Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 4 - Evidence - Meeting of November 30, 2004
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 30, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I see a quorum. I would like to call the seventh meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to order.
Honourable senators, this is the second meeting in our order of reference to examine the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year that ends March 31, 2005.
This morning we would like to welcome back for the second time this session the President of the Treasury Board, the Honourable Reg Alcock. At the last meeting of this committee on November 23, Mr. Mike Joyce of the Treasury Board and his officials entered into a very interesting dialogue about the way in which the estimates are presented to parliamentarians and to members of this committee, and there were a number of useful other suggestions for future changes made at that time. We look forward, minister, to having an opportunity to discuss that with you after you finish your opening remarks. As usual, after your opening remarks, honourable senators will put questions to you. Welcome once again.
The Honourable Reg Alcock, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board: Thank you very much, Senator Oliver. It is a pleasure to be here, as it always is. I said this to you before, but it is true: We continue to enjoy the rigour with which this committee approaches these exercises, and it has been helpful to us in the work that we do.
I am joined today by Comptroller General Charles-Antoine St-Jean, and Mike Joyce and Ms. Laura Danagher are here also. They both appeared before the committee a week ago. I have a number of other people in the room here in case any of the senators get unruly.
Their presentation at that time on the supplementary estimates was quite detailed and extensive. My opening remarks today will focus on some of the strategic issues concerning supplementary estimates and the way Treasury Board reports to parliamentary committees.
When I appeared before you on October 27, I noted that this committee's responsibility, reviewing government spending, is extremely important. You and your colleagues face significant challenges in carrying out your duties.
Parliament receives hundreds of statutory reports from over 200 government organizations on matters as diverse as privacy, sustainable development, employment equity, alternative fuels and others. The list alone of these reports exceeds 100 pages.
The government provides detailed information to Parliament, but this does not guarantee clarity or understanding. Parliamentarians have said that they want simpler, more integrated information, with more context, and an ability to drill down to more detail. They want performance reports to be linked to plans, and expect to see more balanced reporting, not just good news stories. Finally, they want the reports to link resources to results and to be more helpful in clarifying departmental expenditures and estimates.
The government has committed to improving reporting to Parliament. This same key objective figures prominently in the Treasury Board's management agenda.
We have already introduced some significant enhancements. For example, all departmental reports on plans and priorities, and on performance, are online and searchable by key word. A number of databases are linked to these reports.
In the short term, there are specific things we can do to improve the quality of reporting. We will soon provide an integrated set of guidelines to departments on the preparation of the reports on plans and priorities and departmental performance reports. These guidelines will stress that these two reports must be better integrated and much more fact- based.
We are now assessing the quality of these reports and reporting our findings to deputy heads under our annual management accountability framework assessment process. We also plan to select a number of reports each year for detailed assessment and feedback, covering the reports of key organizations on a cyclical basis.
We have begun to provide more detailed information in supplementary estimates and in the public accounts. In addition, the Comptroller General is working to increase the number of reports that have auditable financial statements.
However, these measures, while making progress on our objectives, all assume the status quo configuration; and they do not address all of your concerns.
We want to implement an approach to reporting that is intuitive, timely and easy to use; that is consistently based, allowing the tracking of an item from one report to another; balanced between formal hard-copy reports and ongoing electronic disclosure; and which are reflective of real performance and the real way that government is managed.
To meet these objectives, we need a better blueprint to improve reporting to parliamentarians in the future. One promising option is to make better use of electronic reporting. Substantial program-specific details on targets, resources and actual results could be put online and made available to parliamentarians and, indeed, all Canadians. With this approach, electronic reports could be updated at any point in the year as new audits or evaluations are completed, or as actual expenditure and performance data are updated in departmental systems.
Change of this magnitude needs to be phased in over time, but we are positioning the government to move from a static, paper-driven approach to a more dynamic, evergreen model. That is just some of the thinking on where we would like to go.
Let me move on to one of the issues raised by this committee in the past, internal audit. Last week, the Auditor General released her last report for 2004. I am pleased to say that some of the issues and concerns about internal audit raised by her have already been acted on; and work is well under way to address her remaining concerns.
Treasury Board is absolutely committed to building the capacity needed for better independent and objective internal audit services. Budget 2004 announced the government's intention to reorganize and bolster the internal audit function on a government-wide basis to ensure comprehensive audit programs, based on sound risk analysis of all departmental activities, with authority to delve into every corner of every portfolio.
On November 18, I announced a new program to strengthen the internal audit function across the federal public service. This multi-year initiative, developed by the Comptroller General, will greatly enhance the internal audit capacity in the public sector and will introduce a standardized, proven audit process.
Our action plan consists of a comprehensive strategy that encompasses revisions to the internal audit policy. It also includes changes to the role of the function itself, and that of audit committees, their structure, resources, methodologies and tools.
The Comptroller General will provide internal audit services to 63 small departments and agencies. This will strengthen internal control and performance measurement, and improve the ability of these smaller organizations to meet policy and regulation requirements.
We are conducting an assessment of the audit capacity in government and launching consultations with key stakeholders such as the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Institute of Internal Auditors and other professional organizations on changes to internal audit policy and practices. Details on further steps in this multi-year initiative will be announced following the completion of consultations.
Another issue on this committee's agenda is Treasury Board's vote 5, its use, possible changes to its wording, and policy regarding its use. In response to these concerns, Treasury Board has discussed with you a draft paper that proposes a series of recommendations: changes to the wording in the introduction to the Main Estimates to provide a better context around the use of vote 5; alterations to the wording of the vote, reflecting some of the suggestions included in this committee's report of June 2002; an approved framework governing use of vote 5; and a set of Treasury Board-approved guidelines or criteria to accompany the framework.
Like you, we are eager to move forward on this initiative. I will be pleased to discuss this with you in more detail, particularly as it fits into the overarching objective of improved reporting to Parliament; but it is time for me to conclude so we can move on to your questions and concerns.
However, before doing so, I have one other thing I want to say. Yes, Senator Murray, I just wish to point out that last night I had dinner with the Public Sector Accounting Board, which, as you will know, is part of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, and I received an award, presented to me by the Auditor General of Canada, who is the chair of this particular organization. While I was the teeth and hair in the photo, in fact this is an award to the staff of the Treasury Board and the people who have been engaged in bringing accrual accounting into reality. We need to recognize folks when they accomplish important things. To listen to the auditors talk — I did not understand most of the conversation, frankly — they were excited about it. I think it is an important milestone and we should take time to recognize when people get it right. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for that excellent overview. I would like to start by asking you a question of my own.
I read your November 18 announcement with great interest and quite carefully, and today you have referred to it again. You say, ``Our action plan consists of a comprehensive strategy that encompasses revisions to the internal audit policy. It also includes changes to the role of the function itself, and that of audit committees, their structure, methodologies and tools.''
Nothing is said there about the role of the deputy minister. As the Canadian public will know, in every one of the government departments that you are in charge of, the person at the top, under the minister, is the deputy minister. I would like to know the role of the deputy minister in these major audit changes and restructuring that are taking place. What power and role does the deputy minister now have?
Mr. Alcock: As you know, senator, there is a much greater shift occurring throughout a whole series of these management initiatives in order to make the deputies more accountable for the overall operations of their departments and then to hold them to account for the outcomes. This is contained in the modernization frameworks and other discussions we have had here.
We have to differentiate. It is felt that some agencies are not large enough to have a sophisticated internal audit capacity. That will be managed centrally under the direction of the Comptroller General. There is something of a debate going on. In the larger departments, the head of internal audit will report to the deputy head. The deputy head's participation in the audit committee will be a factor in the kinds of meetings they are having. Mr. St-Jean talks at some length about the enormous amount of time it will take to conduct the meetings themselves and to do this right. The deputy would be expected to participate in some of that, but not necessarily chair it. The head of internal audit will report to the deputy head. There will be others sitting on that committee from the Comptroller General's office. Plus, the Comptroller General insists on having some outside members of that audit committee as part of the ongoing participation in the audit function internally.
The Chairman: The buck will stop with the deputy minister. The deputy minister will still be solely charged with the responsibility.
Mr. Alcock: Yes. In a model where we have accountability, the buck will stop with the deputy minister. However, Mr. St-Jean will sign off on the selection of the head of internal audit. His group will be providing the training, expertise and support for the internal audit. There will be independent voices on the audit committee, so the ability to manage the internal audit committee to prevent release of things will not exist. However, we want a model that holds the deputy minister to account. In a model like that you have to put them in charge.
The Chairman: Thank you for that.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Minister, should I ask the question or do you want to answer it already?
Mr. Alcock: We decided to stop hiring people outside the Ottawa region. I will make it clear.
In fairness, senator, I am focused on your concern. I have met with Madame Barrados on that. I have asked for a second meeting, because there is another feature, which is the hiring of summer students. I think Madame Barrados is doing a terrific job sorting out things at the Public Service Commission. I have distracted her a little with this proposal to place whistle-blowing there. In fairness to her, she has been working on that. She is in the final phases of a project that she thinks will begin to address the concern you raise, that is, allowing people anywhere in Canada to apply, but in a way that allows for more efficient screening. It does not get us caught in these enormous cost parameters. We have bigger problems in hiring that it would be interesting to have this committee spend some time on.
On the specific question of the area of selection, she is certainly seized of it. I hope we will be able to come back here soon to declare a success.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Further to that, we have questioned Ms. Barrados, when she appeared before us, about the policy of hiring opportunities in agencies, which is another set of issues. I think that your suggestion that we look at the entire spectrum of hiring policy is a good one.
I have another important question for you this morning. In the February 2003 budget, the federal government committed to reallocating $1 billion of existing non-statutory programming from lower to higher government priority areas in fiscal year 2004-05. The contribution of each department and agency to this reallocation initiative was not detailed in the 2004-05 Supplementary Estimate (A), but was provided in a backgrounder released along with these supplementary estimates. The backgrounder was released on November 4.
I have some specific questions on this because I am looking at the list of reallocation initiatives. Human Resources and Skills Development, Social Development, have reallocated $154 million of their budget under that, which is a concern. That is a lot of money. I would like to know from what lower priority within the departments that money came.
I have another concern, because we have four regional economic agencies. Two of these four have made contributions to the reallocation initiative, a co-op from Atlantic Canada for $9 million and the Western Economic Diversification for $6 million. I would like to know what happened to the two others, the Quebec economic diversification agency and Northern Ontario. Quebec is there?
Mr. Alcock: Quebec is there.
Senator Murray: It is 1.6.
Senator Ringuette: I guess I should buy new glasses.
Senator Murray: Sorry, 5.
Senator Ringuette: Yes, I am sorry. That leaves out Northern Ontario, which was not targeted to reallocate money to the billion dollar initiative. The three amounts of money from these agencies represent what percentage of their total budget, and what lower priority has been identified in these three agencies for reallocation of these monies?
Mr. Alcock: We could spend some time digging into that right now or I could undertake to get that information back to you in better detail. You will get a better answer than I could give now. The last time I was here we did that when there were these specifics. If you are satisfied with that we will undertake to get it to you.
As you will recall from my first appearance here, I talked about how the objective we were trying to meet was to get all of these decisions made so we could identify the billion dollars going into the fiscal year. Remember, this was between December and the end of March of last year.
People then had one full year to deal with it as opposed to trying to pull it out throughout the year. We accomplished that. The table on page 48 of the supplementary estimates is a summary consistent with the recommendations from this committee about greater crosswalks in disclosure of decisions that we have taken. This is our first cut at it. It would be interesting to receive some comment on other detail that senators might like in future documents, because we see this as an iterative process. There was a discussion with officials over time about improving the information available. In a limited way, we tried to respond to this, and now we would like to hear back. We will try to respond to that. The information on the overall increase in appropriations is not available for last year or this year. Is that right?
Mr. Mike Joyce, Assistant Secretary, Expenditure and Management Strategies Sector, Treasury Board of Canada: The supplementary estimates give you the overall change in the appropriation levels for each department. That is seen in the table beginning on page 24 of the English version. You can see the previous estimates and what is in these supplementary estimates. That actually tells you the increase in parliamentary authority that results from these supplementary estimates, net of the amount that was removed from reallocation. I remind senators that the amount removed in these supplementary estimates is only the final portion, which is, I believe, $346 million. The remainder of the $1 billion was actually removed in the Main Estimates. This is the final part of the picture.
Senator Murray: Is there not a similar table in the Main Estimates?
Mr. Alcock: No. Senator, you may recall there was a bit of a controversy, created entirely by me. When I tabled the Main Estimates, I indicated that we would be tabling a revised Main in the fall.
The Chairman: Senator Lynch-Staunton raised questions about that.
Mr. Alcock: There was an objection in the House because it could only be done once per year. We will try to do it in the supplementary estimates and then reflect that in the next set of Main Estimates.
Senator Murray: For the purpose of Senator Ringuette's question, the better table is the one that the minister referred to, beginning on page 48. The extreme right-hand column indicates which departments or agencies were net contributors to the exercise; and most of them were not actual contributors but rather had a reallocation within the department. The ones that show a bracketed figure have actually given up amounts. They are net contributors. Is that correct?
Mr. Joyce: That is correct.
Senator Murray: In the ACOA, supplementary estimates provide that the $9-million cut comes from their grants, I believe.
The Chairman: Minister, in your opening remarks you said that in respect of vote 5, the use and the possible changes of wording in the policy, Treasury Board is working on a document. When could we have access to that new document? Could that possibly be in advance of the next appearance by you or your officials so we could study it in advance and put better questions at committee? Is it finished and ready now? Could you tell us the status?
Mr. Alcock: I can certainly talk to you about it, if you like. There was an extensive discussion in this committee on it. I have notes on all of that and I have a table laid out that looks at all of the current policy, the concerns of the Auditor General and the questions raised by this committee. It occurred to me that I was about to make a mistake, for which I have been checked by the Senate, by going to one house and not to the other House. In fairness, I need to take the same conversation to the House, get their opinions on it, and then we will issue a document that will be the basis for a more detailed discussion.
I do have a couple of questions about your concerns on vote 5 that I would like to discuss, if senators are inclined to do so; I am in your hands.
The Chairman: We will finish the list of questions first and then come back to that.
Senator Downe: My question pertains to the $1-billion reallocation announced in the 2003 budget. I wonder whether your departmental officials are aware of how many people lost their employment because of the reallocation and whether they have done a study on that. I am particularly interested, given there is now an exercise under way for a $12-billion reallocation.
Mr. Joyce: I do not have specific information from the individual departments, but it is my understanding that there were no specific job losses as a result of that $1-billion reallocation. It was a reallocation in the sense that the money being saved had already been applied to new spending initiatives in the 2003 budget. Coupled with the fact that the reallocation, if my memory serves me correctly, funded some 15 per cent of the new budget spending in 2003, there was an increase in government spending overall, some of which would have translated into additional jobs. No specific concerns were brought to our attention about that overall government reallocation strategy resulting in specific job losses.
Senator Downe: I understood that the reallocation was part of the exercise that, for example, eliminated significant funds from Heritage Canada, which reduced the grant to the CBC by $10 million. Is this the same exercise?
Mr. Joyce: I do not have the figure for the CBC, but I do have a table, if you can give me a few minutes, senator. It is a decrease in vote 20, I believe, which was the payments to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Senator Downe: You may want to do an assessment with the department, given that you have a $12-billion reallocation exercise under way. It is my understanding that as a consequence of the CBC reduced revenue, they have reduced positions. In my hometown of Charlottetown, because of the CBC reduction, a camera person who had been there for 22 years has lost his job. I wonder how many other people in Ottawa or outside Ottawa lost their employment because of this reallocation. What will that mean for the $12-billion reallocation going forward? If you can find that information, could you send it to the committee?
Mr. Joyce: Yes.
The Chairman: I have a supplementary question on that. When Minister McCallum was before the committee, he spoke to the $12-billion savings over 5 years, and he did try to explain how the Expenditure Review Committee works out of the PCO. He said that it was his job to find $1 billion, then $2 billion and then $3 billion over this five-year period. We asked what would be done with the amount after it was found. He replied that it would be reallocated. We asked who would determine the reallocation and whether it would be allocated to the same department or to other departments. He indicated that that was not his job. Minister, could you tell us whose job that will be? Will it fall under the Department of Finance or the Treasury Board Secretariat? Who will determine the reallocation? Will the reallocation be directed to the department from which it comes?
Mr. Alcock: There is no guarantee that it will be within the same department. It will be managed and cabinet will make the grosso modo decisions on the allocation of money. Treasury Board will work with departments on those details. However, the exercise was to identify items that could be candidates for reallocation, in part to reduce overall spending, let us be clear about this. The purpose of it is to manage spending, in part, and to look at where departments can fund existing programs out of their own budgets. Those new priorities are consistent with the objectives of government and there is the possibility of reallocation internally. It would be wrong to say that all of it could happen internally because there may be items for which government wishes to move money from one vote to another. That is a decision taken by cabinet.
What will be the role of the Expenditure Review Committee, the President of the Treasury Board, and the Minister and Deputy Minister of Finance in that reallocation?
Mr. Alcock: The Expenditure Review Committee will be preparing a report that will list the options that they have, the information that they have collected and the discussions that they have had. Treasury Board will have to examine that and a report will go to cabinet.
The Chairman: From Treasury Board?
Mr. Alcock: Yes.
Senator Murray: As I read your statement, minister, you are saying that Treasury Board has discussed with us a draft paper concerning vote 5 that proposes a series of recommendations. That is right. That was a year and a half ago. It was in May 2003.
I take it there is no new document. You are still talking about the draft paper that we discussed here, although the board may have taken into account some of the comments we made on that draft paper.
You say that, like us, you are eager to move forward on this initiative. That is good.
Mr. Alcock: We have an agreement. We can declare victory and move on; can we not?
Senator Murray: What have you got to say, minister? I take it you have some comments on specific recommendations in the report we put out in June 2002. Do you have some further comments on that?
Mr. Alcock: Yes, I do. I am looking at what I said. It seems I was pretty intelligent on this. It is good.
Senator Murray: You did not tell us anything new. I am glad that you brought it up.
Mr. Alcock: I will give you a sense of what has been happening,
You had made comments on this in your report of 2002, as did the Auditor General. You had asked me at a previous appearance about this and I had undertaken to brief myself, because I was uncertain as to what some of the issues were. I have done that.
The officials had a discussion with you about some of these wording issues. Was that not discussed here?
Senator Murray: We had an in camera session.
Mr. Alcock: That is right. Some of these details were suggested. I had a look at that and went through it with officials. With one exception, I do not see any substantive disagreement, frankly.
As I understand it, at a higher level, there is a desire from this committee, and, I suspect, from the auditor and the House, to constrain the ability of government to use Treasury Board vote 5 for new initiatives. That vote is described as a pressure releaser in urgent or compelling situations.
Senator Murray: Not just new initiatives, but grants, in particular. We would also say not to use it unnecessarily, when you could wait until the next supply period.
Mr. Alcock: It is in the sense of being urgent and/or compelling.
In the discussions we had internally, and from what I have seen, there is one item I will flag in a minute, but I frankly found the bulk of the policy repetitive because it makes the same point four or five different ways.
I did not receive from officials anything that was really at odds, except tonally, with some of the things coming out of this committee. I actually was preparing to come back here until it hit me that, too often, we raise concerns in the House and make a deal in the House and forget there is another chamber. I was about to do the same thing in reverse. The only thing that I said I would do is sit down with the Government Operations Committee and the Chair of Public Accounts to go through this with them, to note that this issue exists. I will then forward to you our recommendations for the policy change.
There is one area about which I am unclear that comes out of the Auditor General's concern. I raised it with her last night, and I will meet with her on it. That was the example that was used — you may already be aware of this — of the time when they wished to provide funding, was it due to 9/11?
They wanted to provide some funding to the airlines because of the impact 9/11 had on revenues. Treasury Board was asked to fund it out of vote 5. Treasury Board then took the money and allocated it to Transport in order to deliver those grants.
The auditor objected. As I understand it, the heart of the objection was that if Treasury Board had simply given the grants to the airlines, that would have been okay, but the fact that we gave it to a department to give to the airlines was somehow of concern.
I have to tell you that I do not get it. I do not get the concern in that particular area. It seems to me we are dancing on the head of a pin. If there is an authority to advance the money to solve a problem, advancing it through the department that has the relationship with the recipient strikes me as an efficient and effective way to do it, rather than Treasury Board establishing a mechanism to deliver the money.
No one questioned that the matter was urgent or necessary. The problem was simply that we gave the money to Transport to give to the airlines instead of writing the cheque from Treasury Board.
Senator Murray: I think that we had a discussion about that, perhaps with the Auditor General. I do not have the transcript in front of me, but I think that we agreed with you on the issue.
Mr. Alcock: I have always said you were persuaded by good argument.
Senator Murray: If pushed to an absurd conclusion, we would only need the Treasury Board in this government.
Mr. Alcock: We could consider that. You are right.
Senator Murray: I believe that those things should go through a department. We had that discussion here. I will have to look it up.
Senator Day: My recollection is that it had something to do with the vote 5 terms of reference and rules. It was a strict interpretation of that. Perhaps a rewording is necessary.
Mr. Alcock: I should say that I raised that with the Auditor General yesterday, and we have agreed to sit down on it. I fully understand her position. I will incorporate that in the document that I bring back.
I will also outline areas of disagreement. I think there will be some areas where we will disagree.
The Chairman: When do you think you might be able to table that with us if you are meeting at 1:30 today with the Public Accounts chair?
Mr. Alcock: I am holding it up, Senator Oliver, simply because I feel a need to do this with my colleagues in the House. I will try — I may get myself in trouble with this — to do it before Christmas. The only hesitation is if the committee chairs want to have a meeting on it, then I may be constrained in terms of the timetable. I will undertake to do this right away.
Senator Day: On the process for vote 5, minister, we had a report a couple years ago with nine specific recommendations. When you come back to talk to us, could we analyze our recommendations?
Mr. Alcock: I will provide you with a schema that looks at all of it.
Senator Murray: Mr. Chairman, we had in May 2003 the comments of the board, or at any rate of the secretariat, recommendation by recommendation. We then had an opportunity to comment on their comments. Now you have an opportunity to —
Mr. Alcock: Make the decision.
Senator Murray: I think we are fairly far down the road, which is why I am anxious to see it concluded. All the interdepartmental consultations have taken place. The secretariat has talked to the various departments and agencies. We have had a good look at it here, and it remains only now for you to talk to your friends in the House of Commons and come back to us with that information.
Mr. Alcock: Senator Murray, it would have been possible for me to come here today with that document. Certainly, the officials are exactly where you say they are. They are satisfied with the position and the work they have been doing. I am the one who held it up. I did so simply out of respect for the other chamber. I will try to facilitate that and get it back to you before we rise.
Senator Murray: Fine. Thank you.
Mr. Alcock: I am always willing to come back, in particular, for the supper meetings.
Senator Murray: I raised some questions about the particular uses of vote 5 in these supplementary estimates the other day. Somebody is getting back to me with information on some of them. We will leave it at that for the present.
Thank you.
Senator Day: I have one question, Mr. Minister. It flows out of the meeting we had with your officials last week, Mr. Joyce and Ms. Danagher. They suggested that there will be a committee struck to deal with improvements in reporting, and collaboration with that particular group.
Have you thought any more about that? The reason I ask is there have been some significant changes reflecting our concerns that were detailed earlier, which I think is wonderful. Obviously, we want to analyze what you have done. Have you any other general parameters indicating where we are going and how this process will take place?
Mr. Alcock: I do. I should tell you, Senator Day, that this is a personal interest of mine. I was invited into the consultations that took place in 1994 that led to the creation of the DPRs and the RPPs at that time. The problem is exactly the one that I mentioned in my remarks. It is that there is so much information that you are always faced with this imbalance between providing everything and just creating a lot of material that does not get used functionally, or trying to boil it down to the point where you miss a lot of detail. We had a presentation to the Treasury Board. There is a group within Treasury Board that has done what I think is stunning work on this, frankly. I am really impressed. A lot of thinking has gone on for a long time here. Part of what I am struggling with is, rather than going down the road of a grand plan consultation, I thought we should lay the information and questions out as we go, execute them, look at what we want first and try to build a model. Part of the problem is an enormous amount of work went into the RPPs, the DPRs and that entire process. An estimate cycle was developed that personally, I thought was fabulous. There would be an ongoing conversation. We would do RPPs. Committees would consider those. We would do estimates in the context of the RPPs. We would do DPRs in the context of the outputs and there would be this annual cycle. While it is easy to conceptualize this, in the daily lives of members, given the pressures on them, it just does not get used that effectively. When you talk to them, you hear concerns about how there is too little information and no ability to drill down to the detail on the questions that you want answered — I mean as individual members. We still have this enormous amount, so if the committee would like, I would be more than willing to bring forward the discussion. We had quite a good presentation on this topic this week at Treasury Board. We are in the middle of digesting that and trying to figure out the most effective way to engage parliamentarians in defining the information they want; it would help us prioritize. That is why this committee has been helpful. You have said, ``Here are the crosswalks we would like.'' We say, ``OK, here are your crosswalks. What is the next step here?'' I intend to do that with a number of committees. I am prepared to share the overview at any time. I was a little concerned that if we dropped back into consultation mode we would just end up spending time talking about it. We can actually start implementing some of this, and maybe it is more effective to implement it in line with the interests of members as they define them. Any time this committee would like to go further down that road, we are ready to have a very interesting conversation.
One issue that arises is when we put out a report, it is a static document. It is healthy in one sense, in that everyone can say this is the opinion of the government, but it would be an entire year until you see the next piece of activity. The proposal is to put it up electronically and then evergreen it, that is, keep adding as policy change takes place so you can see it. What is the official report then? That is the question. You get some of those questions, which we have to sort out. As much as possible, putting information in a format that is easy to access, that provides a high level of ability to identify where underlying information is and drill down to it to where people want to go would be, I think, the macro goal. This is not a small accomplishment.
I want to point something out here. We have a small group within Treasury Board that works on proactive disclosure — we post hospitality online, or post contracts online. We have not called in a big vendor to redesign the world. We have a little group that has built this entirely internally. They are working on it and have it up. We are a huge organization. This is a huge task and they have done a brilliant job of it. Is it the best iteration in the world? No. We will learn from it. We have the base information up. We will hear questions. You will come back to say we would like to see more information. We will try to accommodate that. This gets richer and deeper in a series of iterative steps, but I think it is more important to get the process started and let it build, following the needs, rather than wait until we have dotted every ``i'' and crossed every ``t'' before we roll it out. I am subject to criticism about this, but I am prepared to debate it with anyone who wants to debate it with me.
Was that clear enough?
Senator Day: The only question in my mind is do we do this in an informal gathering of all of our members with the Treasury Board Secretariat and you, or do we continue to discuss these issues on a more formal basis at this type of meeting? That really depends on my colleagues.
Mr. Alcock: I am ready to accommodate you either way.
Senator Day: If some of the newer members of this committee would like some background training and instruction, would that be possible?
Mr. Alcock: If parliamentarians are willing to engage with us on helping to find their information requirements, we will be there. Nothing would please me more. We have the reverse problem. People are so busy that it is hard for them to put in the time. It is a complicated business. How do we boil down 100 pages' worth of report titles into usable information? You cannot carry all the reports out of this building.
The Chairman: Minister, you have said repeatedly that you and Treasury Board would like to have a lot of this information available to senators online, so they can sit in front of their computers, access it and get some of the details on a department, a particular policy or a particular expenditure. I would like to ask you a general question about structuring and restructuring, because that is one of the things that you are known for in this particular government.
When you think about using information online and information technology, the department that you normally think of in Ottawa is Industry Canada. On the other hand, when you think about how you will utilize some of this information technology to maximize savings and ensure that the process is more proficient and efficient, you would think about how you plan to do the purchasing, which would be through Public Works. I would like to know if you could explain, for the information of this committee and Canadians, what will be the new relationship between Public Works and purchasing, Industry Canada, with its information technology, and the Treasury Board Secretariat, which wants to utilize the Internet and information technology more meaningfully.
Mr. Alcock: I have instructed my colleagues to poke me if I say things that are inappropriate here.
The answer to that question is huge. Right? We are so big and so complex. We have so many different operating arms, that the first thing we are trying to do — and this will be the Treasury Board role — is work to develop a whole- of-government look at the organization. Therefore, some level of standardization of storage and accessibility of information would be something that we would work on. You categorize things in two ways. Specific operational activity, like procurement, is best delivered through an agency like PWGSC.
I think Industry's competence in information management needs to be replicated across all departments, because they have raised the bar pretty high. We are talking about having an organization function in a new environment. The big challenge I talked about before is organizational transformation. It is becoming comfortable and functioning in a more transparent world. It is not a case of ``Here is your portal on transparency,'' the whole organization has to figure out how to do this, which is why when we work on issues like proactive disclosure, we do not gather all the information at Treasury Board and then do it, we create the framework and the structures for it and then each department does its own.
I have to be careful to see if I am missing anything here — Mr. Joyce has not poked me yet. For the small agencies, there is an issue about centralizing some of the corporate capacities because we have a number of them that are quite small. For the larger agencies, everyone has to not just develop the competence, but the underlying cultural change. Here is something I have said to you before and I should say it every time I come here.
This is a disruptive process. We will expose things about the underlying mechanisms of government that are clumsy and difficult, and we try to avoid that all the time by pretending we are perfect.
I recognize that there will be all sorts of opportunities for criticism in this, and I am looking to a committee like this to help us keep our eye on the goal, which is greater accountability and transparency, and help us get through this. As it is disruptive, this will tend to cause people to want to revert; and I hope we manage to get all the way through it.
The Chairman: I noticed in the paper the other day that the deputy minister of Treasury Board, Mr. Jim Judd, is no longer there, but has gone on to higher things. When will there be a new deputy minister in Treasury Board, and will there be a time lag in bringing a new deputy up to speed?
Mr. Alcock: Two things. I was sorry to see Jim go. He is a tremendous individual and has done yeoman's work at Treasury Board. The Treasury Board of today is different from when he arrived because of his efforts. I see him as a missionary at CSIS, helping us out; in case there is a big problem, we have our own man there.
The new person will be announced shortly. They will have their transition time. In fairness, I cannot reveal the name at this point, but it would not take a rocket scientist to realize this is not a position into which you bring somebody new. You want somebody senior and experienced. I am happy with the selection that has been made and I am looking forward to their arrival.
Regarding the gear-up time, he is sitting on top of a pretty good organization. Oops, I revealed the gender. He will have to catch up, but I am sure he will; and information will be out shortly on that.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Minister, I would like first to make a suggestion to you. Perhaps you have thought about it yourself.
In the United States, they have a system of checks and balances; so the legislative branch, the Congress, wants to have their own information and be sure it is thorough and complete. Of course, it is a government that is 10 times bigger than ours. I wonder if you can look into the system that exists in the United States and see if the information available to parliamentarians here is as good, as thorough, as that provided to members of Congress. As you said, the Government of Canada is the largest entity in this country, but still a lot smaller than the U.S. government. This is my first point. I want to make this respectful recommendation to you.
Second, is the Treasury Board at this moment in a position to study whether the expenditures and policies of a department are in conformity with the law creating that department? I am not sure that if we looked at the programs of each department, we would not find some discrepancies over the years with programs initiated by that department, which may be very useful but which were never approved by Parliament to be part of the mandate of the department. Is Treasury Board in a position to study the programs of each department to see if they are really part of the mandate approved by Parliament?
I put that question to you, Mr. Minister, because the other day, in another committee, chaired by my colleague, Senator Comeau, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, we said that in Atlantic Canada, in many areas, there are no alternative sources of employment to fisheries; when the fisheries go down — the fishing stocks, et cetera — there is no alternative employment. We are not like the New England states, where if there is a collapse of the stocks, people can go into other industrial work.
Over time, the Department of Fisheries has gradually embarked upon programs that have nothing to do with fisheries, but are socio-economic, et cetera.
We were wondering, with the assistant deputy minister of Fisheries, if the Government of Canada really has given that mandate to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to look to other things that should be, essentially, the mandate of Human Resources, or the Department of Industry or Economic Development. Why have they taken over those kinds of responsibilities?
Treasury Board has a lot of competence to study and evaluate programs. I wonder if it can study this issue, to see whether a department's programs really fit within its mandate; or if, over the years and decades, it has embarked on programs that are useful but have never been approved to be part of the mandate.
Mr. Alcock: Thank you, Senator De Bané.
Let me start with your first question, because I can dispose of that quickly. That is, the question of the U.S. models and the support to legislators there. I cannot say that we have done a study of that — and here I am crossing two things, because I have had an interest in how we improve the capacity of the House of Commons and Senate to do oversight. I think it is important that the House get more involved in estimates oversight and the like. In fairness to members, it is like the reporting problem; they have so much information and so few resources to deal with it, so models like the Congressional Budget Office get discussed.
It strikes me that we have a great deal of competence in the research bureaus that serve the Houses. If I can be taken out of the role of minister and speak a little about some of the discussions that I was involved in when I was a committee chair there, there have been some discussions in the House about how to enhance the capacity of the research bureaus and the libraries to develop expertise in some of these areas. We have talked about models: Should researchers from the library research bureau be spending some time in departments and some people from departments in the research bureaus, so we get an understanding of competencies on both sides? There is, I think, a desire to do some renewal there. Whether we can address our needs for better research and information through that vehicle, I think will be a decision that members like yourselves and members from the House will need to engage in. It is not for the government to tell the House how to fund itself. The House has made that decision and they are making some investments there.
There is an element in the House that has talked about establishing something more formal — I think it is the Congressional Budget Office that provides that sort of oversight and advice to Congress — and that debate will be ongoing. Certainly, when I was a committee chair, I said to my members that we need to spend more time on the oversight of estimates. We actually did a report making some recommendations on how to make it a better process. One of the things you need is an expert capacity to help you understand the complexity of the masses of it.
That would be my response, although it is really a discussion for you; it is not for the government. It is something of a boundary issue.
I appreciate your recognizing the competence of Treasury Board. I think we do not say this often enough about people who are doing things right.
The issue you identify is called ``mandate creep'' on our side of the table. In many cases, it is people trying to address issues with which they are confronted. It has also been part of the way in which we have funded things; as we let go of some of the budgeting processes, this amorphous mass of resources that the departments manage, we have been able to say, you can do that, but find it within. Therefore, the rigour of looking at the mandate and how it flows through was lost.
Minister McCallum will talk freely about one of his outcomes at the end of this process. Part of the expenditure review is a renewed budget process that allows us to look more rigorously at some of these activities.
The management change that is under way at Treasury Board in this model includes that if we are to build an accountability model that holds the deputy heads more directly to account, for what are we holding them accountable? We are only partway there, and we will be back here many times to discuss it.
I would argue that we are holding them to account for a series of strategic objectives for their department. This may be a gratuitous observation, but we spend a little too much time on adherence to process and not enough on what the process produces.
This is an ongoing debate in public management, in fairness to the people who do it. Due to a lack of support from the leadership, I say that as politicians at large, we retreat to process. We have many examples, and you could cite more, of how the operation was a success but the patient died, because all the checks worked but the output at the end was dysfunctional in a world that is moving much faster.
Treasury Board is very much seized of that. It is not our role to determine the mandate of the departments or the policy directions on the program side. Our role will be to determine the management accountabilities, to ensure that things get delivered properly and to raise these issues of mandate with those with whom it needs to be raised.
We are working hard to clarify the frameworks and to build an information base. You cannot manage what you cannot see. The first step is getting it into a framework that allows us to see the work occurring on the expenditure management information system — that is critical. It is a shame we do not have a few days to talk because there is much really good work happening at Treasury Board. I would love to walk through it with some of you.
Did that come close to answering the question? We recognize the problem.
It is not to say that even if you clarify the mandates, you will not still have the problem. We need to address that problem in some fashion. Perhaps it would be creating huge operational problems in a department that is not geared to deliver social support but geared to manage fish stocks. Perhaps another instrument is required. Those are the kinds of questions that would have to be discussed by cabinet, I would think.
The Chairman: Mr. Minister, in partial response to the first question raised by Senator De Bané, you talked about the possibility of having some of the research staff at the Library of Parliament look at such things as the congressional budget model of the United States. Are there any other models that you feel might be useful to Finance Committees of either House in Canada, such as Australia, the U.K. or elsewhere?
Mr. Alcock: I should be clear. There was a proposal that we establish something like the Congressional Budget Office, which was contained in some of the debate that took place around the Speech from the Throne — not by the government, but by parties in the House.
My opinion on that, and not a government opinion, from the work I did on this before, is that we have expertise in our research bureaus that, if we invested a little and enlarged upon it by perhaps looking at some different management models, we could actually create the kind of capacity about which we are talking. I could not answer that question from the perspective of the U.K, New Zealand or Australia. Again, it would be an activity of the House and the Senate, not of the government. You are in a better position to determine that.
Senator Murray: Minister, I hope you will accept and convey to the people at Treasury Board our congratulations on this award. You are perfectly right. You are presiding over a very well-respected — deservedly so — department of the Government of Canada.
I have been reading in the media of how the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce has been sending, over a period of three or four years, faxes containing the personal information of hundreds of its clients to a junkyard owner somewhere in the United States, and then when confronted with it early on by the junkyard owner, went into denial and continued to send the material — not to mention Enron and perhaps Nortel and a number of other outstanding and outlandish examples. We are ready with an answer the next time someone tells us that the government should be run more like a business.
That being said, I have an old question on a perennial problem. I am putting it to you in the hope that some creative thinking may be under way on it. It is in regard to the budget approval process for servants of Parliament, notably the Auditor General, but also perhaps the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy and Access to Information Commissioners, the Public Service Commission, perhaps the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission, and so on.
You know the problem. These people have to go hat in hand to Treasury Board to get their budgets approved.
We found a way, as you know, over the years, to get the Senate and House of Commons budgets into the blue book without undue tampering by Treasury Board or its secretariat, and without upsetting the culture of Treasury Board or turning the Constitution on its head. I am wondering whether there is not a way that, either by the use of the two Speakers or by small committees of either House or a joint committee, an intermediate step could be used to get such budget approvals and have proper scrutiny for those officers of Parliament so that the approval of the Treasury Board and the secretariat might turn out to be pro forma, as is the case, I believe, with our own Commons and Senate budgets.
Mr. Alcock: Senator Murray, you put your finger on the heart of a question in which I am quite interested. When I chaired the Government Operations Committee I put down two reports that made a recommendation we do this. I was proposing then a particular model that would have seen the creation of a single piece of administrative legislation that would deal with the accountability, hiring, firing, budget processes and oversight of the parliamentary officers. This was my personal hobby horse. Each one would manage the legislation they had, but there would be a common basis for that.
Officers of Parliament should be accountable to Parliament. That was the proposal in the 6th and 11th reports of the Standing Committee on Government Operations.
Senator Murray: You now have an opportunity to implement those ideas.
Mr. Alcock: I absolutely do. In fact, I have had a focused conversation with the auditor about this. She and I have shared a common cause on this one. We have a process in place in Treasury Board that will be reporting shortly on some models.
I have a personal hobby horse about legislation, but it is not for me to do that. I had a meeting with the Speaker about how he might do that. The decision on the legislative fix that could be made will involve this committee and others.
In the short term, regarding the suggestion you are making about an elegant fix that gets us through to the point where we have a more formal response, the auditor and I have discussed this as recently as last night. I am meeting with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee at 1:30 today on this topic to see if we cannot find a way to do this.
I cannot presume the outcome of that, but I am definitely seized of it. I accepted it as a problem.
The Chairman: On this topic and vote 5.
Mr. Alcock: Yes. I should not presume, but I suspect it will take place pretty quickly. This one is pretty much laid out.
Senator Murray: It is overripe.
The Chairman: Thank you for that, minister. You wanted to make another comment?
Mr. Alcock: I want to comment on something else of which the committee may not be aware, although you were involved in the C-212 debate. Did the issue about fees come to this committee? Are you aware of what we have done on the setting of user fees by government?
The Chairman: Senator Murray raised that question of Treasury Board last week.
Mr. Alcock: That is right. The committee passed the private member's bill with strong support from the Treasury Board, you will recall. We have now turned that into a policy that supports that strong legislation. You might want to look at it. Although it is radical, in some ways, it is a long-overdue approach to bringing some rigour to the setting of these fees and holding people to account for the activities they deliver in response to them.
Senator Murray: The key in Mr. Cullen's bill, which received Royal Assent last Parliament, was to involve Parliament more directly in that process.
Mr. Alcock: Yes, the involvement of Parliament in the setting and altering of new fees was a key. There is also a condition included insisting the department set standards that they will then be held accountable to, and the failure to meet them will result in a reduction. In examining the policy, you find there may be thousands of fees. To rationalize that system, we have given ourselves a year to pull that together and come back to make the decisions about dealing with collapsing some of those existing fees. For the new fees, this works right now.
I do not know, Senator Murray, whether you can identify other governments around the world that have a system that is anything close to ours. I think it is an important step and interesting that it began with a private member's bill supported by both Houses and, if I may say so, with the support of staff of the Treasury Board.
It has come forward and I am proud of it.
The Chairman: There were detailed negotiations with Treasury Board officials in this room over some of the language that continued over several days. It received a great deal of rigorous debate in this room.
Mr. Alcock: This is a massive cultural change. There was a great deal of nervousness at first, but there is a sense that it is consistent with a different model of accountability. These things will not be easy and without problems. Experienced people make good decisions and they gain that experience from making bad decisions. We have to determine how we can allow ourselves to learn as we go down this road.
Senator Cools: Thank you, minister. As always, it is a pleasure to have you appear before the committee. Minister, I like your spirited and energetic approach. I have a couple of quick questions. First, about two years ago, perhaps, this committee undertook an examination of the National Capital Commission. The witnesses included, I believe, the Chairman of the NCC. At the end of its hearings, the committee produced a report, which was adopted in the Senate and that was comprised of several reports that made recommendations to the President of the Treasury Board, especially in respect of Treasury Board policy. According to the NCC, TB policy seemed to be compelling the NCC to sell off important public property for the purpose of raising capital. That report has never been responded to formally by the President of the Treasury Board. I know that you are new to the position, but I wonder whether you could pull out the series of reports. Many of the recommendations were repeated in subsequent reports.
Perhaps you could put that on your to-do list and have a look at that report. Frequently, the work of committees remains unrecognized by many ministers. Could you put that on your to-do list?
Second, as President of the Treasury Board, you have a unique opportunity to oversee the creation of regulations. As you know, the Divorce Act, I believe under section 26, enacted power for the creation of child support guidelines. At the time, I had some concern that the process was flawed because they are called ``guidelines.'' If you read the enacting legislation, you will find it states that whoever ``may establish regulations.'' In my opinion, that was a questionable use of regulations, which, as you know, are a kind of delegated legislation. Have you had an opportunity to look at that? I thought that the process used was improper, and I am not even referring to the substantive issues around the phenomenon of child support. Have you looked at either the process or the substantive issues?
Mr. Alcock: Perhaps, Senator Cools, you could ask the third question so that I might avoid your beating me up in response to the second question.
Senator Cools: Never! How could I beat you up?
Third, in respect of the whole phenomenon of departmental reorganization, we will have before us Bill C-6 and Bill C-26.
Mr. Alcock: I have Bill C-8.
Senator Cools: Could you share with this committee the conceptual basis on which this reorganization has been founded? Reorganizing a department and the machinery of government is a huge process that is not easily undertaken. I wish that you could give me some of the conceptual foundations on which those bills were based. I would hate to think they were simply pulled out of the air or they were anyone's whim.
Mt fourth question comes back to the parliamentary officers. There is no such thing as an officer of Parliament. Rather, there are officers of each chamber. The Commons has its officers and the Senate has its officers. I have searched high, low, wide and far to find the origins of officers of Parliament. I know we have four or five of them. This committee undertook some serious studies that you might want to look at. They were done in 1986 or 1987 and focused on the Office of the Auditor General. More recently, this committee looked at foundations. The Auditor General had quite a lot to say about the setting up of those organizations. In your work in the future, is it possible for you to consider examining the true role of the officers of Parliament and what they are? In some instances, the servants quickly become the masters. That is a rather roundabout question, but could you address it? This committee has done a fair amount of work, as I have, over the years on the issue. It was not an easy thing to do, minister, especially when I was questioning the foundations.
Mr. Alcock: Allow me to walk through this.
Senator Cools: There are four items.
Mr. Alcock: I will begin with your fourth question and work back to your first question.
Senator Cools: Do not forget the NCC.
Mr. Alcock: I will not forget. In a sense, the point you raise ties in with the point that Senator Day raised, about the capacity and the congressional budget. Perhaps that was Senator De Bané.
That is also a difference in our model. We have these parliamentary officers that, in a sense, provide information to Parliament. You have a bill before you, the Access Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner or others may be called before you to provide independent advice. They are also part of your network for gaining oversight. I do not always agree with the advice. We are having a debate right now with one of them.
It is a role they play that enlarges the ability of committees. You are right, senator. There is a lack of consistent application in whom they are accountable to — and some are joint officers and some are not. If we were planning to create a legislative base for them, it strikes me that would be the time to start to deal with some of these mandate issues. There are a number of them.
Senator Cools: They are huge.
Mr. Alcock: I understand a portion of that issue. There are six of them, officially. What I am proposing relative to the Public Service Commission and whistle-blowing will eventually make the Public Service Commission the equivalent of a parliamentary officer. I think there is a debate there that needs to take place.
However, on the machinery bills, it would be difficult for me to speak in detail about some of them.
Senator Cools: Bill C-6 and Bill C-26.
Mr. Alcock: Which are those?
Senator Cools: Minister of Public Safety. One is on the Border Services Agency, Bill C-26, and Bill C-6 is the Ministry of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Mr. Alcock: The one I have, Bill C-8, is coming out of Treasury Board. I think there are a couple of important points. The ones around Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness are simple. You asked, ``What was the driver for that?'' It was to concentrate in one place all of the elements, given the concerns about terrorism and the need for more rigorous security. It was to bring into one location all of the heads of those organizations. You will recall the Auditor General's report raised concerns about coordination of information among all those operating services.
In fairness, on the details of that bill, you should call the minister, because I am not driving that. That would be my belief about what was done. There is within that something that is interesting to look at — you will see it in my bill — it is a move to what is increasingly being described as more of a portfolio management approach. In my case, I have a number of independent units that report to me as the minister. The role of the Secretary of the Treasury Board will also provide a senior deputy coordinating function among all of them, but there will be some independents in each stream. The public service agency will be independent from the Treasury Board. Both will report to me through their own deputies, but the secretary will have a coordinating role in the overall policy approach of all agencies. That model is in place in the public service agency. That is, I think, a new approach to it. It is not our invention. It is something that the current clerk and others have worked on and, I think, offers some real promise in terms of being able to keep people focused on their core missions.
You will hear some of that debate and I would encourage you to call Bill C-8 when it gets out of committee.
Quickly, on the regulations, senator, it is true I chair the Treasury Board — I was a secretary in PCO that does the regulatory work, it used to be a special committee — and we deal with the regulations. However, it is not for us to drive the content of regulations. We respond to what the departments bring forward, so the debates around a particular regulation, its impacts or non-impacts, will rest with the minister and the department. We would drive it more in terms of consistency with government policy and process and all of that.
I should say that I also have the lead role in driving smart regulation, which will be a rather substantial attempt to reform the processes by which we make regulations, to try to make them a little more efficient and a little smarter. How is that?
On the NCC, and you also mentioned the possibility of another report on parliamentary officers — I suspect on the NCC because it is a Crown — that report may well figure in the portfolio of information that the department has brought together to look at because we are heavily into this Crown governance report. I am hoping to report that out shortly. The NCC is encompassed in that. If that report is not part of that bundle, I will have it pulled and have a look at it. If you have not had a response to it, I will have a discussion with the staff about providing you with a response.
Senator Cools: I will be happy to send you copies.
Mr. Alcock: I suspect we can get it.
Senator Cools: The NCC is not a Crown corporation. I know it says it is. There are some statutes that say it should be treated as one, but the NCC is what is called a body corporate of Crown land commissioners. It is an interesting kind of constitutional beast. The fact is nobody seems to know this any more. I did a lot of research on it.
Mr. Alcock: You can be assured, senator, for every problem I have a review. I have a review on governance also. Your point is a good one, in the sense that we have allowed a proliferation of all sorts of operational governance models and we are trying to capture that. The first step in solving a problem is to look at it to see if it is a problem. We are mapping that environment. We have done some of that on the Crowns, We are doing more in the governance report, which will be out after Christmas, in an attempt to provide advice to the government on how we might restructure some of these models.
The Chairman: If I may say so, we have less than 15 minutes before you have to leave. There are four more senators who would like to ask questions.
Senator Day: I have two questions. I will only ask one now and if we have time I will come back to the other.
Mr. Minister, the point I would like to focus on is the improvement you have made to these estimates and supplementary estimates with respect to horizontal reporting. That is one issue that happens to be dealt with by several departments and that is very helpful for us in tracking this.
I recall previously having to try to find that subject matter in different departments and on different pages of the estimates.
First, I would like to commend you and the secretariat on that work, and secondly, it seems to me that when you get an overview of an issue, that might provide an opportunity to see if there has been any duplication. Has this been helpful, from the point of view of the administration within government, in seeing how an issue is being handled across several departments, and have you established within the secretariat any guidelines to help you with this horizontal analysis?
Mr. Alcock: On the first question, about some of the overviews that are in this document, it was very much an attempt to respond directly to this committee, so you should give yourselves some credit for the existence of this. This committee took these issues seriously and provided some advice that we tried to respond to.
The issue you raise is a hugely important one. We use this word ``horizontality'' all the time to describe this. There has been a lot of work done on climate change. The department was seized of that long before I got there. We are doing a massive piece of work on First Nations funding as a result of the Aboriginal round tables. Remember my first principle: You cannot manage what you cannot see, so first you have to develop the instruments to allow you to see it. I would say, on that one, we are just arriving at that first step.
However, whether it is duplication or something else, it does raise all sorts of questions about this massive amount of programming that gets directed at a particular community, in this case, largely First Nations, some Inuit, and that involves very large numbers of departments, and yet one does not know what the other is doing.
Now, having been able to map it does not necessarily mean you have to reorganize it in a tight little bundle, but it allows you to look at it and make some decisions on the governance of it. However, because our accountability models are all horizontal, the real challenge is to find a mechanism for governance across the board. That is not an easy thing. It is a tough discussion.
We are seized of it. Do I have solutions? No. If you would like to have a conversation about it, there is interesting work going on in the department, led by Bill Austin, that would be fun to talk about in the new year.
One of the next big management challenges for government is to figure out how we manage. It is not just horizontally among the departments. It also involves moving into Aboriginal governance, into relationships with provinces, the issues we are talking about in health care. I think it is an extremely interesting area. We are ready to start a conversation with you. Do we have a conclusion? I think we will have to get more of us involved in it.
Senator Day: You used the term ``duplication,'' but I suspect it will help in the exchange of information between departments when Natural Resources says it had no idea that Agriculture was doing so much on global warming. I can see how there could be advantages to your efforts in bringing this all together.
Mr. Alcock: Senator Day, think about this. We talked about reporting to this committee, to Parliament. We can report vertically on the actions of a given department, but will we be in a position — we think we will be at some point — to report horizontally on all of the activities that are going on in a particular community, which would be a completely new look at how government is doing its work.
It is more complex than what I am describing, but I think it is an important improvement in trying to manage. What is all of this activity doing to meet the strategic objectives of the government and the needs of the community? I want to save some time to talk about the report I will be tabling on December 2.
The Chairman: With information technology, that kind of proposal is very much a reality. You could write programs to do just that.
Senator Harb: Thank you, minister, for your excellent presentation.
I wanted to ask you a couple things, first on the estimates themselves. I know you chaired the first committee to look at estimates. I am sure you will agree that in the form they are in, the main as well as the supplementary, they do not give you the whole picture; rather, they give you a synopsis, a brief look at what has taken place. Last week, a witness appeared before the committee who was talking about the possibility of having a link to a wider type of information for Canadians or parliamentarians who wanted to see what has taken place in detail. You would go to the estimates, and from there, if you need further information, you can go into one of the departments in which you are interested and see more details.
Is that what you are looking at? Is this something you are planning to do?
Mr. Alcock: Yes, I spoke about that at some length today in that reframing information. Providing information to parliamentarians and citizens in a more user-friendly way to see what we are doing can only benefit us. It will cause problems early on because there will be a bit of shakiness as we get through it. Frankly, you cannot hold to account what you cannot see. Finding a way to become more transparent, and not just talking about it, is something with which we are very much engaged.
I want some advice from you and others around this table on the exact methodologies. Is it this kind of information or that? Where are your priorities? This is a massive task and we will have to set some priorities as we go forward.
Senator Harb: We heard rumours that in some situations, there has been a roll-in. A manager would have been allocated certain funds for an operational type of situation and those funds were used for contracting out for the purpose of hiring staff. Is that part of your review of the way you can do the proper reporting? How many staff do you have? I have 15. Is it really 15 or is it 25? Where do the other 10 fit in? I would appreciate a comment from you, but you can take note of this.
I also have a question about reallocation in terms of priorities, reallocating funds from one level of priority to a higher level. At what point do you make a decision on whether or not this makes sense? Is it reallocating priorities within a specific department? For example, Immigration Canada will turn around and say, ``I am sorry, ministers, our priorities are to provide services at the front line, and therefore whatever money you are asking us as a department to give you, we will not be able to do that because this is how our resources are to be redistributed.'' At what point would you say that makes sense, as opposed to looking at, for example, another ministry dealing with customs and excise, border crossing issues and security issues? They also need the resources. Now you have a situation where you want to reallocate funds from immigration to security. In a sense, both seem to be a priority issue for Treasury Board and the Canadian public. At what point will you say, ``This is the decision; this is what I will do?''
Mr. Alcock: Treasury Board has no priorities. Treasury Board only acts as the servant of government to ensure government can decide clearly what its priorities are.
On the issue about contracting out, as I said earlier, I have a report for everything. I have a report on contracting that tries to answer some of these questions. That will be out after Christmas. This was all announced in that document we put down with the budget, on improving management.
My argument is that there is a lot of myth building and supposition about these big activities of government. If we disaggregate it and lay it in public view, if that is a problem, we can address it. If it is not, we blow up the myth and focus on substantive issues.
On the issue of reallocation, ultimately, the government — and this plays into another point I want to make — will make the decision. This ERC process is being driven to provoke, incense, create change in how we manage, look within, determine what things can be let go of as we go forward, so we are not always maintaining everything. Senator De Bané made a point about how these mandates actually creep all over the place because of the way we manage. Perhaps we want to be more rigorous.
At the end of the day, whether it is an internal reallocation or an allocation of savings to a different department will be a decision of the government in terms of the broad allocation of resources to meet the priorities we have established. It is early to presume.
I should say one thing, and we might as well start this debate now. I think it is good to provide detail because it provides exposure, but there will always be a tendency now to start to manage down to a micro level. It will be a tendency for ministers. It will be a tendency for Treasury Board. It will be a tendency for committees. The work on the accountability models has to be clear, because that would be awful. We need to set the objectives. We need to hold the deputies and senior staff accountable for delivering on those objectives. Then, we have to step back and not take sub- allocation decisions for them. That will be difficult culturally as well. There is a fear that if there is too much exposure, that is exactly what we will do. Frankly, we will try to do it. It is a tendency of committees to do that.
The Chairman: We will have to avoid mandate creep at all levels.
Mr. Alcock: As you can see further and further down, do you want that to go here or there? To which community does it go? There are some accountabilities here. Dare I say it might even go to the House? We are all accountable to citizens and we have to be able to demonstrate good management.
The Chairman: Could I ask you to say something about the announcements you want to make soon?
Mr. Alcock: All this good work is not my invention; it began earlier, in this case, with Madame Robillard and the group here reporting to Parliament. The fourth Canada Performance Report has been put out. It was an interesting document, talking about Canada's relationship to different things in the world. What I did not understand until they finally wrestled me down and got me to shut up long enough to hear what they are trying to do with it, is that it is meant to be an output document. We do all this. The DPRs, the RPPs and the estimates are all for a purpose. The outcome is better services to citizens in a number of areas. I do not like the phrase ``report card'' because it sounds too paternalistic.
It is an annual look at what all this activity has resulted in, in terms of the quality of life of Canadians.
It is in its early stages and needs more work. We have added more chapters on it, but it never struck me before that this could be better integrated. It is sort of our annual product out of all of this activity. I would encourage you to look at it — you will get copies of it — and give us any advice you have on how we can improve it.
We have included things in it that are not complimentary. We deliberately included examples of where we are not doing as well, because it is important to have an accurate picture. However, you can imagine there is a fair amount of debate about that.
Senator De Bané: I would have liked to have some preliminary thoughts from the minister about the consequences for management of the Gomery Royal Commission of inquiry, but as time is very short, I just want to make a comment, Mr. Minister.
One day I asked Dr. Maurice LeClair, who was Secretary of the Treasury Board, deputy minister, dean of a faculty of medicine and CEO of Canadian National Railways: ``Dr. LeClair, have you ever encountered excellence in your different careers as dean, deputy minister, et cetera?'' Without hesitation, he told me that he found excellence in two places in his life: the Mayo Clinic, and a particular branch — which he named to me but I will not mention it today — of Treasury Board. He said that those were the two places in his lifetime where he encountered excellence. I am happy to report that to you, minister.
Senator Cools: Mr. Minister, I have been on this committee for quite some time, except for when I was taken off on the firearms issue. Your officials, your people, come here again and again and I have to tell you, they are cooperative. They come after months, it seems to me, of preparation, and this does not seem to be a well-known fact. Whether it was Mr. Neville or others in the past — I think many years ago there was a man named Mr. Darling — they were excellent and I have found them to be very open and forthcoming. It is refreshing.
When I used to do the supply bills, the appropriation bills, I used to make it my business to thank them. This gives me an opportunity to thank you, because you should know that they are very useful at these committees.
The Chairman: Mr. President, that brings us to an end of this particular meeting. I know you have to run, but on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you once again for your candour. Every time you come, it is always interesting, challenging and provocative. I would like to use your words, when you said you do not like to look at these sessions as being one-off occasions, but as part of a series of dialogues. With that in mind, we would like to invite you to come back some time early in the new year to engage with us once again in some more of this very interesting dialogue. I had some questions myself, but we are out of time. I will save my questions on the restructuring of government until the next time.
Mr. Alcock: I am always pleased to be here. In answer to Senator Cools' statement, let us say this. The good challenge brings out the best in us, and these people who sit behind me constantly tell me that coming before this committee is of real assistance to them.
Can I close with the Auditor General's report, the one that was tabled this week? I would like to quote paragraph 33 of the introduction:
Another unintended consequence of audit reports is that while they present findings on specific programs or issues, those findings are sometimes generalized as applying to the government as a whole. This could serve to diminish the trust Canadians have in government and the public service.
That would be unfortunate. Each day, thousands of public servants do significant and often unheralded work to improve the lives of millions of Canadians, many in the most vulnerable segments of society.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.