it.

Mr. Mel Cappe: —I will come back to the committee with a letter that attaches the numbers in terms of the number of positions we've downsized in science.

The Chairman: On the Senate, to be fair to Mr. Cappe, he really can't discuss political issues like that with us.

An hon. member: I agree.

The Chairman: Yvon, do you have a question?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: That has nothing to do with Mr. Mel Cappe. Everybody talks about the Senate. I would like to say that from our standpoint, we have been elected by the people and also that the Constitution can be changed.

[English]

The Chairman: We're not discussing the Senate.

An hon. member: Gerald was discussing—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: This isn't really the place to do it, but it is nevertheless something that is happening in our country.

[English]

Mr. David Chatters: Actually, it was Roy who started this.

Mr. Yvon Godin: And he left—the image of the Liberal.

The Chairman: If I may, on behalf of all members, unless you have a concluding comment, Mr. Cappe—

Mr. Mel Cappe: No, but it's been a pleasure.

The Chairman: Then on behalf of all members, I want to add my congratulations to you and thank you, with Ms. Nadeau, for being here with us today to help us advance our understanding of the operations of government, and particularly the PCO. So thank you for that.

Just before I adjourn, next Thursday we have Bill C-66, and I understand Mr. Gagliano will be here. As soon as we come back from break on the Tuesday, we will have our witnesses. Hopefully, we'll get to clause-by-clause that Thursday.

Thank you all. We're adjourned.