:
I'll just respond briefly and then ask the Comptroller General to elaborate.
The Office of the Comptroller General is not new. Back in the spending reductions of 1995 the office, in some respects, was eliminated, and in other respects was merged with that of the Secretary of the Treasury Board, the senior deputy minister at Treasury Board.
What the previous government started was basically to re-establish it as a stand-alone position. I think many of the resources that it has--basically with inflation--is putting it back to the level that it had in 1993 to a great extent.
I agree with the previous government's decision to re-establish it. I think it's an important component of our capacity to be able to strengthen internal audit and our capacity to be able to catch.... When you have a budget of $200 billion, no matter who is in government there will be challenges from time to time. Hopefully the Comptroller General will establish processes to minimize that, and there is the function to identify any challenges or problems earlier.
Charles-Antoine.
:
Yes, thank you very much, Mr. President.
And thank you very much for the question.
Essentially, as the president said, the plan is to rebuild the Office of the Comptroller General to what it was back in 1993. In mid-2004 we started with an office that had a complement of about 60 or 65 people. Back in 1993, with the same parameters, there were about 200 people, so we're at mid-course to rebuild the office. We're at about 120 people now, and the plan is that by the end of 2007-08 we will be back at that strength level.
Essentially, from an internal audit perspective it would be to conduct audits for small departments and agencies. The ability doesn't exist at the moment. Also, it would conduct horizontal audits for the Government of Canada--certain contracts, travel, whatever--and also establish a practice inspection to make sure that we do have quality internal audit throughout the system. That's one of the components of the Office of the Comptroller General that we will do.
:
I think, as well, there's always a debate, and this is one thing we're going to weigh with experience. Deputy ministers are, of course, accountable. Now, with Bill C-2, they would be accountable before a committee such as this one.
That said, the Department of Justice acts as the lawyer for every department. That probably goes further than we'd like to go with respect to internal audit, but it's not an all-or-nothing scenario. So I think we're going to watch very closely how it evolves.
I feel strongly that there should be important checks and balances taken from the Comptroller General on each department. Some deputies might find that unwelcome, but there are some CEOs of companies in the private sector who might find some of the increased audit requirements--through an audit committee of a publicly traded company, for example--to be onerous. So the challenges we're having in the public sector really aren't much different from what the companies based in your own riding would be facing on a day-to-day basis.
:
I'm not questioning that. I fully understand, because it's a risky business. We are in a risky business: we're managing taxpayers' dollars.
Are you the chief internal auditor? Are there managers of audit in every government department who will be reporting to you if they see any risks?
We've seen classic examples. A case in point is Mr. Guité. Can we not have checks and balances in place through a risk management strategy, where you have your managers report to the chief internal auditor, who would be you, so then you can directly report to the President of the Treasury Board?
I'm just trying to conceptualize it.
:
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Baird, I want to thank you and your colleagues for joining us. Some of us have already had an opportunity to get together over the past few weeks to discuss the Auditor General's report, specifically chapters 1, 4 and 7.
I'd like to start with chapter 7 in which mention is made of an audit by the Auditor General of the practice of leasing office space. I discovered, as did my constituents and a number of other people, that inevitably with the existing system and mechanisms in place, the government often ended up choosing the less economical, and therefore, the most costly option. We were dumbfounded by this revelation. The reason is tied to the whole question of accrual accounting as opposed to the cash basis of accounting. Our colleague just talked to us about that issue.
Even though you're waiting to discuss this with your colleagues, I'd like to know your opinion on the subject -- you mentioned Bill C-2 -- as a responsible, accountable official. In light of the situation, do you intend to commit to bringing in accrual accounting, barring a revelation of messianic proportions?
:
I took the Auditor General's findings very seriously. We're looking at ways to implement policies in order to do a better job. Obviously, I'm not here to make excuses for the previous government, but the examples cited in the AG's report are very serious.
Why would a department sign a one-year lease rather than a five-year or twenty-year lease? Short-term leases are far more costly. We will work with the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Mr. Fortier, to formulate a better policy and to ensure regulatory compliance.
In Montreal, for instance, the minister has indicated that he wants to remain in his present location. However, other office space has already been rented for his department. That's unacceptable. Of course, if several departments could be relocated outside of Ottawa, not necessarily to large cities, but to municipalities with populations of less than 200,000, it would be less expensive. For example, it might be more productive to have employees from different departments working in a region like Trois-Rivières, Fort McMurray, Kingston or Rimouski. That way, they would be more in tune with the goings-on of other departments with regional offices.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Welcome, Minister.
I would be remiss if I didn't first offer one simple word of congratulation, first of all, from all the prison guards across this country, who are absolutely delighted, after four years of impasse, that they have a resolution. On behalf of the number within my own constituency and across Canada, thank you very kindly for settling that issue.
On another matter, the initiatives that were launched by your predecessor in a number of fields—administrative services being shared, expenditure management, information systems, etc., and other similar programs—have you had a chance to evaluate a number of these initiatives? Do you think your department and/or the ministry will be accepting some of those initiatives that have been started, or will you be eliminating any of them?
:
I'll say two things quickly, and then I'll ask the associate secretary to comment.
There is the opportunity for some savings with respect to shared administrative services. The government already does a significant amount of this. For example, we don't have a security branch at Treasury Board; we simply share one with the finance department. Since we're co-located, there are huge opportunities there.
I'm always very skeptical of grand designs to make things bigger, as to whether that genuinely leads to savings, so I should say in some respects I'm very, very skeptical.
On the second issue, one of the mandates that I received in Mr. Flaherty's budget is to come up with a good expenditure management system. Since the country was in large deficits, there was so much centralization of expenditure reductions, and then once we got to surplus there really hasn't been a revisiting of that, so decisions are taken very narrowly. What do we do to manage priorities? Simply because something is coming up for renewal doesn't mean it's top priority. There may be something that has received funding that would be higher on the radar screens of all members. So we're looking at a system coming forward some time later in the year to facilitate good decision-making.
I'll ask the associate secretary to comment in greater detail.
:
Thank you, Mr. Minister.
There are two parts to your question. I'll address the first part related to corporate administrative services, then I'll ask my colleague, David Moloney, to speak to the expenditure management information system.
Over the last number of years, the government has done a number of significant studies to explore shared services. Essentially, the conclusion from those early studies was that moving to more of a shared approach for corporate administrative services is certainly desirable. So work is currently under way at the secretariat to further scope and access the viability, and then if we were to move forward, to what an implementation plan might look like.
We're working very closely with the policy centres, the Office of the Comptroller General, and with the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency. We're also working with 12 departments, representing about 20% of government, to take a closer look at their current environment, problems, and stand, and then at what might a way forward look like, so some implementation options—
With respect to the expenditure management information system, if that's what the second part of the question was about, this is a project in two parts. First, this is a project that goes back four or five years. The project was designed to replace the information systems that the secretariat uses to prepare the estimates documents for the House. There is a system, in all cases thirty or more years old, for each of the main estimates, the supplementary estimates, the warrant reports, and a variety of other systems, for a total of seven systems.
So we have a project to replace that capacity with current functionality through one integrated system. As we do that work, and as the estimates themselves have been improved, so that members will know that the estimates, starting in 2005-2006—aligned with the votes outcome statements, the reports on plans and priorities, and the departmental performance reports—are going further to align results statements before and after the year.
What we are now looking at through this project, as we modernize our information system to present the estimates to be able to align them with spending in our system, department by department, to align the results that spending is in support of.... This should allow us to support the renewal of the broader expenditure management decision-making system, so that the government is in a position to come to Parliament able to align its spending and make decisions in that respect.
Mr. Minister, what has disturbed parliamentarians on all sides of the House—and we've seen this through successive Parliaments—is the lack of the ability of members of Parliament to vote on issues. In other words, there are some issues that never come before the House; decisions are reached outside of the purview of the House.
We realize that everything can't come before the House. However, pertaining to grants, contributions, and all the different programs, which are involved in that, what's subject to a vote and what's not? And where do you plan on going there?
:
Good morning, Mr. Minister. Thank you for coming to our committee this morning. And welcome to the rest of the delegation.
I would like to ask you first about the responsibility of Treasury Board for accountability and ethics in government. I know, Minister Baird, you have spoken out quite strongly on the issue of accountability and the Federal Accountability Act, both before and after the election. I asked a question last Friday in the House about the creation of the appointments commission, a commission with real teeth to deal with government appointments. This was, of course, a campaign promise for the Conservative Party.
Does the government intend to go ahead and set up a public appointments commission?
:
My assistant deputy minister tells me it wasn't taken away. I think the correctional officers went more than four years without a contract. Like any collective agreement process, I suppose, there's probably a little bit of blame on both sides. Certainly, solving that issue was a priority for me.
I had heard from you and a number of other members of Parliament, not least of whom were in the government caucus, and we wanted... I had two questions from the Bloc Québécois in the House on it; it had gone on far too long and it was not a healthy work environment. I think when there's a fresh face brought in, of any party, it sometimes is an opportunity, and we tried to take advantage of that.
I think they're still voting on it. I'm not sure if they passed it yet, so I don't know whether I want to say more.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Mr. Minister, and all those who have come today. I appreciate the opportunity to pose a couple of questions.
I wanted to start off, if I could, with the notion of a public service commissioner and this notion of Gwyn Morgan being rejected by the committee. I can say that just as the Prime Minister was disappointed in the decision of this committee, it would be fair to say that I was disappointed in the results of the election. The democratic processes are democratic processes, and one recognizes that you don't always get what you want through those processes but you respect them.
The question at the end of the day is what is the view with respect to committees then, in a broader sense? I mean, if a committee strikes down a particular recommendation and says democratically, through multiple parties, that a certain individual is not who the committee thinks is right for the position, is it then standard practice to not care what the committee's position is and to appoint somebody else?
I'm trying to understand the logic for it. I understand that he was disappointed. He was a friend and somebody he had a long-standing relationship with. I'm sure he wanted him there. But through a democratic process, the committee said no, and then to simply eliminate the position because you didn't get the person you wanted.... I'm trying to understand the logic of that. Is it not more important to work with the committee and find somebody who can build consensus?
:
But I'm asking you because I heard, and you bring up the example, there was much hue and cry--
Hon. John Baird: Different standards--
Mr. Mark Holland: Perhaps I could finish.
There was much hue and cry by your particular party about the fact that the committee wasn't listened to during the last Parliament. So you say one thing when you're in opposition, and when you come to government you say, “Well, you did it, so it's good enough for us.”
That's seems like a rather cynical response. I mean, if you had one position in opposition, why is that position not being carried forward in government?
:
I think one of the things for which I have an important responsibility as President of the Treasury Board is to stand up for the public service as an institution, for individual members of the public service. I think there has been a concern that governments have made political decisions, not public administration decisions, in the past.
Under Mr. Mulroney, my tax return was processed in Ottawa, my federal and Ontario income tax return was processed in Ottawa. Other Ontarians have their tax processed in the riding of Sudbury. There was a decision taken by Mr. Chrétien to move that to Shawinigan. Now, I'm not sure of the public policyand public administration rationale for moving one of the Ontario tax processing centres from Ontario to Shawinigan, but with no disrespect to Shawinigan, I think that was a political decision.
One candidate in the last election said that he had got the minister to approve moving jobs from Ottawa to Gander. I just find it strange that after a judge issues a major report calling the government corrupt, after the members of the House of Commons have voted non-confidence in the government, after the government has fallen, the Prime Minister resigns, and Parliament is dissolved, the government is making decisions about public servants' lives based on politics.
So I think what I've said is that if there's a public administratio and public policy rationale, that should be fairly considered, but it's not appropriate to play political games with the lives of public servants.
I'll just continue. Bill Casey has brought up the issue that under the previous regime--which had to make some difficult decisions to balance the budget, and I don't discount that at all--on a percentage basis, there were more cuts in the regions than there were here in Ottawa. When the government was then upsized, when there was a surplus, they upsized it in Ottawa and not in the regions. I think it's a fair concern that we should treat people in the regions and centrally here in Ottawa fairly.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm glad that when we started at this committee you explained that it was one of the least partisan committees.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mike Wallace: I'm going to go back to that, because I'm trying to learn as a new member. My questions are on the actual estimates.
One question I have is that the estimates that were tabled were the previous government's spending commitments, I believe. Hopefully I have that correct. When will we see what our government is spending, and how that changes from previous estimates?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister, colleagues, thank you for coming here today.
[English]
Mr. Minister, I was pleased to hear your comments about the regions, that we need to support the regions more. I encourage you to decentralize a bit and continue the work that was done with FedNor. When the Liberals took over in 1993, FedNor had $8 million a year. They now have $50 million a year. This needs to continue in support of your position to take care of the regions.
My question is about political activity. Senior management should not get involved in partisan politics. I think that's an accepted thing in Ottawa.
During the Airbus affair, Chuck Guité was identified as the Conservative crony, and proof of that is on page 343 of the book On the Take. Then the sponsorship scandal was identified, and it showed Guité as the Liberal crony now, even though he dealt with Brault, a known separatist; Coffin, a definite Conservative; and Corriveau, a definite Liberal.
What is the procedure in senior management to control political activity by senior management? This one has been going on for 15 years. How was he able to get away with that? Your colleagues identify Mr. Guité as a Liberal, in the House, outside the House, everywhere. What is the procedure to control political activity in senior management?
:
As President of the Treasury Board, I am the responsible minister. A total of six ministers serve on the Treasury Board.
My experience as a member of Treasury Board at another level of government likely led me to make this suggestion. The Minister of Finance, whose job is one of the most important in government in terms of responsibility, didn't always have time to attend TB meetings. However, the current minister manages to attend meetings far more often than did his predecessor. He's already attended two or three meetings. Occasionally, the minister submits a written notice to the committee.
[English]
He is the vice-chair of Treasury Board as a cabinet committee; he is not vice-chair of the secretariat, or the deputy minister responsible. That's an important distinction. Each cabinet committee--Treasury Board is one--has a chair and a vice-chair. He is the vice-chair.
I think there's a strong engagement, personally, between the Minister of Finance and me. There is a strong engagement between our staff. There's a strong engagement between our officials. I think Minister Flaherty has said publicly that there certainly will be strong collaborations. I think that has been quoted in the media.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm not a permanent member of this committee. I have had the privilege of coming here a few times.
I thank you, Minister, for coming. It's a real privilege to listen to you.
I want to talk about the estimates. I'm a new member, as Mr. Wallace is. I'm also a member of the industry, science, and technology committee, and being a new member, I actually read my manual. And I stumbled across, in the science section--I'll read it:
Space Science and Exploration.
The program activity objective is to better understand the Solar System and the Universe; to seek extraterrestrial habitats for life; and to prepare for a permanent human presence on other planets.
Then I went over to the estimates side, and I noted that $1.5 billion was being spent.
Sir, have you had the opportunity to look at this? If you did, and this is true, could you put an end to this lunacy?
:
I've never quite inherited a job like this one. I'll say that it's much better to come into government as a minister than to wait four years, as I did the last time I did this, when you had to carry the other baggage.
This is, by and large, the estimate of the Canadian Space Agency. You did raise this issue with them. We have certainly put in inquiries through the Department of Industry. There have been problems at the Canadian Space Agency, which we're concerned about. The public service commissioner actually had to take away their delegated authority to hire staff.
Who was the previous president? Monsieur Garneau, oui, candidat libéral. So we're obviously concerned with that. I think it's been recently given back; the public service commissioner has had the strength to return that authority. But we are looking at those concerns that you raised. I think that looking for E.T. to call home shouldn't be a priority for public spending.
:
Yes, it is an ongoing....
I have to say I'm always very skeptical of big projects and their success. I think that in the private sector they have a huge number of problems with big projects, particularly involving technology. It's particularly acute in government because there is greater scrutiny than there is at a private sector firm.
I have had a number of briefings at Service Canada, as has the board. I can tell you that while it is not perfect, I have been surprised at its capacity. It's much stronger than I might have anticipated. But it's one we're looking more closely at. There's a huge capacity there for us to get more services directly to Canadians in their home communities, particularly in smaller cities and small towns. We're looking at our capacity. They're also co-locating them with provincial and municipal governments, which is helpful.
:
I'll confide in you, I'm always skeptical of these large projects. I can say at my initial briefings, both at Treasury Board and outside Treasury Board, I have been more surprised than I anticipated. Passports are a huge security issue the previous government confronted. We have to confront that as well.
There are two offices in Ottawa. We have one at our city hall, which is co-located. This was done by the previous government, so I'll give them some credit. It was co-located with the province and the municipality. There's also one in the west end, in my constituency, that seems to be doing a good job, particularly with income security programs. It's interesting they chose the income security programs, because those are by and large among the better service delivery models in Canada. Having dealt with various family members as seniors or veterans, I know there's a pretty high level of satisfaction with our public servants. They've done a pretty good job over the last 20 or 30 years on this, so it's obviously pretty easy to do it through Service Canada.
The real challenge will come, as you've just mentioned, and the passport question is certainly one that's before us, particularly in small cities and in rural Canada, and especially now that we're getting so many more passport applications than we did even five years ago. That will only get more acute, not less so. The passport capability is one of the missing links.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have in fact tabled a motion, but it will be presented by my colleague Mr. Nadeau, the Member for Gatineau. I would, however, like to say a few words. Some members have already made some suggestions and therefore, there will likely be some friendly amendments. I'm also told that Mr. Proulx will probably propose an amendment as well.
I simply want to suggest a correction to the text. The last sentence in French reads: “afin de rencontrer”. This is not correct usage in French. Instead, the motion should read “afin d'atteindre”. While I'd like my anglophone colleagues to trust me on this one, I don't expect my francophone colleagues to disagree with me.
Without further ado, I'll let Mr. Nadeau present the motion.
:
Very well then. I'd be happy to oblige.
We broached this subject both formally and informally at recent meetings. This morning, there's no doubt that I put the question very deliberately to the minister. During debate on the committee's second report, it was clear to us that the current government's intention was to implement measures with a view to attaining this objective. Pious wishes, in this case, aren't enough. This morning, I was very pleased to see the minister make a commitment of sorts.
Since my motion has been moved, I'll wait until my colleagues have deleted certain words, or expressions. Then, if my understanding is correct, we'll discuss the motion in greater detail.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was wondering if I might be able to offer a friendly amendment--I hope it's friendly.
It's just been read, so what I'll do is just read it the way I would see it be amended, then let's have some discussion about it. So it would be that the committee report to the House the following motion:
That the government should make a commitment, starting now, to divide federal Public Service, government agency, and Crown real estate between Ottawa and Gatineau respecting the proportions of 75/25 that was agreed upon by the federal cabinet of 1984.
Then it would continue “That starting in 2007...”, and the remainder would be the same.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
To start with, I think the other members of the committee should realize that the original wording of this motion would penalize all of the country except Ottawa and Gatineau. What in essence this says is that all government jobs should be divided between Ottawa and Gatineau at the rate of 75-25.
But let me address the amendment that Mr. Warkentin has suggested. The policy of the government talks of 75-25 in terms of jobs, not real estate properties. The reason behind that is that we now have--as a matter of fact, it's in Mr. Nadeau's riding--a huge building. I couldn't tell you how many square feet, but it's huge. It used to be a mega-Zellers centre. It was vacated by Zellers and purchased by the Government of Canada.
I was saying jokingly the other day at committee, when we had the pleasure of having the Minister of Public Works in front of us, that this particular building, although it's huge in square footage, has, I think, something like three or four jobs there.
So the policy was in regard to jobs.
[Translation]
Therefore, I think we need to continue focusing this policy on sharing jobs, not on square footage, because we could end up with cavernous warehouses that do not contribute in any way to the financial or economy development of a region.
I've given the Clerk the text of a proposed amendment to Ms. Thibault's motion which clarifies the meaning of the 75:25 policy. Obviously, Ms. Thibault is not from the National Capital Region and I think that she, in good faith...
:
I would like to follow up on Mr. Proulx's comments.
The understanding, I guess, was that there would be the 75-25 allocation between Gatineau and the other side of the river, the Quebec and the Gatineau side. So it wouldn't preclude there being civil servants or jobs across the country, but we're just talking in terms of dividing what is in this region--that 75% would be in Ottawa and 25% would be across the river. So if there are 100 square metres of property, then 25% would be on the other side, and 75% would be on this side. I guess we're talking about the allocation of property in the capital region.
In terms of the real estate, I just think it's important. Mr. Kramp talked about the fact that we can't dictate where crown corporations locate their jobs, but I think we can probably dictate where there is purchased real estate by the federal government. We certainly want to ensure that we have the facilities available for our crown corporations and our crown-run agencies to have real estate over there. Because we're moving to a certain number of people per square metre, there are requirements that would therefore dictate how many jobs we would have over there, simply as a result of how many square metres we have of property. Certainly, jobs would follow the real estate.
:
I appreciate the comments of Mr. Warkentin in regard to the jobs being in the national capital region. However, I'm sure that Mr. Warkentin will accept with me that if we are to mean something in such a motion, we should make sure that it is in writing in that particular motion. In other words, if we're talking about the feathers of the ducks, let's mention that they're not only the feathers, but also the feathers of those particular ducks.
This particular motion, as originally tabled, is incomplete. Somebody tried to be opportunistic and take a ball that has already been thrown in the air. I think this motion should be corrected much more than that, but I will come to that when I table my particular amendment after yours.
In regard to your amendment, if we keep jobs in there, I have no problem in making a strict rule of signing competitive leases as you suggested.
:
That's what I intended to do, using Ms. Thibault's original motion as a guide. I want to be clear that I don't doubt that Ms. Thibault is acting in good faith. We have worked together on several occasions and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with her. She is a frank and honest person.
The second paragraph of Ms. Thibault's motion begins as follows:
That the government should make a commitment [...]
My proposed amendment would replace the rest of the paragraph with the following:
in the National Capital Region, starting now, to divide federal Public Service, government agency and Crown corporation jobs between Ottawa, and Gatineau, primarily departments, departmental corporations or other bodies referred to in the Bank of Canada Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Canada Council for the Arts Act, the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development Act, the International Development Research Centre Act, the National Defence Act, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Telefilm Canada Act, or in any schedule to the Financial Administration Act, to meet a standard whereby at least 25 per cent of positions are located on the Quebec side of the National Capital Region, as agreed to in 1984 by the federal cabinet, primarily by purchasing or leasing real estate through a competitive public call for tender process;
The next paragraph of Ms. Thibault's motion begins with the following:
That starting in 2007, the government report annually to the House on progress achieved [...]
With my amendment, I'm proposing that the following be added, after the words “progress achieved“:
by preparing an annual statistical summary of all public sector positions in the National Capital Region, including their locations and any movement of those positions in the previous fiscal year, which shall be laid before the House of Commons and made available to the public through a posting on the Government of Canada website, within four months after the end of each fiscal year, and by taking the necessary steps to ensure as soon as practicable as positions are filled in the public service, and in any case not later than December 31, 2010, that the 25/75 standard is implemented and respected.
Let me explain, Madam Chair, the rationale behind my proposed amendment.
First, let me say that I believe Ms. Thibault is acting in good faith with a view to attaining the 75/25 standard. However, we're not necessarily going to re-invent the wheel just because some new MPs were elected in January 2006. Last week, during a debate in the House, I was accused of becoming interested in this issue only lately, whereas that is not true. That's why I've listed the different acts that should be used for the purpose of calculating the numbers. Hear me out, Madam Chair.
When the Minister of Public Works and Government Services appears before the committee, when his parliamentary secretary fields questions in the House, when PWGSC employees refer to the 75:25 policy, they all maintain that the proportion is currently 77 per cent on the Ontario side, and 23 per cent on the Quebec side.
If we include only those departments and agencies that report to Treasury Board, the figures would probably be quite good. However, the federal government's original policy makes no reference to agencies or departments that report to Treasury Board. Rather, it refers to federal government jobs in the National Capital Region. To come up with some fair numbers, we need to take into account not only the departments that report to Treasury board, but all jobs that, directly or indirectly, report to the Government of Canada.
For example, PWGSC does not account for all Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporations jobs. Yet, CMHC does report to the federal government. However, it's not included in the calculations because as an employer, CMHC is not subject to Treasury Board.
The same holds true for Canada Post. No one is about to argue that Canada Post does not report to the Government of Canada. I could give you scores of other similar examples.
We must be very careful about how we interpret the laws mentioned in this motion. These laws also happen to be cited in motion M-316 that I presented during the previous Parliament.
We're not saying that CMHC should relocate 25 per cent of its workforce to Gatineau, just like we're not saying that the Parliament of Canada, the Senate or the House of Commons should relocate. We're saying that these institutions must be taken into account when calculating the numbers.
In response to the objection raised earlier by my colleague Mr. Kramp, if we calculate the number this way and come up with a ratio of 80:20, the missing 5 per cent of jobs doesn't necessarily have to come from Crown corporations which are not necessarily controlled by the government. Rather, they are independent agencies. However, if we need to make up this 5 per cent, the Government of Canada, which controls jobs through Treasury Board and PWGSC, could step in and transfer 5 per cent of the jobs to the Quebec side.
[English]
The big picture will show that the sharing within the national capital region is actually 25%-75%, but of course I do not suggest that employees from the Parliament of Canada, whether it be the House or whether it be the Senate, be moved to the Quebec side. What I'm saying is that all of these entities that are direct or indirect to the Government of Canada have to be considered in the mathematical calculation to arrive at the number of employees or jobs that should be split in the national capital region, and then the government, within the department or agencies that it controls, can make the different switches to accommodate this 75%-25% share.
Thank you very much. And I want to reiterate that it will be a real pleasure to discuss this and to look at any possible changes, but again, this is not the result of three months of work, this is the result of work since 1994.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
:
I'm a little disturbed, in a way. This is an important issue for many people, and I would like to see this committee unanimously pass a motion. I really believe it's feasible and it's possible.
I don't think anyone has any difficulty with the 75-25. I don't think there's any difficulty at all. But I really believe there is some difference of opinion on a number of areas. I'd mentioned the one about crown corporations, and I think we need some discussion on that, Mr. Proulx.
In addition, by specifically stating “various bodies”, there could be an inference that the department might need to have 75-25, not only the reporting of that. To me it's not clear. It could be wrong, because one jurisdiction in one department in one location might not have the capacity to do 75-25. It might be 60-40, as long as the overall balance is there. My concern is on getting the overall balance, rather than saying “single department”.
My concern is that by listing it in this way, the inference could sway people to believe and/or have the impression that the particular department, regardless of where it is located, would have to adhere to 75%. I think it might not be your intention, but it could be interpreted that way.
We have to rethink how to propose this. I'm not willing to put this off to another day, but I am suggesting that we need to think about this. Let's try to work together, whether it's now, tomorrow, during the day, or the next day. We can present something on Thursday that we can unanimously pass and send the message that this is what the committee believes in and what we all in spirit want.
I couldn't support your motion the way it is right now. It's why I think we need to have some discussion and go along with the original intent of Madam Thibault and your intent as well. I think we all concur, but give us the latitude of a day to try to work through this so that we can be unanimous in our efforts.
:
On a point of order, I think we're playing hide and seek with the vocabulary, in the sense that when proponents are talking of tabling a motion, the motion has already been tabled. It was Mrs. Thibault who tabled the original motion. So it's tabled. Then we had an amendment on the part of Mr. Warkentin. We voted on the amendment, and the amendment passed, was accepted. Therefore, we now have a motion that has been tabled and amended.
We are now speaking of another amendment that I've brought forth. So there's no discussion of tabling or not tabling. The motion is already there, it has already been amended, and now we're discussing a further amendment.
We have to discuss this amendment. Either we discuss it until 11 o'clock and then this committee adjourns and the problem hasn't been solved, or we solve it before 11 o'clock. So let's not play with the vocabulary.
I'm surprised when the Conservatives are saying that this is different. When you're saying the amendment is totally different from what you expected, what did you expect was meant by the words “federal Public Service, government agency and Crown corporation”? Did you figure that it included or did not include, for example, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
I think everybody in Canada will agree that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is definitely related to the Government of Canada. What I'm saying is that because CMHC does not answer to Treasury Board as an employer under the rules of administration, Public Works excludes it from the mathematical calculation. What I'm saying is that it should be included.
In answer to Mr. Kramp's objection, I have no dreams in my head. I don't think for an instant that eventually 25% of CMHC will be moved to the Quebec side of the national capital region, and I'll tell you why. The charter of CMHC specifies that CMHC's head office is to be in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. You can't move it. I can dream about it, but it will never happen in this world.
However, because it is related to the Government of Canada, I think the number of jobs within CMHC has to be used in the calculation to establish how many jobs there are on the Ontario side and how many jobs there are on the Quebec side, in comparison. Once we establish that we are short, whether it be 5,000, whether it be 50,000, or whether it be 10,000 jobs on the Quebec side, then the Government of Canada, within its powers, within its departments and the agencies it controls, can switch jobs over to the Quebec side to make sure that we are now at the 75%-25% proportion. But there isn't a hope in my head, nor in yours, I'm sure, that we start changing charters such as the one for CMHC that says it must be in Ottawa.
Therefore, I'm open to discussing it as long as you want, but I don't think this is so complicated that we need to discuss it until death do us part. I think it's a situation where we should be able to say it's 75-25, calculated out of these jobs, and now we have to get the government to apply it and make sure that there are enough jobs on the Quebec side to meet the 25%.
Thank you very much.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ladies and gentlemen, we need to use an overall approach to calculate the 75:25 ratio. This matter was resolved in 1984. All governments, from John Turner's to the present one, have recognized this ratio as a standard to be attained. Therefore, there's nothing to be concerned about.
The Bloc Québécois is asking the committee to support a number in the upper range, as both we and the Liberal Party have advocated. It bears mentioning that the President of the Treasury Board is very mindful of the significance of the 75:25 ratio, given his current status as a Conservative Cabinet minister.
So then, there's no great mystery here. I agree with Mr. Proulx's amendment which further clarifies the meaning of the 75:25 policy. The motion was more general in scope, but the amendment is more specific. At issue is the basic principle which calls for 25 per cent of all federal jobs to be located in the Outaouais, and 75 per cent in Ottawa. That's the issue here. Thank you.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My issue with the amendment here, which is really a replacement, is that the original motion talks about starting now to divide the federal public service government agency...it leaves it broad, and I'm not sure what the advantage is and I don't understand why things have to be listed.
In my interpretation of the original motion, the Bank of Canada would be included in there. What else do you have here? The Canada Council for the Arts. I'm assuming they're a government agency. I'm really confused. I'm fairly new here, and don't know all the agencies that are part of the Government of Canada. I believe there was a tourism agency here previously, and I think it got moved out of the region. So why is that not included here and this one is included here?
I'm a little nervous about having them listed. I think the previous motion has a better position for the committee and for the government in terms of calculating the thing because I think it will capture more. I'm not sure why these particular organizations and departments were chosen for this motion, and I think it's important for me to know that before I vote in support of why they're there.
In the second part, in terms of posting it on the website and so on and so forth, I don't have any particular problem with any of that. I just don't know about whether the deadline is feasible from a practical point of view. I haven't a clue. So I have a hard time deciding whether this is good. I would rather have been able to ask those who are responsible for actually doing the work to be able to determine whether this is feasible or not, whether it's four months, three months, five months.
So I'm not able to support these amendments to this motion, just because I don't understand what the implications are when we have some agencies and departments listed and not others, and then what the actual availability and practicality of the second part is.
:
Thank you very much. Thank you for your indulgence, committee.
I just wanted to say a couple of things. I have an interest in this, because it's my constituency this affects. I want to clarify a couple of things. We had an original motion that has been amended and is to be amended yet again. This makes perfect sense, because I just came from the Bill C-2 committee, so I'm used to it.
I will say that when you're looking at something of this magnitude that could be brought to the House, where concurrence might be debated and it would have some weight, I think there needs to be clarity. I was going to say for the record that we shouldn't rush this. I think some other documentation needs to be provided. I'd like more detail on the 1984 federal cabinet decision, as much as we can have.
Then, to make sure we have the full scope, the last thing I'll say is that Bill C-2, which is probably going to be passed, will affect what we're talking about here. I think that needs to be taken into consideration, and there will probably be a need for some backup from people in the public service to help us out with this.
Thank you.