Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

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

Good morning.

I think we are speaking in very general terms. Personally, I should like to discuss specific ideas such as the implementation of this new level of accountability and results. Mr. Desautels, in paragraph 136 of your report, you mentioned the fact that in Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, and Alberta here in Canada, continued funding of programs as well as the pay of managers were linked to achieving agreed results.

Is this an idea that could prevail in Canada? At the federal government level, would that be relevant?

[Denis Desautels]

I think it would be rather difficult to implement a system such as the one you referred to. I visited New Zealand and I became familiar with was is being done there. There is in that country a whole management structure, based on results, which links the results to the salary. In order to do that, you need a foundation. I do not think that in Canada, we have evolved in the same way.

We already have some form of flexible, incentive pay, but it is rather subjective. It is quite difficult to establish a direct link with results. However, I think that this is an objective that we must keep in mind.

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

Very well.

You mentioned that active monitoring would be better than a command and control system. I should like to get some ideas on the way we could apply this approach successfully. What specific changes can we make to reach that goal? Give us some examples of what Treasury Board could do to strike this balance.

[Denis Desautels]

The term “active monitoring” sounds nice but it could sometimes be dangerous.

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

What does that mean in concrete terms? What can we do to achieve that?

[Denis Desautels]

In my opinion, if we want to achieve a monitoring not only active but also efficient, certain mechanisms would have to be put in place and some funding available. It is obvious, in my opinion, that this will involve some effort because we cannot reach that goal without devoting the necessary energy and resources. Sufficient funds are needed.

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

Mr. Desautels, I do not have much time. It was you who in your report were talking about a switch from command and control approach to active monitoring.

[Denis Desautels]

These are words I borrowed from Treasury Board. These words were used by Treasury Board itself.

As I was saying, in order to expect to do a true active monitoring, we must do what is necessary to carry it out. I think it would require more than what has been done up to now. We must also have available the necessary professional and intellectual resources. There again, I am not convinced that it is the case at the moment.

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

We will never succeed in applying this idea if we do not know what it implies in practical terms. I expect specific ideas from you; I am listening.

[Denis Desautels]

In that case, I will continue.

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

I know that this requires a lot of effort but what should be done specifically?

[Denis Desautels]

We want the secretary of the Treasury Board to have available information systems which would allow him to know whether the departments are properly implementing the policies that it approved. It must have systems which indicate whether the departments are respecting their objectives and properly managing the resources granted to them. The systems must provide the central organization which is the Treasury Board Secretariat with sufficient information to allow it to determine whether the departments and the entities are doing their work properly.

At the present time, I do not think that Treasury Board is able to answer this question. Very often, it relies on other sources. For example, the Auditor General raises problems that the Treasury Board was not aware of.

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

Would it be possible to use the systems already in place? For example, departments must submit reports on their performance. Would it be possible to adapt these reports so as to use them in the system as you describe it?

[Denis Desautels]

The reports provided by departments on their performance are good, but they are not good enough. Furthermore, they are not produced fast enough to fit in with the role of the secretary of Treasury Board I am attempting to describe. This is a management role. The secretary would have to be informed about the way the department or the entity business have evolved every three months, and not six months after the end of the year. The report on performance, which is in fact produced some time after the end of the year, is not sufficiently detailed nor quite on time.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Desautels.

I want to comment on one area. It is the whole issue of reporting to Parliament.

I read your report, your 2001 chapter, and at the time you did mention that you found reporting to Parliament was generally deficient. I know you're not in government any more, but do you have any comment from what you've seen and heard in the last five years? I don't think things have improved any myself, but do you have any comment? I invite Dr. Clark to comment also.

[Denis Desautels]

When I look back, Mr. Chairman, at the evolution of reporting within the federal government, I think there have been some good strides, some good progress made. I saw some progress when I was there, although we're still some distance from reaching a goal, but I did see some progress over the 1990s on that front. Since then I think there's been further progress on the performance reporting front.

The financial reporting side has also improved with a movement towards accrual accounting, so there's better financial reporting on that front as well. There's been movement, and I think the pressure to keep moving has to be kept up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Do you have a comment on that particular issue, Dr. Clark?

[Dr. Ian Clark]

I'll go back to my earlier plea of focusing on productivity. I just look and wonder how much it costs inside the public service to produce the reports Parliament now gets. I think it would be interesting for Parliament itself to do an objective study of the extent to which it makes use of the reporting. If it doesn't make use of it--if you don't think that it's improved after all that incredible investment and effort--then one should think about what you could be provided with in a more cost-effective way.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That is a good point.

We're out of time for this particular session. Monsieur Desautels and Dr. Clark, I want to thank you very much on behalf of the committee for being here today. It's certainly been interesting and rewarding. Do you have any final comments you want to leave for the committee before we suspend?

[Dr. Ian Clark]

I'm delighted to be back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Colleagues, we're going to suspend for about one or two minutes and reset the system. We'll reopen in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]