Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 7th, 2006

[Marc O'Sullivan]

Looking at the different sources of input for the assessment of deputies, that's the key one on the management issues. It is done on the basis of, on the one hand, the priority areas that are identified by the secretariat for each deputy minister and then, more generally, in terms of the application of the MAF and the department's performance vis-à-vis the MAF.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I am thinking back to the program of the heating fuel rebates, and it cost the taxpayer $1.4 billion. It was a short program; it only lasted six or eight months, or whatever. The Auditor General pointed out that while it cost $1.4 billion, only $400 million went to the people who deserved it, by the government's own criteria. A billion dollars went somewhere else, and 90,000 Canadians who should have had some money didn't see a dime.

Was anybody held accountable for that?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

I'd have to go back and look at the specifics of that situation.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

That was $1 billion down the drain, by the report of the Auditor General.

Program evaluation seems to be, in my opinion, a way to identify efficiency and economy. How well do you use program evaluation reports in your assessment of deputy ministers?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

Once again, it's part of the assessment made by the Treasury Board Secretariat in providing the input on the deputy's performance vis-à-vis the management priorities for that department and that department's performance vis-à-vis the MAF.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

But that doesn't tell me anything. Does the Treasury Board point out failures, weaknesses, shortcomings? What happens in these program evaluations?

[Alister Smith, Assistant Secretary, Corporate Priorities and Planning, Treasury Board Secretariat]

The Treasury Board does have an evaluation policy, which in fact is undergoing some strengthening at the moment, and departments are held to account for that under the MAF assessments.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

It still doesn't tell me anything, but I'll defer the next question, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Fitzpatrick.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I think I'll have Mr. Sweet go here.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Over the last decade, because we've been trying to really zero in on corrective measures--and Mr. Williams has talked about a number of very serious situations--how many deputy ministers have been fired, have been let go from the public service?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

I can't tell you off the top of my head. I'll have to look into that and get back to the committee.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Is there anybody who can remember?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

Well, I'd have to look at the cases where there have been terminations of appointments. These appointments are made at pleasure and they could be ended either by resignation or because the appointment can be terminated. So I'd have to look back at the instances where appointments of deputy ministers have been terminated, which would be the closest to what you would call firing, unless there's someone who resigned under a cloud in those circumstances.

I'll have to get back to you on that. I don't know that off the top of my head.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

The last witnesses mentioned there were three areas in policy right now: resources, effective organization systems, and departmental accountability. They mentioned this was already policy, but what's happening is that it's been codified. What exactly will change, then, from now, from it being policy to it being codified in law?

[Karl Salgo, Senior Officer, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office]

Implicit in the codification of anything is a certain underscoring of its importance publicly. The context of this is that, while it has been practice for many years for deputy ministers to appear and other public servants to appear before parliamentary committees and to speak to issues such as departmental management, they've not in fact had a legal obligation to do so. It's always been the position of government, consistent with our constitutional principles, that they appear on behalf of their ministers. In principle, it's the minister's decision who to send to a committee to speak on his or her behalf. In this case, you now have, in fact, a legal requirement on the part of deputy ministers and other deputy heads of agencies to appear before committees and to answer questions that the committees put to them. It's no longer a matter for ministers to determine what questions are appropriate for officials to answer versus themselves. Deputy ministers have to answer questions pertaining to an explicit list of things. The other part of it is very important culturally, I think, within government and publicly, as I say, to underscore the importance of management responsibilities.

Finally, I would simply say that we've heard often that any ambiguity in the responsibility of deputy ministers to appear in these matters is not helpful. This eliminates any ambiguity both of their obligation to appear and of the scope of what they are to discuss under that obligation.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

One of the big concerns is whistle-blowing legislation, and from the opening remarks I noticed one thing that was missing. In performance reviews, you actually don't have input from those who answer to the deputy minister. Is there any reason for that? It's been going on in the public sector now for the last 15 years as far as human resource management is concerned.

[Marc O'Sullivan]

Once again, that's part of the scoping that Treasury Board Secretariat does vis-à-vis the management responsibilities. Managing of staff, managing of the department, including the HR management responsibilities of the deputy, is an important part of that assessment.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

That's happening, but it wasn't in your remarks.

[Marc O'Sullivan]

I was keeping my remarks as short as I could because I knew there would be questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sweet.

Mr. Christopherson, seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation.

PMP, as you've stated here, is the system you have in place to decide how much bonus a deputy minister gets for doing or not doing their job. Is that correct? How long has that been in place now?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

I believe since 1999. There was an advisory committee on the retention and remuneration for senior officials, which is now chaired by Carol Stephenson, that made a recommendation that there be at-risk pay as part of the compensation package for senior executives in the public service, including deputy ministers.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

What does that mean exactly, “at-risk pay”?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

There are different levels of deputy ministers, but there is a portion for a deputy minister, for example, at the first level, DM-1. Up to 10% of the pay is basically held aside for the purposes of ascertaining whether that deputy has reached the objectives that have been set in the person's performance agreement. If that person attains those objectives, the person is entitled to that 10%. If the person surpasses those objectives, then there's the possibility of an additional bonus, which for a deputy at the DM-1 level represents an additional 5%.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

What about other levels?