The government does not support the amendment. In terms of contracts with senior members of government, their contracts are already negotiated annually. Negotiating was to be contained in these contracts. It would unduly constrain how the government manages and limits its ability to respond effectively to changing priorities. That is one issue. The government has to have that ability.
This clause is not, in effect, a tool of increasing accountability. Performance agreements are agreements between the deputy minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council. They are not mechanisms to ensure political accountability. They represent the personal contribution of an individual to departmental priorities.
Rather than ensuring a level of political accountability for the federal strategy's implementation, what this clause would do is politicize the performance contracts of senior public servants. It's important to note that performance agreements and subsequent evaluations are confidential. It's a very important point for the committee to consider. There would be no way to know if the provisions for meeting the applicable targets in this strategy were included or met, because of the confidentiality of the agreements.
I'd also like to reiterate that obligating the ministers responsible for crown corporations to prepare and table in Parliament a sustainable development strategy is inappropriate and unnecessary. Crown corporations will have vastly different capacities to prepare these strategies from a logistical and financial perspective.
I'd like to reiterate my concern here, which would obviously also pertain to the amendments proposed here that would further obligate crown corporations in terms of senior official performance agreements.
I think the real salient point is the confidentiality of those agreements. How could you determine if the person has met those targets and obligations if the agreements are confidential? It wouldn't be possible.