Public Accounts Committee on May 2nd, 2007

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

We're enjoying the comedy break.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Now I want to talk about the CAIS program, another invention of a previous administration. It got rid of some farm programs that actually brought benefits to farmers that farmers could appreciate.

I had farmers come into my office with their files. I found their files baffling. There was no consistency. I took some of these files home, photocopied them, and said, “I have to be able to understand.” I could not understand them.

I actually went to accountants later on because I thought, well, they work on this program and I could get some light shone on it. They were no clearer on this than I was. This thing was almost like the gun registry, as far as I was concerned, in trying to figure out what in the world was going on with this thing. It was just absolutely baffling.

But the ultimate, Madam Fraser, is that we create such a bureaucratic, complicated system that the poor farmers have to go to the government civil servants who officially can't tell them what the program is, but if they pay them on the side and get their advice, somehow they can work their way through this trap.

This thing really is kind of a shameful legacy, is it not?

[Sheila Fraser]

We certainly found in this audit that the program is overly complex. Just as an example, I think there were 1,500 codes for types of income.

For producers as well, the department would change the numbers that had been put in on the application, not informing the producer, with no explanation for the changes. I think the application form was eight pages long.

It's far too complex, far too complicated, and even when we look at the processing within the department, at the initial processing, the error rate is very, very high.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Ms. Fraser, I actually had people in my office who had boxes full of photocopied documents on their applications--attachments and things they had to send in. Almost every farmer I talked to said they were forced to go to accountants and spend—even on the simplest applications—$1,000 a year on administration. These are farmers who aren't paying their bills, who are trying to fight off their creditors and stay on the farms, but most of them are spending $2,000 or $3,000 a year just to have the accountants try to get them through this maze. I've found very few farmers who were anywhere close to capable of doing this on their own. The accountants were telling me that they're in the business of giving estimates on income tax and accurate advice and so on. None of them would give any advice to people. They'd help them with their application form, but the last thing they're going to do is try to estimate what benefit the farmer would get out of these programs, if any.

Would that be a fair comment, that farmers would have to spend a lot of money on accounting help in order to get into this program?

[Sheila Fraser]

I believe so. I think we have an indication in the report, actually, that a vast majority--70% to 80%--require professional help in preparing the applications. I would note, though, that the government has indicated that it wants to simplify the program, and that already the application forms, I believe, have been brought down to a page or two, that they're working on giving much more information to producers, and just simple information about what--

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

The current government has accepted your recommendations in regard to this?

[Sheila Fraser]

The government has accepted the recommendations.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Is it my understanding that the current government may call a spade a spade, recognize this program for what it is, and find a program that might be a lot more useful for farmers?

[Sheila Fraser]

That is a policy question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Thank you, Mrs. Fraser.

I take it from Mr. Fitzpatrick's questions and interventions that he thinks Canada's new government is doing a great job. I get the impression that's his view.

I'm going to go to the second round, colleagues.

Before I do that, however, I just have one area, Mrs. Fraser, I want to pursue and get your comments on, and that is the issue of human resources within the Department of Foreign Affairs.

It seems to me that over the last six and half years that I've been on this committee, this has been a recurring theme, not only for Foreign Affairs but I believe for most other departments here in the Government of Canada. As Mr. Christopherson said, it's not a scandalous issue, but it's very important to the proper functioning of government. When you look at the statistics and the number of people who can retire in all departments, not only Foreign Affairs but all departments, over the next short period of time, and when you look at the statistics as to how people get into the federal civil service—I think 87% of them are through temporary or contract positions—

About five years ago we had a number of different studies going on. Mr. Quail actually was leading a charge on civil service renewal, and the clerk at the time. We had the Treasury Board. I asked them all who accepted responsibility for that, but no one would actually say they would accept responsibility. It was kind of a joint mishmash.

We're entering a time when we're dealing with labour shortages. This is a problem that I think will get more acute and more severe and more serious as time goes on.

I have three points for you. In your observations, do you see the same issue recurring in every department? Is the problem getting better or getting worse? And do you have any comments or observations as to how, from a strategic basis, the government may want to look at dealing with the issue?

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you, Chair.

We haven't done a lot of specific work in a lot of departments recently, but certainly based on past work and knowledge that we have of government, while the situation in Foreign Affairs is maybe a little more serious and more critical than some of the others, it is a general problem throughout the public service. There will be a large cadre of executives who are able to retire within the next few years, and what we've noted in past audits is that the level below them is about the same age, so in fact two levels of senior people will be eligible to retire.

I would note, though, that the Clerk of the Privy Council is very concerned with this, and in his most recent report, which came out about a week or so ago, on the state of the public service, he raises this as a major priority. He has an advisory committee that is looking at that. He seems to be largely focusing on recruitment initially and on some retention activities, but it might be worthwhile, if the committee is ever interested in this issue, to invite the clerk to discuss it, because he has certainly made it a priority going forward, and he has recognized and has clearly indicated that this is a major challenge for the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Just before we go to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, a previous clerk had made it a priority, too, and we did have these commissions. I remember the one headed by Mr. Quail, and it just doesn't seem to be—

[Sheila Fraser]

After Mr. Quail's task force, there was the whole modernization of human resources—the legal, the laws, the regulations, the practices—and that is still going through the system. And there was the creation as well of that agency, the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency, which is also preoccupied with that, as well as the Public Service Commission. So there are a number of agencies and people working on the issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj for five minutes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Rodriguez will take a couple of quick questions first.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Let me put a few brief questions.

Ms. Fraser, you said that the cost of legal services has increased at least threefold. I do not remember why.

[Sheila Fraser]

The department gave several reasons. There are many lawsuits or challenges under the Charter; such cases are rather complicated. There are also a large number of cases involving aboriginal claims. Moreover, in my opinion, our society is more inclined to litigate than it was in the past.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

When lawyers begin an assignment, do they estimate the costs?

[Sheila Fraser]

Not really, they might occasionally estimate them, but it is not a current practice—

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thus, they begin their work—

[Sheila Fraser]

No, it is not customary.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

We know when a case begins, but we cannot tell when it will end.

Regarding NORAD, was it difficult to obtain information due to stringent security?

[Sheila Fraser]

No, we got the information from National Defence easily. Several employees in our office have top security ratings, but in a case like this one, we do not really need access to highly confidential files. We mainly deal with project management and financial analysis files. Nevertheless, the report states that we asked the Secretariat of the Treasury Board for some information, and their first answer was that we could not have it because it was a cabinet secret. When we called them again regarding this, they finally told us that they had no documents.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Regarding NORAD, I always felt that it was not a fair agreement, even though we share the costs. Perhaps it is because we have a giant for a neighbour. This cannot be a fair relationship, because the Americans always have the upper hand. Am I right?

[Sheila Fraser]

We have not really looked into this issue. Of course, it is apparently up to the Americans to decide to stop developing the first system. We have raised questions about this file and other files involving joint projects with the United States. Although Canada pays 50% of the costs, do we really have 50% of the power to make decisions? This question should be put to the department and the government.