Government Operations Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

We're into a situation in which we're awarding a contract, and the contractor has turned it around. One of the requirements was that some of the subcontracting occur here in Canada, but there appears to be a loophole. Canadian legislation, labour legislation, and perhaps even the charter are being circumvented by the requirements of the contractor for subcontractors not to use individuals who are dual citizens from certain countries. That undermines our own legislation. In fact, besides the issue of undermining our legislation, it's an infringement on Canadian sovereignty.

How do you intend to close that particular loophole in procurement so that Canadian sovereignty, the sovereignty of our legislation on the territory of Canada, is not undermined by this type of contract in the future?

[Vic Toews]

I heard the minister's answer to that question in the House, and I understand he's looking at it. He's committed to the integrity of Canadian law and the Canadian Constitution, so I assume he will work that out.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So there is obviously a problem, an issue, and your particular—

[Vic Toews]

I'm not familiar with the case, but the issue has been raised. I have not seen the contract documents. I'm not familiar with that provision. I'm taking the exchange at its face value in the House, but I don't know.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So, Minister, as a former jurist, your hope would be that adjustments will be made so that Canadian sovereignty is not undermined by this type of contract.

[Vic Toews]

I certainly hope the contracts we enter into respect our legal framework, including our Constitution.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Simard for two minutes.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

I had a briefing from your department this morning, Minister. It was my first briefing, and it was very thorough. I appreciate the fact that they took the time to do that.

You appreciate that Treasury Board Secretariat is a management office, budget office, and they have the whole employer side of it as well. Here's one of the questions I have. There was a task force some time ago that tabled a report or brought forward a report called Embracing Change. I don't know if you're aware of that in terms of how we should be hiring and promoting public servants. I think the reports lately are saying one in five should be a visible minority, and one in five being promoted should also be a visible minority, and we are not close to achieving those numbers. Are you looking at those as some kind of a benchmark?

[Vic Toews]

I'm familiar with the issue, and I have not received a full briefing on that particular issue. But I am familiar with the report; the department has brought that issue to my attention.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Will you give hiring one in five visible minorities and also promoting one in five visible minorities full consideration? Apparently that was the recommendation.

[Vic Toews]

I don't think this is something the Treasury Board minister is responsible for, but of course one of the concerns I would ask about—

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Actually it is.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

—is what legal and constitutional provisions impact on that.

As much as we want to see that individuals achieve the best and that there is a level playing field, we want to see that Canadians are well-served by their public service. The quality of the service provided by the public service is the one thing I've been consistently impressed with, first in my prior department and now in the current one. Most of my career was spent as a public servant in the province of Manitoba.

One of the things that has been fundamental to the construction of an independent, non-political public service is the merit principle. This principle is placed in a context in many ways, one of which is to ensure that those who come to our country and are not part of the mainstream fit in as quickly as possible.

The civil service has done some good things in that respect. Are there improvements we can make? As I understand it, there are improvements that we can properly and legally make in order to encourage people.

This might be of no interest to you, but it was fascinating to me. When I spoke at the school for new crown attorneys, what was remarkable was how many women there were. In fact most of them were women. That was an interesting thing for me.

When I started out prosecuting many years ago in Manitoba, it was virtually all male, and not necessarily anything but sort of Anglo-Saxon males. Those were the lead people in the department.

That has changed. I see it changing in our—

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Be careful. Some of them may end up in advocacy groups.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Vic Toews]

But the point is that obviously the public service has been able to attract women, for example, into prosecutorial positions. That's a very healthy, very good thing.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Minister, thank you for being here today.

Obviously we're getting to the end of this and running out of questions.

[Vic Toews]

I don't know. There have been very good questions.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

But we're having to go to other departments to look for questions, so we thank you for the thorough effort you have given to the presentation today.

I want to talk to you a bit about the Federal Accountability Act and its implication for foundations, and the grants and contributions that the federal government gives out. Obviously there's a real effort to move forward to ensure we're getting value for money.

My constituents have been specifically concerned about this for a number of years. There has really been this sense that the federal government dished out money. People at the grassroots level often find that there are federal contributions for which they don't necessarily get value. They're given to foundations, arm's-length agencies, or non-profit organizations, and sometimes it really frustrates taxpayers when they see these moneys being spent frivolously.

I'm wondering how you, as Minister, will ensure that there is value for money in these different capacities.

[Vic Toews]

A very good question, and they've all been very good questions.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Good recovery.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

But perhaps I should say that this is a question that interests me a little more than some of the other questions, but that doesn't mean, on an objective basis, that they aren't all good questions.

Just because there are a lot of rules doesn't necessarily mean you're getting value for money. That was pointed out very clearly by the Auditor General, looking into the sponsorship issue. The Auditor General indicated that there are lots of rules in place, the rules were broken, and so the emphasis needs to be not so much on rules but on accountability.

I think we're taking a positive step forward by actually holding officers accountable, the deputy ministers. As you will recall in that sponsorship situation, a mid-level bureaucrat was able to circumvent the deputy minister and report directly into a minister's office. That was not appropriate; it broke the rules. The deputy in that situation was able to say he was not responsible because he was specifically told to mind his own business in that respect. So what we need to do is to emphasize the accountability, without having a lot of unnecessary rules. What I hear from many organizations, and I tend to agree with them—very good organizations that are doing a lot of good work--is the amount of paperwork they are burdened with to get even small amounts of money.

So, again, what I believe we should be doing in the public service is to hold managers and others responsible for the decisions they make. But where honest mistakes are made, we understand that honest mistakes are made and we try to do better in other situations, but we come down hard on situations where there has been a deliberate breaking of the rules.

Again, I'm very encouraged by the passage of the Federal Accountability Act and the new fraud and criminal offences that have been brought into force as a result of the FAA. I think that is going to ensure that there is a stronger measure of accountability generally, that they know they're held to an objective standard and will be measured accordingly. So I think the FAA is going to help us not to simply create more rules—we have enough rules—but to bring accountability into the situation. Also, of course, we are awaiting the blue ribbon panel on the web of rules, as it's called, to see what we can safely jettison without undermining the integrity of the grants and contribution system.