Great minds think alike. All the questions my colleague Senator Loffreda asked are exactly the same questions I wanted to ask.

Thank you for your responses and thank you for the questions.

[English]

My question is on a topic that several senators mentioned: It’s Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and all the money that is requested in Supplementary Estimates (B). One of the challenges that I have is trying to find which financial statements are bearing the burden of the claim.

The $5 billion for the Restoule settlement agreement is a significant sum of money. I cannot find that in last year’s public accounts. I can’t find it anywhere. When the government talks about being transparent, I have to shake my head over it. If you have an expenditure of that magnitude — $5 billion — and you can’t find it, there’s an issue.

Do you have any suggestions as to how we can go about finding that financial information? I know that the budget and the public accounts are not aligned. We’ve talked about that many times. It’s very difficult to track the expenditures because they’re going back and forth between documents.

Do you have any suggestions, or do you know where that $5 billion is recorded in the financial statements of the government?

That’s a very good point, and I don’t know. I don’t know in which year it’s been recorded as a liability.

Generally speaking, the government is reluctant to disclose how much it has set aside for specific, individual claims for fear of tipping its hand and revealing how much it’s prepared to pay. If that amount were to become public, it would easily become the floor in any negotiation with specific claims, or any other claim — it could be with contractors and so on. It’s kept secret to a certain level, even at cabinet.

I’ve seen cabinet documents. When ministers discuss that, cabinet ministers have the memoranda to cabinet, and it’s a series of Xs where the numbers should be. Then, they are handed out something that states “X” means that many billions, and “Y” means that many thousands of individuals, so that the secrecy is maintained. That’s why it’s very difficult to figure out in which year the liability was recorded on the Government of Canada books because even ministers are given these numbers literally at the last minute.

Even in the fiscal update document and in the budget, there are large dollar amounts, and you can’t tell what it’s for. The public accounts have a similar problem. Going through the public accounts that were just released, there are dollar amounts in the billions of dollars, and there’s no way to find out what they represent.

Yes, it’s a “trust us.”

It’s a transparency issue.

They’re all bundled together, and “Trust us; that’s how much we have in terms of liabilities.”

Senator Loffreda was asking about the spending and personal consultants, et cetera. We’ve discussed on numerous occasions the failure of government departments to provide adequate levels of service, but also to achieve their departmental objectives.

Based on your review of the federal departments, are you seeing any improvements in service levels? Is there consistency in terms of better performances? And are they measuring it and getting it out so that we can actually understand it, and not look at it five years after the fact?

Based on the latest Departmental Results Reports that have been tabled at the same time as Supplementary Estimates (B), there has been an improvement. I think it has gone from 52% to 53% of targets that have been achieved.

How do you qualify those numbers?

It’s based on the number of targets that the government has achieved, by their own indicators.

As spending remains a problem, do you see that there will be a marked lack of technical competence or expertise within the various departments? Is it going to get better? As Senator Loffreda pointed out, we have these people, numbers are going up and spending is going up, but where’s the service going?

That’s a very good question. We have an economic slowdown. If there’s better availability of labour, and fewer labour shortages, that could help the government to get their hands on individuals who are better suited to the jobs that need to be filled in the government, but that has clearly not been the case over the last several years.

Is that a leadership problem?

I think so. I think it’s a leadership and a willingness issue. I’m making lots of friends tonight.

Thank you. I wasn’t looking for you to say that, but the fact is that there have to be enough people in key positions to be able to express the reality of the situation so that it can be improved.

Yes, there has to be a desire to deliver and achieve meaningful targets.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Giroux, for your frankness and professionalism.

[Translation]