Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
Issue 3 - Evidence
Ottawa, Wednesday, April 24, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day, at 5:15 p.m., to examine the Main Estimates laid before Parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.
Senator David Tkachuk (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: This is the first meeting of the committee to examine the Main Estimates laid before Parliament for the fiscal year 1996-97. We are honoured to have the Honourable Marcel Massé, President of the Treasury Board, with us today, along with Mr. Peter Harder, Secretary of the Treasury Board and Comptroller General of Canada, and Mr. David Miller, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector, Program Branch.
I invite you to proceed, minister.
Mr. Marcel Massé, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure: You have my full brief before you. I will not read it in full. I will briefly point out the main themes in the Estimates to indicate the future directions of government. I will mention what we have done in past years and indicate how pleased we are with the actual results - you expected that, I am sure.
Honourable senators, I am pleased that my responsibility for the Main Estimates gives me the opportunity to meet with you today to highlight briefly some of the key initiatives which underpin the spending plans laid out in the Budget and Main Estimates.
For the third year in a row, Program Review is continuing to produce results. We bettered our deficit target for 1994-95, and it is clear that we will do so again for 1995-96. Furthermore, we are on track for our 3-per-cent target for 1996-97. We have achieved that by focusing on spending cuts, not tax increases.
Last year, I indicated that our base for program expenditures in 1993-94 - that is, total expenditures minus the interest on the debt - was approximately $121 billion. We wanted to reduce that amount to about $114 billion in 1994-95; about $109 billion in 1995-96; and approximately $105 billion in 1996-97. We have done better than that. We have achieved our targets for these various years.
The exact figures will be contained there. Within four years from the base, we will have reduced expenditures to less than $106 billion.
For example, over the four years since 1994-95, spending on transport programs will have declined by 60 per cent; spending on natural-resource-based programs will have declined by 35.5 per cent; spending on industrial, regional and scientific programs will have declined by 27.8 per cent; and spending on foreign affairs and international assistance will have been reduced by 26.1 per cent. This does not mean that I am happy about the need to reduce expenditures by that much; however, we had come to the conclusion that the size of government had to be reduced.
As I indicated last year, we had set up a target of reduction of government size at about 20 per cent. In absolute terms, given the rate of inflation, we will have done better than 22 per cent by the time the Program Review is done. When you decrease the size of government by between one-fifth and one-fourth, there is no doubt that all your programs, including some of the very valuable ones, will be affected.
[Translation]
The Program Review is more than just a deficit reduction exercise. It is about getting government right, about providing enough adequate services at an affordable price. For example, we decided that the government should stop overseeing the direct operation of air navigation systems and rail services because non- governmental or private organizations could provide these services to Canadians just as effectively and more economically.
The Program Review is also helping the government to identify which services it should be providing and how. It has helped it to refocus its activities on its core roles and responsibilities.
The Program Review has also paved the way for initiatives which should promote more harmonious federal-provincial relations.
[English]
In fact, in the Speech from the Throne, we indicated some of the consequences of this action. For instance, we planned to get out of areas such as mining and forestry and to create partnerships with the provinces in the areas of social housing, environment management. We addressed issues such as food inspection, parks, and the National Revenue Commission.
This brings me to the major changes that we were trying to implement, changes in the structure of government itself. The first level was downsizing or reduction of expenditures. That could not be done on the basis of just cutting across the board. We wanted to review the priorities of government and the fundamental roles and responsibilities. We have done that through the Program Review.
The third element was to find out what structures are more effective and efficient nowadays in order to deliver government services. We have come to the conclusion that we must go halfway between what was done in a number of countries like the United Kingdom - that is, the creation of what they have called their executive agencies - and we must create structures that give more flexibility not only to procurement, spending, and so on, but much more to the human resource aspects. That meant we needed to renegotiate with our unions the conditions which would exist if alternative service delivery agencies or commissions were created.
We have announced the first three elements in the budget. We intend to continue in that direction. How far do we intend to go? We have not given ourselves targets, but there is no doubt that, in future years, a considerable portion of government services will be delivered through agencies with much different structures than the present civil service.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: With respect to the Public Service, you announced, last year as I recall, that 45,000 positions would be cut. A certain number of these positions were to be indeterminate and temporary, or casual positions. If my memory serves me correctly, the cuts were announced in the budget -
Mr. Massé: In the 1994-1995 budget.
Senator Bolduc: How far along are we today? There is a figure listed in your quarterly report. It only covers the period from April to December 1995.
Mr. Massé: That is correct.
Senator Bolduc: According to the figure I have here, 18,000 positions have been cut so far. Is that an accurate figure?
Mr. Massé: Yes. The exact figure is 18,237. I would like to comment briefly on the figure of 45,000 because obviously that is the one that keeps coming up in the newspapers. The government's objective as such is not, however, to abolish 45,000 positions. I want this to be clear since our objective in moving ahead with the reform was to redefine governance and to ask the fundamental question: Where should the government spend the funds at its disposal?
This being said, I spoke of 45,000 positions being abolished, not of 45,000 employees losing their jobs. We have resorted to all kinds of methods and incentives to get employees to voluntarily quit the Public Service. We have succeeded beyond our expectations. As a result of generous early retirement and early departure programs, we have had to put very few employees, in fact only two, as the figures show, on unpaid leave of absence.
These are exceptional results. We have to remember that this is the initial year of the review, the year in which we have the greatest flexibility in terms of using our programs.
With the close of the fiscal year, we anticipate that a total of 20,000 positions will have been abolished. I hope that during the 1996-1997 fiscal year, we will be able to move ahead with the vast majority of the remaining cuts. We should achieve our target of 45,000 during this three-year period.
The sooner we restore some stability, the sooner we will have restored some confidence among the ranks of our employees and the better it will be because we will be able to establish a benchmark for the government. It will then be able to indicate which approach it plans to take to ensure the stability of its expenditures.
The results for this year are excellent and we expect the positive news to continue.
[English]
Senator Bolduc: In table 2 of the document that I was talking about, there is a division shown with respect to the jobs that have been cut. I see that some 4,700 of them have been as a result of le programme d'encouragement à la retraite anticipée; about 2,500 as a result of le programme de réduction du personnel civil; and 1,836 as a result of la prime de départ anticipé.
Do you expect that when those two fairly new programs - le programme d'encouragement à la retraite anticipée and La prime de départ anticipé - are utilized for the first time that most of the interested parties will take those benefits and leave, so that, in the second year, far fewer people will show interest? When you say "the great majority of the rest" that probably means 20,000 people. Are you sure that it is possible to do that in the second shot?
Mr. Massé: No. I think you are right. It will be more difficult in the second year. In the first year, we had more of a margin to manoeuvre, as I indicated. The programs were good enough that a very large number of people - in fact more than we anticipated - chose to take advantage of them.
In the second year, we will have more cases with respect to which the general rule will have to apply. People will be told that we will try to offer them a job within six months and, if that does not work, they will be put on an unpaid leave of absence.
Senator Bolduc: I notice that the great majority of the job cuts, about 3,000, are from the Department of National Defence; about 800 from Transport; 2,000 from Human Resources Development; 1,300 from Public Works; and 600 from Agriculture. There may be others; however, those are the big ones.
I understand that, in your Program Review, you have placed emphasis on the fact that the Transport department will not be doing what it used to do in terms of railways and such things. Rather, that department will be involved in policy, inspection and certain standards of security, leaving the rest to various private or public agencies. The Department of Transport was a huge department employing something in the order of 25,000 people.
The problem of security in the world is not what it used to be. It is still important but things have changed from the years of the Cold War. Is it civilians or the military who comprise this 3,000-job cut?
Mr. Massé: That is the civilian part.
Senator Bolduc: I can understand that, too. However, do the Human Resources Development cuts result from an intent to decentralize and to give to the provincial governments more power over training arrangements, for example?
Mr. Massé: No.
Senator Bolduc: In one of your documents, you state that you will leave that field. On page 14, you state:
[Translation]
Given that education and manpower training come under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government has announced, in conjunction with this review, that it no longer intends to be directly responsible for training and that it will participate in training initiatives only with the provinces' consent. Therefore, it will no longer purchase training courses in the future and it will withdraw from apprenticeships, workplace and cooperative education programs.
[English]
Could you tell us a little more about that? I am anxious, as you know many people are in my area, to see that problem settled once and for all, if possible.
Mr. Massé: I must say that I am as anxious as you are, senator.
With respect to the first part of your question, in Human Resources Development there were considerable cuts because that is a large department with many people. We had to reduce the amount of money we were spending on Human Resources Development as well as on the economic departments.
As you noted, senator, we reduced the economic departments like Transport by adopting a different way of looking at Transport. We reduced Natural Resources by close to 50 per cent but that was because we decided we were getting out of mining and forestry.
In the case of Human Resources Development, we have used modern technology like kiosks to offer services to people. We therefore reduced the number of people employed in Employment Centres. Human resources is an intensive type of labour. It is not surprising to see a few thousand people employed there.
Senator Bolduc: They already number around 30,000.
Mr. Massé: Yes, that is right.
It is one of the departments in which the reduction of jobs will be large. That will continue over time as we start to rationalize the organization of Employment Centres.
Your second question had to do with professional training and whether we are getting out of these programs. We are getting out of some of these programs. The offer that has been made, not only to Quebec but to the other provinces, is an offer to get out of all the programs that have to do with professional training. However, if you can picture in your mind three columns, one would be for programs that have to do with professional training about which we have indicated that we are ready to give over the responsibility without any conditions.
There are other areas such as the disbursing of unemployment insurance moneys that are in the area of exclusive federal jurisdiction. Whatever the calls are on that, we will not be getting out of it. That is a federal question. In my view, it is something which only the federal government can manage because of the implied equalization throughout that system. The provinces, but especially Canadians, are ready to transfer part of the money that is made in areas where unemployment is low to areas where unemployment is high. If that were an unconditional transfer to a province, it would not happen like that. There is a practical reason for us to keep control of the payment of unemployment insurance money beside the fact that it is an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction.
However, in the middle, there are programs that are in a grey area. If they are paid with what we call the active funds of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, then they are paid with moneys that are part of the unemployment insurance system. Therefore, they are totally federal. They may be paid for programs where part of the role being played is one of giving better training and better knowledge to people who could re-join the labour force.
In our negotiations, this is where we have been having a few problems. In these areas, we have decided as a matter of principle that we would limit ourselves to the programs that would have a chance to reduce future calls on unemployment insurance.
The principle here is that we have a liability to pay unemployment insurance. A good administrator tries to reduce his or her liabilities by reducing the number of accidents that can happen which will create a call on resources.
In doing this, we find ourselves, for instance, subsidizing entrepreneurs to hire labour. That is clearly not a program of professional training. Therefore, in theory, there should be no clash with the provinces. Some of the provinces - I will not say which - indicate that they want the money for all the active programs of unemployment insurance without conditions. We believe that does not make sense. We are negotiating those issues at present; the conditions are still being discussed.
Senator Bolduc: Are the views you are discussing now the actual policies of the government or is this also a basic understanding for future constitutional dealings?
Mr. Massé: In constitutional negotiations I have seen the bases change so often that I never dare say that anything is for all time. These are the bases of the present negotiations, and I think they have been indicated reasonably clearly by Mr. Young. He has been careful not to cast anything in cement but rather to outline the general principles. The negotiations which are taking place with many provinces are on that basis. However, the negotiations have not ended; these policies are not absolute. In matters such as this, we always leave some margin.
Senator Kelly: I congratulate the minister and his associates for obviously working very hard on their commitment to review how government does its business and seeking different and better methods. I guess it remains to be seen how successful you will be, but there is no question that the effort is being made.
You mentioned partnership. Can you give us a little more information on what you mean by partnership? Do you mean carrying on established programs but getting others to pay part of the cost, whether they be provinces, outside agencies or whatever?
Mr. Massé: First, with regard to efforts and results, I think we have already had results.
Senator Kelly: So do I, but it is a long haul. I do not doubt for a minute that you will have results.
Mr. Massé: This is, in our view, at least a four-year program. There has been an absolute decrease from a $121 billion start to the $114 billion that we spent last year. You know government; you know how difficult it is to even slow down rates of growth. The sacrifices that have been made have been considerable.
With regard to partnership, there are many types. Our intention is to make agreements. In the first two years of the action plan, we have made over 60 agreements with the provinces while I was in intergovernmental affairs. The plan works and partnerships are created. We usually try to get an agreement on objectives. Management of the environment was a good example for a long while, although there are presently problems in that field.
Once we had agreed on objectives, we would have the province carry out a certain number of actions, we would carry out a certain number ourselves, and we would exchange the results. That is one example in a field where sharing of knowledge is an important byproduct.
In health, for instance, I consider that we have a partnership. We discuss the various issues. We do certain parts of the job while the provinces handle the entire delivery of health services.
In this case, we gain by having a better partnership. That means that both sides would agree to exchange more on their objectives, their strategy, their plan of action and their activities. Of course, once you have that spectrum of actions being taken, usually the province would carry out many more of the activities with full flexibility and we would find ourselves much more at the level of planning the actions or the objectives. This is how the partnerships work.
The field of international development concerns mostly federal activity but there are some provincial activities. A partnership in this field would mean that when provinces want to share in increasing the level of education in a given developing country, for example, they would first see the projects and knowledge that we have in that particular education system. We would share our information with them; they may be the ones to send the teachers to the developing country to ensure that the system works better.
We have had a number of these agreements. One teachers' college in Kenya was put in place with the help of a number of institutions in Canada.
Senator Kelly: That pleases me very much. I was trying to determine whether you are simply trying to reduce costs without looking at the actual projects. Obviously you are taking into consideration whether the initiative is important and whether it is being done in the most efficient way. I appreciate your answer.
I did not quite understand what you mean by "executive agencies." Is that a contracted-out agency? You mentioned flexibility. Why is an executive agency more flexible than something else?
Mr. Massé: An example is our traditional employment centres where people work from 9 to 5. People looking for advice on jobs must be unemployed to be able to attend. The alternative is to come at lunch time which does not allow enough time or to miss a day of work. If we had separate organizations with separate employer status and much more flexibility, they could be open in the evening.
Problems arise when trying to introduce that flexibility into a large organization like the public service. It is difficult to make specific arrangements for one part of a department without extending it to all other parts. One must negotiate with the unions.
Senator Kelly: So the workers would not be public servants?
Mr. Massé: It depends upon what kind of agency is designed. The alternative service delivery agencies which we envisage are part of the public service, but they are separate employers. You will recall that, a few months ago, we negotiated transition arrangements with unions to go to these alternative service deliveries. The unions would get successor rights and would therefore continue under the same conditions until the first collective agreement was signed, at which time there could be a change of union, for instance.
However, after a group of people have become a separate agency, they would have their own contract and their own union.
Senator Kelly: I see. I notice that Parks Canada is described as an agency in some of the documents here. I know a bit about Parks Canada. How would they operate differently as an agency? I know they move from one ministry to another, but how would they change?
Mr. Massé: That story remains to be written because that is still being negotiated.
We consider that the hours during which a given park should be open or on which days of the week it should be open are decisions which should be made locally or by Parks Canada with much more flexibility.
Senator Kelly: Is that agency accountable to the heritage ministry?
Mr. Massé: At the present time, yes.
Senator Kelly: When you say "at the present time", what is the alternative?
Mr. Massé: They could be with the Department of the Environment. They were for a while.
Senator Kelly: I see, but they will be accountable to a minister and a ministry.
Mr. Massé: We intend that these agencies will be accountable to a minister.
Senator Kelly: I must confess that I am sensitive when it comes to Crown corporations. Will this end up being a Crown corporation?
Mr. Massé: No, but that is a good question. We are trying to create structures which are different from Crown corporations but not part of the public service. We created these SOAs - Special Operating Agencies - because it became clear that some groups of people that deliver services in the government can do so much better and at a lower cost if they are given much more freedom.
I will give you an example. The National Capital Commission has been reduced in size by about half and has given out for contract to its employees - it was an employee takeover, as it is called - a number of its operations, including maintenance in the parks. Some of these lands are in my riding. I asked some of these people, "Why are you betting your future and your savings on your ability to do better than the government?" One of the guys in charge of the fleet of trucks said, "I am responsible for that fleet of trucks. I know by whom they are used and for how long. You have about 12 there, and I am able to function with about 6."
By the way, you believe these guys because they know what they have been doing. You also know that if their own money is involved, they will take much better care of it.
The principle is to try to give as much flexibility and responsibility to the people who deliver the services and to put them in contact with clients. Of course, if there is an employee takeover, then the service slogan becomes "client-oriented" because that is a way for the delivery agency to succeed. It is a profound change in terms of structure but more especially in terms of mindset, the way services are delivered and the motivations of employees.
Senator Bolduc: Is it something akin to what used to be called, in the old Financial Administration Act, departmental corporations, as distinct from Crown corporations?
Mr. Massé: It is something like that. I say "something like that" because we have decided to proceed on a case-by-case basis.
When the British created their executive agencies, they really created alternative service delivery agencies, but they gave structures to all of them. They kept the brain, if you wish, in the centre for policy, regulation and so on, and they decentralized services to the executive agencies. They gave their directors five-year tenure - not like deputy ministers - and gave them a contract based on results. If the results were not fulfilled, they were out.
We realized that some executive agencies worked and some did not, and structures must be thought out carefully for each type of service.
Given the British experience in particular, as well as the experience in New Zealand and Australia, we decided to move case by case and determine the structure according to the type of service being rendered and the needs, whether it be Parks Canada or the National Taxation Commission.
Senator Bolduc: We do a lot of that at the municipal level.
Senator Kelly: Mr. Minister, I am very pleased with those responses.
Internally, once a year, the auditor general comes out and tells everyone what they are doing wrong; however, internally, you are making a lot of changes. Do you have an ongoing overview of how these things are working as they go along, such as value for money? Does the Treasury Board have an internal auditing process?
Mr. Massé: We do. We have many evaluation processes, both in terms of projects and of programs.
Senator Kelly: How regularly do you do that? Is it continuous?
Mr. Massé: It is continuous. Almost every department has a group within its policy department to do evaluations.
Before I ask the Secretary of the Treasury Board to answer in more depth, I will say something impertinent. Departments themselves are not appraised; they are not evaluated. I know of no system - and this is why I will let my deputy minister continue - that would permit one to say, "This department has fulfilled its objectives and policies in an efficient manner." I would like my deputy minister to describe the reasons for that.
This is why I said that we do a lot of evaluations of projects and programs. I do not think we do very good evaluations of such things as the government's role in transport or its function in the economy. How well does it perform that function? I think we must work more at that level in the future.
Senator Kelly: If the conclusion is that a certain program is not doing well, does it then logically follow that you do not evaluate the situation when they are not doing well?
Mr. Massé: You may well be right.
Mr. V. Peter Harder, Secretary of the Treasury Board and Comptroller General of Canada: Before I expand on that answer, I would observe that I can count five deputy ministers around this table.
I think the minister is absolutely right. Our evaluations have tended to look at inputs rather than performance-related outputs. There are components here; for example, what type of material do we provide to parliamentarians? Part of the evaluation is the information we give to Parliament.
I commend to you the pilot project - in which Senator Bolduc and others are involved - wherein the six departments are providing better material on the objectives of the department but also on the performance criteria by which the department is held accountable.
First, this project is reporting to Parliament. Second, it is also ensuring that your evaluation group is part and parcel of establishing the performance criteria against which the business plans or activities of the departments will be judged. How do you know when you have arrived if you do not know where you are going? We must instill in departments a performance-based planning process. That is the objective of Program Review and its implementation.
With respect to the annual plans coming from departments, we have encouraged them to ensure that they have performance criteria against which they can be held better accountable, rather than input-based or end-of-process evaluation reports which are very thick on apportioning blame but which do not do very much on correcting performance.
Senator Kelly: Mr. Harder, you worried me when you first started out. I heard you say that you provide sufficient information to Parliament for parliamentarians to arrive at their own conclusions as to whether or not things are being done well. That is a very risky business.
Mr. Harder: No, no.
Senator Kelly: It is the managers of these people - you people - who must present their judgments to parliamentarians in terms of how well things are working.
Mr. Harder: Last year, the Treasury Board published for the first time an integrated report to Parliament and Canadians on all the various evaluation and performance studies that were taking place. However, I do believe that parliamentarians, using the kind of material which we provide in Part IIIs and the like, are part of an accountability structure which needs to be clarified. We need to give parliamentarians good information upon which the performance of departments can be judged.
Senator Kelly: Again, you have me off base. You are saying to parliamentarians, "Here is the information. You have it all. Reach your own conclusions." What we need, at the end of that exercise is to hear you state categorically: "I, Peter Harder - or I, Minister Massé - am pleased and content that this thing is running the way it should be running."
There is probably a simple answer to my next question; I should know it. You have committed yourselves to improving how government operates better as a business. This document tells us what is being spent. At some time, will we have an income projection? How much do you expect will come in? You say that we will spend $106 billion less.
Mr. Massé: That is in program expenditures.
Senator Kelly: Where is the document that puts these two things together?
Mr. Harder: It is the budget plan.
Senator Kelly: I missed that. I knew there would be a simple answer somewhere.
Senator Kinsella: Minister, to turn our attention to the matter of training throughout the organization, is the government undertaking a review and a rationalization of all training that is being done of its employees from the most senior deputy down to the most junior clerk?
Would you give us an overview of the number of major training services or facilities or institutions which are operating in addition to the Public Service Commission itself and its training program? I have forgotten the name of that institute.
The Chairman: Can you help us, Mr. Harder?
Senator Kinsella: It is the Canadian Centre for Management Development. With reference to that centre, the Estimates show an increase in their budget by some $7 million, from $10 million to $17 million. There is a "caution" to us - that is the word used on page 44 of Part I of the Estimates - that the increase is primarily due to a technical change in the method of reporting revenue.
Do we still need the Canadian Centre for Management Development? Is there any consideration being given to abolishing it? If there is no consideration being given to abolishing it, what is the justification in the current environment for maintaining it?
I an concerned about the general question of training and the specific vision of the government on a training policy for employees.
Mr. Massé: I will answer the question in general in terms of the principle and our view of the future. I will let Mr. Harder deal with the numbers which are being spent.
We are trying to transform the government into an entity which can adapt much more easily in the future. We are facing ever-changing demands for services because technology changes so quickly. The kiosks in Human Resource Development are one example. Also, people have very different needs which must be discharged. When we talk about training here, we talk about something that has become as important an activity in the federal government as recruitment.
The school system is only one small part of the total education system now. I recently saw figures on the amounts being spent on training and education within enterprises and within governments; that amount is much larger than the amount being spent through the traditional education system.
The question you are asking is an essential one. This is not an add-on. In the future, our employees will need to adapt even more quickly than before, and we must help by giving them the ability to train all the time. This is continuous education, much of it happening inside government; a certain part must be given outside government. I have not seen a developed program for deciding what goes inside and what goes outside, but that problem was becoming acute and needed to be addressed.
In terms of CCMD, there is now a mandate review started by the clerk. However, it is my own feeling, before seeing the review, that the federal government must allow those people who move through departments very quickly - there are a number with that ability - to meet together for special training courses. They should be given, literally, the best there is in the world. If, by chance, one university could give that, we would ask, "Well, why not go to that university?" Many of the trainers are in government. Sometimes the other students in the class can teach each other almost as much as the teachers can offer.
We need people who are trained literally to be the best in the world at running such an institution. Therefore, we may need to send them outside the country for a few months as is done in some of the CCMD programs. Lecturers from all over the world come to train these people because they are the ones who will eventually be administering the $106 billion which we give to government in our taxes.
Training and development in government is becoming a more important activity. I believe that CCMD has been playing a role which could not easily be played outside the government; that is the role of the centre of excellence. That role must be played whether it is inside or outside government; I believe it is better played inside government.
Mr. Harder: Training and Development Canada is part of the Public Service Commission. It has a revolving fund of some $26 million which provides the various institutional training for which the Public Service Commission has a mandate.
The CCMD budget - and you are right to refer to a technical change as the reason for the increase - is outside the authority of the Public Service Commission, and it focuses on senior level training.
In addition to that, the Estimates provide for about $10 million for re-training of workers who are part of the surplus employees, in other words, retraining them for leaving the public sector.
A major component of getting government right, though, is providing, in departments, a working environment where you have the kind of continuous learning that the minister is describing, which can best be done in that department.
As work processes are changed and work is re-engineered within existing departmental budgets, a great deal of effort is taken to retrain the work force to meet the changing nature of the demands placed on the public service. It is a different way of thinking for the public service, frankly, because we need to do this right; we need a better portrait of the skills and competencies of our work force and of the skills and competencies needed to deliver the services as they are being redefined. Training then takes place to meet those needs.
We have traditionally managed a job-description world in which an employee "owns" a job description and is subject only to traditional out-of-department training. We need a much more dynamic and more focused way of judging skills.
Senator Kinsella: What model of analysis would you recommend to committees such as this one to assess the availability of resources and the appropriateness of the general policy for training of public servants in Canada? Are there comparative analyses? Often the argument is made that a ministry or a department or an operating agency must have a business plan, a business mission statement, and so on. It seems that many concepts are borrowed, by way of analogy, from the business community rather than from the area of training.
What is the relationship between our public service training standards and the use of resources per employee as compared to industry or to other major public services such as that of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Harder: I do not have that kind of data. I could pull out what we have on comparative studies. However, the appropriate analogy depends on the nature of what we are discussing. For example, Revenue Canada has a training centre in Rigaud which is a traditional training centre of skills acquisition, as is the Regina facility for the RCMP. Those institutions teach traditional competency skills required for that work force to meet a level or a grade. We can find the number of expenditures included there.
We are seeking to transfer public sector organizations to continuous-learning organizations. In that case, the discrete type of training allocation is more integrated to adapting the work force skills to the changing nature of their work.
I learned from my previous experience in updating the Department of Immigration, that as the processes change, the skills must change. The training took place in the line, rather than sending people to a particular institution to take a course, and formed part of the department's transformation. It is not an easy process.
The Chairman: Are these the types of courses that would be offered, total training solutions?
Mr. Harder: Is that the TDC?
The Chairman: I am just looking through the brochure and I see a couple of interesting courses. There is a three-day pre-retirement workshop for the "ordinary" folks, promising a lively course which will provide valuable insights into retirement planning, be it imminent or in the distant future. It covers health, nutrition, superannuation and tricky legal aspects of estate planning, all at a cost of $595 to the department. There is even a third-party commendation from Bruce Ramsay of Environment Canada who calls it absolutely excellent and a must course for anyone in the public service.
Then there is a four-day offering of an "executive group" pre-retirement seminar basically offering the same training but for busy, senior executives in government - that may be a misnomer - who feel they can ill-afford to spend any time planning for retirement because, of course, they are too busy, at a course fee of $1,145.
Can someone explain to me the cost difference for two courses which seem to cover the same topics, with the added bit on stress and fitness for the busy executive group for an additional $600?
Mr. Massé: Lifestyle?
The Chairman: Does anyone here want to answer that question, or should we have a course on it?
Mr. Massé: Is that a document from the Public Service Commission?
The Chairman: Yes. It is called "Total Training Solutions."
Mr. Massé: The Public Service Commission reports directly to Parliament so I do not have much ability to control their output.
Senator Kinsella: They have another course on ministerial letter-writing which takes place in Whitehorse.
The Chairman: Most of these topics are covered in adult education classes that you can pick up at any technical school in the country. For example, our adult education program in Saskatoon has such things as computer courses. Is there a reason why we would be running our own programs? Why would we not be out-sourcing them to technical schools or secretarial schools?
Senator Cools: Because then they would have to go at night.
The Chairman: Let the minister answer.
Mr. Massé: A number of these programs can be out-sourced and taken in local institutions of learning. The question of whether certain courses should be given inside or outside government has become a relevant question in recent years because of the large amounts being spent on training.
I would not want to make a quick judgment on a publication by another department, but there is no doubt that a review of these courses would conclude that some of them should be given somewhere else.
The Chairman: Regarding the Canadian Centre for Management Development, how does one get to the Gatineau Hills? Does one need a recommendation or does one volunteer to go?
Mr. Harder: If you had been there, you would not be in a rush to go back.
Mr. Massé: I have been there but mostly to give presentations on some specific topic such as economic development.
There were two things that struck me at the CCMD. First, those who attend seem to develop very quickly a feeling of friendship amongst themselves. This can be quite important among senior civil servants as they increase knowledge of contacts and develop personal relationships, because, tomorrow, they may be able to call a colleague and get information which would otherwise take a week to obtain. It is also important because people express very different viewpoints about the public service and their life in it, about the efficiencies they have found and their own methods of improving their management skills.
Second, those who attend learn from people who have come from all over the world, who are well known in their fields and who provide a seminar-like atmosphere surrounding some of the people who write the books on these topics. That can be very valuable. As a deputy minister, I was faced with the same problems of change that other people face. I found these seminars very useful.
Senator Anderson: I should like the minister to expand a bit on the new, single food-inspection service which has been announced. As someone who has been associated with food and food safety all my professional life, I am very interested in this service. Is this new food inspection agency in effect now?
Mr. Massé: It is not in effect now. All during the program review, we had indicated the need to resolve that issue which spans three federal departments - health, agriculture, and fisheries.
We tried to simplify the system at the federal-provincial level. We found that the problem of duplication was not so bad at the federal-provincial level but very bad at the federal level. It took a while before we could convince the departments that they had no choice but to get together.
Finally, a group was formed with people from all three departments who defined a set of objectives and a structure analysis including elements of the three departments. You know how these analyses are done. That group is now beginning to implement the amalgamation of the work in the three departments.
Once that has been done - and we are still looking for the ideal structure - we will go into the federal-provincial field and try to reduce any possible duplication there.
At this stage, we are still bringing together the federal departments of health and agriculture; fisheries will be added in six months. We will proceed stage by stage and check our progress as we go.
Senator Anderson: Possibly within the next year, this new agency will be operative?
Mr. Massé: Yes. It will save $44 million.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: The quest to balance the budget and cut spending is nothing new. The previous government had also embarked on this mission, as other governments before it had. Some day, we will manage to find a balanced approach. Is it your government's policy to ask departments that provide services, and I am thinking in particular about Public Works and Government Services Canada, to sell their services to outside sources?
Mr. Massé: During the Program Review, we consciously adopted the user-pay principle. What this basically means is that when the government creates a service, the limited group of taxpayers that benefit from the service must pay.
For example, ice-breaking services in the winter or coast guard signalling services are the types of services used by a certain number of users throughout the year. The cost of these services should be covered by the users.
Senator Nolin: When you mention these clients, you are talking about a department or Canadian government agency. When you talk about them selling their services outside the government, the objective is to earn revenues.
Mr. Massé: Yes. One example of this is passports. The passport service is a joint venture because it sells passports.
Senator Bolduc: Senator Nolin is alluding to the fact that at Public Works, not only are services provided to government clients but to the private sector as well. The Department competes with people who work in the private sector and who pay taxes.
Mr. Massé: Yes, that is the problem with the communications group.
Senator Nolin: This is also a problem with translation services, communications and the realty service of Public Works.
Senator Bolduc: It is the equivalent of university professors who freelance.
Senator Nolin: Is it the policy of your government to seek out revenues?
Mr. Massé: This has never been government policy, but to some extent, we do favour this approach. The National Capital Commission is another example that springs to mind.
Guarantees are being provided to companies being set up by former employees that three- to five-year exclusive contracts will be awarded to them. However, after five years, these companies will have to compete with others that can offer the same services and, consequently, sell their services outside the government.
Senator Nolin: Yes, but they are no longer on the payroll. In other words, they are no longer included in the $109 billion when they leave. I had a similar experience with National Capital Commission employees. Last year, I met with employees who tend the flower beds on Parliament Hill. They explained to me that when the summer was over, they planned to bid on this summer's contracts, as a private company. That is a very worthwhile undertaking. This year, these employees will no longer be on the government payroll.
Mr. Massé: That is correct.
Senator Nolin: Basically, they will become suppliers of private sector services. During the transition phase, we uphold the principle whereby suppliers of private sector services should not be in competition with public sector suppliers. The problem is one of cross-subsidization where part of the services are financed by expertise or by the profits from other parts of the service.
Generally speaking, we do not encourage unfair competition with the private sector, but at times, it is difficult to identify it, particularly during transition periods.
Senator Nolin: This question will definitely be on the agenda when we meet with your colleague, Ms Marleau, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. We intend to discuss the matter with her because her Department's act is clearly ambiguous as far as this matter is concerned and we will seek some clarification. I wanted to ask you if Treasury Board had in place a policy encouraging the sale of services which the State has set up to meet its own needs. I would have liked to hear your comments on this subject.
Mr. Massé: I will not exclude the possibility of our considering that in the future.
Senator Nolin: I would simply like you to tell us: no, we will never do that because we do not wish to compete with our taxpayers.
Mr. Massé: Once again, I agree with the principle that we should not compete with our taxpayers.
Senator Bolduc: It is unfair!
Mr. Massé: However, this principle is not absolute because Heaven knows what the future holds in store for us.
Senator Nolin: Everything is recorded; the written words remain.
Mr. Massé: As we see these days.
Senator Bolduc: Yes. I have a question that relates to this.
[English]
The fact is that you are creating a new Department of Public Works and Government services. I wonder if it is a good move to do that in 1996.
In the past, we had many departments, approximately 35. Some were fairly small. You cannot get all the professional expertise you need in one small department, for example, of 200 people. It seems departments now are less numerous but bigger. For example, the Department of Foreign Affairs has about 4,000 employees; Agriculture has 5,000. Many others have between 6,000 and 8,000 employees.
At that level of expertise, why shouldn't deputy minister be responsible for his buildings and his spaces as he is everything else? I do not understand why today's government would pool together in one department all of the engineers and architects who must serve everyone.
In fact, that is so unrealistic that the work is not really contained within Public Works. We know that Transport does its own thing; it is a huge department with many of their own engineers. National Defence does the same thing with its supplies. It has such specialized equipment -helicopters, frigates, submarines and airplanes. There may be a general supply and services department within government, but everyone knows that the generals and the admirals will control their own supplies. This is normal; I do not criticize that.
I do wonder why such huge a department is needed today. Will we nned such a department over the next 10 years? I do not think it is needed at all. I have studied the matter fairly closely in Quebec and in other areas. I am puzzled by the government builds so many of what I call "common services." Do you realize how much paper flies around to nourish these bureaucracies? This is not the way to save money.
Rather you should tell the deputy ministers or the heads of the administrative agencies to take care of their own management problems from A to Z, including the buildings. Because there are so many public properties in Canada, one agency could be responsible solely for public properties such as in the City of Quebec or in other places where the federal government has properties. Generally, I do not see the need for it. I could see a need for it back when I began in the public service in the 1950s.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Chairman, this is a comment which must be taken into account.
Senator Bolduc: I would like to have your views about that, minister, because your government is proposing a department.
Mr. Massé: We are doing a continuous program review.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool: I would like to thank the minister. After Senator Bolduc's speech, I promise that my question will be fairly brief. I would also appreciate a brief response on your part.
My question concerns ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the recommendations of the Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee. The matter was discussed this morning during the meeting of the Atlantic caucus. Do you have anything to say to this committee which is recommending the gradual or progressive elimination of ACOA and of regional agencies such as the ones in Northern Ontario and Quebec?
I realize that it is getting late. Wednesdays are very long days. Would you care to comment?
Mr. Massé: Yes. Over the past 15 years, the understanding of the aims and objectives of regional agencies has evolved a great deal. One opinion seems to be more and more prevalent. We need an agency that lends funds under certain circumstances, such as when a company starts out and has yet to find its market and consequently requires temporary rather than ongoing assistance.
Furthermore, if the company is successful, it pays back the money, proving that its problem was really a temporary lack of capital, not the fact that it was unable to survive.
Consequently, in my opinion, we must provide assistance to companies experiencing start-up or perhaps expansion problems, at certain points in time, under certain circumstances and for certain products, when there is good reason to believe that other sources of funds are not available. These funds must be paid back when the company turns a profit.
Regional development agencies are looking more and more like banking intermediaries that give special consideration to a region or industry.
Senator Losier-Cool: I am encouraged by your comments because statistics show that companies headed by women have a higher success rate. It is women who are going to be paying you back.
[English]
The Chairman: In December, the Minister of Transport said that there was an agreement in principle between the Greater Toronto Pearson Airport Authority and the Government of Canada for the leasing of Pearson airport by them from the Government of Canada. Within a process like that, would they be submitting their agreements as they were proceeding in their negotiations with the Treasury Board?
Mr. Massé: As a matter of principle, that will come up at some point if it involves the expenditure of government funds. All contracts, as a matter of principle, will come to Treasury Board for authorization of the expenditure.
If a cabinet committee has gone over the principle before, the ministers and Treasury Board will not review the approval in principle given by another government committee and then approved by cabinet. They will merely look at whether the expenditures correspond to the terms of the contract.
The Chairman: Therefore, nothing has been submitted to Treasury Board during this three-year period of negotiation?
Mr. Massé: Mr. Harder tells me that he does not know but that he can probably give you the answer tomorrow when the officials appear here again.
The Chairman: Obviously it has not gone to the Treasury Board.
Mr. Harder: It has not since I have been secretary.
The Chairman: Which is how long?
Mr. Harder: That is four months.
The Chairman: Mr. Minister, I appreciate very much your appearance here. We had a very good discussion.
The committee adjourned.