Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 30th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Very briefly, Monsieur Patry.

[Pierre Patry]

We are also biased in favour of the public sector when the common interest is at stake. That is why we were so pleased with the fact that, from a perspective of the changes planned to the access to Information Act, this bill covers certain Crown corporations that were not covered in the past, as these are corporations that are spending public money. It is not so much an issue of measuring the profitability of these organizations, as it is an issue of public funds, there is an obligation to be accountable.

Also, exceptions have been anticipated, and this limits the access to Information Act.

It is very clear, in our opinion, that there must be the greatest transparency possible, so that the population is aware of what is happening with the taxes they pay to the federal government.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes, I agree with you that this is the kind of legislation that needs good study and careful contemplation. That's why it has been two years since the sponsorship scandal was exposed and our country has been engaged in great debates on how to restore accountability. Over the course of those two years, we've had a public commission study it and put forward a report and we've had this legislation introduced. By the end of this week, you'll be happy to know, we will have heard from over 70 witnesses throughout a course of 45 hours of testimony, and that's just by the end of this week alone. So I'm sure you'll join me in celebrating the intense study that this bill has already enjoyed.

There is so much time we've allotted to this bill that in fact every single speaking opportunity they're given, some opposition members spend half of it--they have such an abundance of time--complaining about how much time they don't have. So I find it a curious contradiction that if they have so much time--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre--

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

--they can spend their time talking about how much time they don't have.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre, everybody is trying to provoke each other, and I don't want any more of that--no more.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The question that I'd be interested in is this. You talk a lot about private contractors. In the United States there was a lot of concern about private contractors and there was argumentation that private contractors were ripping off the American taxpayer. So the progressive left in that country, led by a lot of unions and activists, got together and pushed the rebirth of the informers act, which allowed individual citizens to actually sue private contractors who were defrauding the government. The government in many cases didn't have the political will to sue them themselves. If the judge found that there was a fraud, the judge could award repayment of three times what the contractor allegedly stole, or ultimately did steal, and the citizen who brought forward the act would receive a commission of 30% of what was taken. Since that time, the American treasury has recovered $10 billion through the actions of private citizens, and 80% of those dollars came from defence contractors and private health care companies.

I'm wondering what you think about importing that idea into Canada, of bringing in an informers act that would allow organizations like yours to take to court contractors who are committing fraud against the Government of Canada, or against Canada Post, for example, to see that money recovered, and then your organization would have your costs covered, and more, through a system of awards. Does that policy idea interest any of you?

[Toby Sanger]

I don't know about that legislation so I can't really comment on it, but I think people are driven not necessarily by monetary reward but by public service, and people should be driven by that. The first step is increasing transparency and disclosure through the government and not relying on the courts necessarily to do that.

[Pierre Patry]

I said as much during my presentation. I'm not aware of the legislation you are referring to that is in effect in the United States, which is not always model of society we would wish to emulate. This is not what we want to import into Canada, and especially not into Quebec.

I do, however, wish to state that we want effective protection for public servants who are witnesses to wrongdoing, in order that they have an appropriate place to report this to. However, we do not want a reward system. This is true for ourselves, for public servants, regardless. We do not want to set up a whistleblowing system or an excessively judicialized one, nor do we want processes that are overly political. I think that the existing whistleblower protection is fine. However, we do not agree with the proposed $1,000 payment. That risks creating a culture of paranoia within our organization, and I do not think that is a model we would wish to bring this into Canada.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I, for one, don't reject ideas merely because of where they come from. I judge them on their own merit. Regardless of where the idea came from, if any government was able to recover $10 billion worth of stolen money, I think that's $10 billion that can go back into programs that your union supposedly cherishes. So I think any method of bringing those dollars back would be a good method. But ultimately the only way to recover money that's stolen by fraud is through the court system. There is no other way. There is no other legal means by which to do it.

So you can talk about your ideals of avoiding the court system at all costs, but ultimately you cannot do that if companies like the Liberal ad companies that we are now pursuing for the money they stole.... They are being pursued by the courts, and you have to--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre, please.

I'm really concerned, and this applies to everybody, that we're starting to provoke each other, and I don't want that to go on.

So you can continue. One clock's gone, so you have another clock left.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

All right. Hopefully we'll be able to finish a sentence here, Mr. Chair.

My next question is, what are your thoughts on the whistle-blower protections that are contained in the bill?

[Deborah Bourque]

I would agree with what my colleagues have said about the limitations of the whistle-blower legislation. My union believes it's really important that people who do reveal wrongdoing or do expose information aren't subject to reprisals. I think that's the fundamental principle here, and it's one that we support.

We also have real concerns about monetary compensation or enticement for people to squeal on their co-workers or their employers. Canada Post has set up their own whistle-blowing hotline or process, which we have real concerns about because we think it can be abused and it's the wrong way to get democratization. The call for transparency is what's really important here and to protect people who do expose wrongdoing.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you. That concludes our time.

Ladies and gentlemen, we appreciate you coming this morning. Thank you very much.

We'll have a brief break.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Continuing, ladies and gentlemen, we have the Association of Canadian Financial Officers with us.

Good morning to you, gentlemen.

We have Milt Isaacs, who is the chair. We have Jonathan Hood, who is the vice-president, and we have Serge Buy, and I'm sure someone will tell me who he is.

You could introduce him.

Mr. Isaacs, you or your colleagues have a few moments to make introductory comments, then members of the committee will have some questions for you.

Thank you for coming.

[Milt Isaacs, Chair, Association of Canadian Financial Officers]

Thank you.

The Association of Canadian Financial Officers represents approximately 3,000 financial officers in the public service—that's the FI group. As the association chair, I would like first to take this opportunity to thank the committee for having us here today and to express my appreciation for the work you are doing.

This is an historic occasion for Canada. The Federal Accountability Act has the potential to not only provide more accountability within the federal government but also to increase Canadians' faith in their government and restore pride within the public service.

We will concentrate our remarks on three main points: the importance of consultation, long-term issues, and preventive measures rather than reactive ones.

To start, I would like to express concerns regarding the lack of consultation that took place while the legislation was drafted. During the study of Bill C-11 by the operations and estimates committee, representatives of all political parties expressed concerns about the lack of consultation with the public service. It was seen as a major cause of the bill's weaknesses.

We feel that some of the discussions that have taken place in this committee could have been avoided if there had been more consultation with key stakeholders, such as our association. We understand that the Federal Accountability Act has been discussed as a plan on the political level since the last election was called. However, it was not government policy at that time, and debate was somewhat limited; therefore, our opportunities to provide input have been few, if any.

When it comes to financial accountability, I cannot think of any group more interested and concerned about the issue than financial officers. Financial officers are on the front line in the fight for accountability. It was a mistake to ignore them in the process of drafting Bill C-2. Financial officers, through the association, should be consulted not only on the drafting of legislation but also on its implementation. The combination of our experience and professional qualifications can only add value to the process.

As such, our first recommendation is that public service unions be included in the committee of deputy ministers that will review existing Treasury Board financial management policies. This committee is part of the action plan that accompanies this bill. Front-line public servants will undoubtedly offer a different perspective than management's—an unbiased, informed, and especially interested opinion that will lead to a better and more comprehensive approach to accountability.

It is important to recognize that this legislation will have a long-term impact on how things are done by the federal government. The previously mentioned committee is only one of a number of initiatives that aim to eliminate potentially restrictive rules and regulations. We agree with these important measures, but we're concerned that focusing only on past rules and regulations does not go far enough.

Our second recommendation, as written in our latest report entitled Checks and Balances III: In Pursuit of Balance, is that there should be a similar test imposed on all new rules and regulations for financial management, going forward. Such a test is essential to our efforts to balance the need for accountability and efficiency.

We also understand that there is a call for the review of this legislation every five years. We are wary of a process that plans to correct mistakes in five years and opens us to the possibility of another wide-ranging reform. We would be better off spending a proper amount of time to arrive at a product that will stand the test of time.

It is important to allow for accountability, not only for today as a result of some scandals, but for tomorrow as well, when accountability will no longer be on the front page of newspapers. This will be the time when we will be most at risk.

As shown by our first two recommendations, the association feels that Bill C-2 misses an opportunity to take a proactive approach to accountability. While this legislation provides for strengthening the Office of the Auditor General, the hiring of more auditors, and other reactive measures, we are concerned that there are not enough preventative measures.

Financial officers play just such a preventative role. As an association, we believe that had a financial officer been embedded in the sponsorship program, it would have been less likely that such a scandal would have happened in the first place.

This legislation should provide for strengthening of proactive roles of financial officers within the Government of Canada. Financial officers carry professional and legal responsibilities under the Financial Administration Act. They are also bound by a professional code of conduct and ethics, as many of our members have professional accounting designations.

It has been said the sponsorship scandal was caused not by a lack of rules but by the fact that they were not followed. In fact, the Auditor General told this very committee that perhaps we should come back to the principle of sound management instead of creating more rules. Furthermore, she pointed to a lack of understanding of existing rules as a major problem. This is something our association has also identified in previous reports. By the virtue of their training and experience, financial officers can bring about a better understanding of rules in place. Therefore, our third and final recommendation is to ensure that financial officers are embedded in programs where there is an expectation for being accountable for the management of public funds.

It would be hard to find many Canadians opposed to the Federal Accountability Act. This legislation is extremely important, and for that reason due process must be observed. Canadians would rather have a delay in the acceptance of this legislation if such a delay will ensure the rules stand the test of time. We ask all members in all parties to carefully weigh this in their decisions in the next few weeks.

As public servants, we are concerned by the number of new rules and regulations drafted, announced, and, on occasion, implemented every time a new scandal makes it onto the front page of newspapers. It is important to remember that when the political pendulum swings again and the eye of the public turns to another area, it is the public servants who are left to implement and work those rules and regulations. This government and this Parliament have the ability to change the system and forge a document that will redefine our government, provide better accountability, and at the same time ensure that government is effective and efficient in delivering its agenda.

There are many programs competing for funding, and Canadians want to see value for their tax dollars. At the same time, they want access to government services. Implementing any legislation that focuses on accountability needs to ensure that it does not run the risk of becoming an impediment that discourages Canadians from accessing government services. Financial officers have the skills, experience, and qualifications that will add value to the development and implementation of this legislation, and we are eager to be part of that process.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Isaacs.

There are some questions for you and your colleagues.

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Isaacs.

At the risk of quoting you to you, I read with interest part of this document, Checks and Balances III: In Pursuit of Balance, but I just want to do a little review as a foundation to my question. You said under Bill C-11--and I wasn't around, so I don't know--there wasn't really any proper consultation with your group. In the Gomery commission of inquiry there may have been some consultation, but there were some findings that are very consonant with what you're talking about on page 54--strengthening House committees, ongoing review of vote structure, and clarifying administrative accountability. This last is most key. On page 55 of volume 1, it said, ““Deputy ministers should be designated as accounting officers for their department.” That's part of what I think we're talking about--the culture shift that this eventual bill, which builds on Bill C-11, is about to undergo.

The key question or issue I have is on the aspect of timing, because I don't think the general aspects of this divides anyone here. The aspect of timing is obviously something that not everybody agrees on. There has been some suggestion that there have been two years of discussion, a royal commission or inquiry, 54 hours or 35 hours--I can't really remember which, but it seems like 54. On page 9 of 24 of your paper, Checks and Balances, you say that “the wide-ranging debate” you feel is needed would ensure that “views and concerns related to the practicality in the various responsibility models” would also give public servants “a sense of ownership” of whatever was selected, despite the fear that now they're going to be on the hot spot. This “would ensure a buy-in and facilitate the introduction and implementation of the new model”.

We like the new model. We see that you feel you haven't been consulted. This is about finding solutions, so my question is: “the wide-ranging debate”--to quote you to you--involves what? What more time would you need to feel adequately listened to and have adequate input to this new deputy minister and public service responsibility in part for decisions?

[Milt Isaacs]

We received the bill I think sometime in April. It's quite extensive. Right now, principals within the association are reviewing it in terms of how it relates to what our members do on a day-to-day basis.

It's really difficult to get into the specifics. Fundamentally what it really comes down to is for the association, with its members, to have an opportunity to digest the proposed legislation and then be allowed to come back with our findings.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Can you give us some help on how much time it might take, or what process your membership would require? Clearly, six minutes at a parliamentary committee hearing is probably at one end of.... Do we need the whole summer? What do we need?

[Milt Isaacs]

That's a good question.

What I can say is that this legislation is going to be out into the future for five or ten years. The exact amount of time we need, I'm not really sure. Let's hypothetically say two months. I look at this as somewhat of an investment; you're investing time up front to ensure that you get this right. It's a lot easier to build frameworks than to tear them down and rebuild them again. I think the spirit here within this act, the purpose or what's driving it, is good; there are good intentions here. But I think stakeholders need an opportunity to provide input, and it's going to take some time for us to digest what's in there and how it impacts the financial management community. We're not talking of years, let's put it that way.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

No, and I think it's important, just to sum up, that the general chill in Ottawa now regarding elected representatives and senior public servants sticking their necks out on any issue is something that concerns me as a newcomer to Ottawa. I have underlined, and will take to the hustings, this statement of yours that in order for deputy ministers and other public servants to feel they own it, they must be consulted.

I thank you for your testimony.

[Milt Isaacs]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Tonks.