Government Operations Committee on June 20th, 2006

[Linda Lizotte-MacPherson]

We would expect to be going to the ministers with the results of the business case and with potential options in the fall.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

[Linda Lizotte-MacPherson]

I'll turn it over to my colleague on expenditure management.

[David Moloney]

Good morning.

With respect to the expenditure management information system, if that's what the second part of the question was about, this is a project in two parts. First, this is a project that goes back four or five years. The project was designed to replace the information systems that the secretariat uses to prepare the estimates documents for the House. There is a system, in all cases thirty or more years old, for each of the main estimates, the supplementary estimates, the warrant reports, and a variety of other systems, for a total of seven systems.

So we have a project to replace that capacity with current functionality through one integrated system. As we do that work, and as the estimates themselves have been improved, so that members will know that the estimates, starting in 2005-2006—aligned with the votes outcome statements, the reports on plans and priorities, and the departmental performance reports—are going further to align results statements before and after the year.

What we are now looking at through this project, as we modernize our information system to present the estimates to be able to align them with spending in our system, department by department, to align the results that spending is in support of.... This should allow us to support the renewal of the broader expenditure management decision-making system, so that the government is in a position to come to Parliament able to align its spending and make decisions in that respect.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Minister, what has disturbed parliamentarians on all sides of the House—and we've seen this through successive Parliaments—is the lack of the ability of members of Parliament to vote on issues. In other words, there are some issues that never come before the House; decisions are reached outside of the purview of the House.

We realize that everything can't come before the House. However, pertaining to grants, contributions, and all the different programs, which are involved in that, what's subject to a vote and what's not? And where do you plan on going there?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I think I'll make some top-of-line comments, then I'll turn it over to one of my colleagues.

I think that Parliament's genuine oversight and capacity to both appropriate and hold the executive branch accountable are a huge concern. We have a system that's based on parliamentary tradition that perhaps, when you look at a $200 billion budget, doesn't give effective oversight. The Auditor General speaks very strongly to this in one of the chapters of her most recent report, and it should be of great concern to all of us as members of Parliament.

Linda, who would be best to...?

[Linda Lizotte-MacPherson]

I think probably David.

[David Moloney]

The secretariat under past presidents, and we hope under the current president, has planned to launch a dialogue with parliamentarians about the quality of the information that's contained in the estimates. Accrual appropriations is one element; timeliness is another, which secretariat officials have been talking about in the past. The very basis of votes, including the pros and cons of different structures of votes, is another element about which we would hope to be able to come before parliamentarians and consult with in detail.

There are pros and cons around all of these, and striking a balance that suits Parliament as well as is practicable for us, we want to pursue.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Information is really power in this regard, and the proposal in Bill C-2 to establish a parliamentary budget officer really gives the capacity to individual members of Parliament and to a committee like this one to be able to hold the government of the day accountable. It's awfully difficult when you've got one member of Parliament, or even one committee, against a $200 billion corporation. So we hope that will provide greater oversight, but I think it's a fair comment, your concern.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you. In the interest of your other commitments, I'll hold further questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

You're also over your time limit, so you're very generous with the time you don't have.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Madame Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Good morning, Mr. Minister. Thank you for coming to our committee this morning. And welcome to the rest of the delegation.

I would like to ask you first about the responsibility of Treasury Board for accountability and ethics in government. I know, Minister Baird, you have spoken out quite strongly on the issue of accountability and the Federal Accountability Act, both before and after the election. I asked a question last Friday in the House about the creation of the appointments commission, a commission with real teeth to deal with government appointments. This was, of course, a campaign promise for the Conservative Party.

Does the government intend to go ahead and set up a public appointments commission?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

There was, as you know, the beginning of the establishment of it, in terms of a public servant who would work within PCO, the Privy Council Office, with regard to it. I think the Prime Minister has expressed publicly, and I would simply repeat this, that he was tremendously disappointed with the committee's evaluation of the incumbent, someone who he and I believe was of great standing and prepared to do it for a dollar a year, someone who was voted the most well-respected CEO in the country. I think he has real concerns about his capacity. Could he really ask the second most well-respected person to come forward and go through the kind of process that he did?

I recognize, Ms. Nash, we have a difference of opinion on that.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Is he going to go ahead and set up a commission, though? Is he going to go ahead--

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

There is the capacity within PCO, which has been beefed up, with respect to being able to provide greater oversight for the Prime Minister and the cabinet in terms of the selection of candidates, but I don't have anything to add to what the Prime Minister has already said publicly on that issue.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

So there's no intention to consult with the parties about bringing forward further names for the commission?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Depending on how Bill C-2 comes out of the House of Commons and the Senate.... Your member, Mr. Martin, with the support of other members of the committee, was quite rigorous in establishing a process in legislation and statute rather than by regulation. So we'll wait and see how that comes out of the report stage and the Senate.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

We were quite pleased when the members of your party on the Bill C-2 committee in fact supported a more rigorous appointments commission, so we would expect that would get the support of the government in implementing those recommendations once the bill has passed.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Your point is well taken.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I want to raise another issue, on correctional workers. My colleague raised an issue around correctional workers. I don't know if it's the same issue, but an issue came up in my riding about danger pay for correctional workers.

There's a detention facility within my riding, and there was quite a lot of public concern when danger pay was taken away from the guards in that facility. There are people in that facility who have been convicted of many serious offences, some of the most serious offences, and there's a lot of public concern about this facility in our community, given that this is a neighbourhood of many families, schools, and child care centres in the area. Last summer the issue was very public around the correctional workers being denied danger pay for looking after the residents in this facility. I'm wondering if you can help us with that.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

My assistant deputy minister tells me it wasn't taken away. I think the correctional officers went more than four years without a contract. Like any collective agreement process, I suppose, there's probably a little bit of blame on both sides. Certainly, solving that issue was a priority for me.

I had heard from you and a number of other members of Parliament, not least of whom were in the government caucus, and we wanted... I had two questions from the Bloc Québécois in the House on it; it had gone on far too long and it was not a healthy work environment. I think when there's a fresh face brought in, of any party, it sometimes is an opportunity, and we tried to take advantage of that.

I think they're still voting on it. I'm not sure if they passed it yet, so I don't know whether I want to say more.

[Hélène Laurendeau, Assistant Secretary, Labour Relations & Compensation Operations, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat]

Good morning.

Simply to clarify, the danger pay has not been taken away, but in the last PSAC agreement the wording was clarified to make sure that everybody understood how it was applied. It had caused a bit of grief because the clarification had the effect that was desired, which was to make sure it was applied systematically all across the 54 institutions. By doing so, there are some people who had the impression that it had been taken away, while in fact it's the interpretation that got streamlined.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

If you need to follow up, we'd be happy to get more information for you if your constituents have any concerns.