:
First of all, I want to thank my mover and thank the committee members for their support.
Before we go any further, I do want to extend a very warm welcome to three new members of the committee. Mr. Marcel Lussier has joined us from the Bloc Québécois, and we have two new Liberal members, Mr. Charles Hubbard and Mr. Mark Holland.
I want to welcome each of you to the committee. I do hope you find the committee rewarding and enjoyable, as does everyone.
The next item of business, colleagues, is the routine motions. If this committee so wishes, we can start them now. I understand we do them one at a time.
Okay, then, we will proceed in the order that they are in now. We will go over the last routine motions we had.
The first item, colleagues, is the services of analysts from the Library of Parliament. The motion reads:
That the Committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the Chair, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist it in its work.
This is a very routine motion. This committee couldn't function without its analysts, so I assume someone's going to move that motion. We would be in deep trouble if we didn't get this one passed.
(Motion agreed to)
That's what I thought was the distinction, and I have a problem with it. The whole purpose of it is to allow people not to be caught off guard, so that nobody can plan a sneak attack, and so that nobody gets ambushed, and so that we don't have this big issue that's going to create headlines and nobody knows anything about it. But if we're already dealing with a matter, to then break that down and slow it down even more, to say that even though we're already engaged in an issue, and we're in the middle of it and trying to make determinations on where we're going to go, we suddenly have to stop and give 48 hours' notice to put a motion, I have a problem with that. If collectively we think the motion that's being put forward is too substantive to move on too quickly, then we can just move to table, and we can buy ourselves that time. But it seems to me that we don't want to give somebody the ability to obstruct the efficiency of the committee in dealing with fundamental issues that are already properly on the agenda, on the floor in front of us, in which we're already engaged, and to bring all the discussion to a halt and buy themselves this 48 hours when we already have the ability to do that if procedurally we feel we need to slow down a bit.
I'm not comfortable, nor do I see the need to provide this new tool--I see it more as a tool than a protection--to members of the committee.
Things work fine the way they are.
That concludes the routine motions, save one that will be put on the agenda at the next meeting after the parties have had time to deliberate on the amendment and the original motion.
We'll invite the analysts over.
Alex and Lydia, come on over and join us. The motion passed, thankfully.
Colleagues, that concludes the business that was on the orders of the day. However, as everyone is aware, this committee is way behind in our agendas and our reports, etc., so in order not to waste the remaining time in the meeting, I asked the clerk to invite the Auditor General here so that we could start on her report.
However, before I do that, that is a decision to be made by the entire committee, not by the chair or by the clerk. So we would require a motion to call the Auditor General up to start the presentation of her report. That was the report tabled two weeks ago, her October 2007 report.
Is someone prepared to make a motion that the Auditor General be called?
:
I'd like to call the meeting to order.
Welcome to the first meeting of this session of Parliament. I'd like to publicly welcome again our three new members: Monsieur Lussier, Mr. Hubbard, and Mr. Holland.
Colleagues, we have with us today the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser. She's accompanied by assistant auditors Ronnie Campbell and Hugh McRoberts. She is going to start the presentation of her October 2007 report, which was filed in Parliament approximately two weeks ago.
What I've proposed to do, colleagues, is to go to 11 o'clock. I will ask members of the steering committee--Mr. Christopherson, Monsieur Laforest, and Mr. Sweet--just to stay around for five minutes after. I just want to have a very brief conversation.
Having said that, I will now turn the floor over to Mrs. Fraser for opening comments.
We are pleased to be here today to present our fall 2007 report, which was tabled in the House of Commons on October 30.
As you mentioned, I am accompanied by assistant auditors general Hugh McRoberts and Ronnie Campbell.
Several chapters of this report touch upon the government's use of information for managing. Fundamental to the success of any organization is knowing what information that organization needs, collecting it, and using it to manage well.
One of our audits looked at an important source of information used by governments, that being the population census. Specifically we looked at how Statistics Canada managed the 2006 census.
[Translation]
Governments and other institutions use census data for many important purposes. For example, federal transfer payments to the provinces—amounting to around $62 billion in 2006-2007—are based in part on census population estimates. It is therefore critical that Statistics Canada ensure the quality of the information it collects.
We found that Statistics Canada managed the 2006 census successfully. It acted to improve the quality of the information on population groups that have been hard to count. And it made considerable efforts to ensure that the privacy of information supplied by respondents was protected.
We noted some areas that could be improved, and we are pleased that Statistics Canada has agreed to our recommendations for improvement.
[English]
In chapter 4, our audit of military health care, we noted that Canadian Forces members surveyed by military clinics were satisfied with the care they received, but we found that National Defence itself has little information to assess the quality of care provided by the military health care system in Canada. National Defence does not have some of the basic information we would expect to see in a well-managed system of health care. For example, it did not know whether all of its health care professionals were licensed or certified to practice.
It also lacks the information to know whether levels of service at the clinics are appropriate to medical and operational needs and whether the costs of providing them are reasonable.
Better information from its health care system would help assure National Defence that military members are receiving quality health care at the appropriate level and cost.
[Translation]
Another area where information in fundamental is managing the border. In order to keep the border open and also secure, the Canada Border Services Agency must have the right information and use it effectively. We did not audit all aspects of border security; we looked at the Agency's efforts to enhance its identification of risks and its targeting.
It would be impossible for the Agency to examine every person and shipment entering the country and still maintain an open border. This underlines the need for effective targeting methods so that low-risk people can enter while appropriate action is taken for those who are high-risk.
We found that the Canada Border Services Agency has made significant investments in automated systems to identify high-risk travellers and shipments before they enter Canada. These tools are still in the early stages of development and implementation, and border services officers continue to rely more on their own analysis and judgment to select shipments for examination.
We looked at whether the Agency has measures in place to tell it how well its initiatives are working. We found that it does not capture enough information on the results of its activities to know whether it is doing a good job at the border or to know whether improvements are needed.
We hope this audit will be useful to the Agency as it moves forward with its enhanced approach to border security. I am pleased that it has accepted all of our recommendations.
[English]
A related issue is how the federal government ensures the security of sensitive information and assets that it makes available to industry in the course of contracting. We found serious problems in a system that is supposed to ensure the security of government information and assets entrusted to industry. I am particularly concerned about failures to identify security requirements for major defence construction projects.
We found that many in government who play a role in industrial security are not sure of their responsibilities. Further, the industrial security program has a major role but does not have the stable long-term funding needed to hire and retain enough qualified professionals.
Failing to protect sensitive information in contracting can pose serious risks to the national interest. Reducing these risks will take a concerted effort to strengthen accountability, clarify policies, and ensure that roles and responsibilities are clearly understood and respected.
Another area of concern featured in this report is the federal government's handling of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which in 1984 settled Inuvialuit claims to lands in the western Arctic. We found that 23 years later the federal government has yet to meet some of its significant obligations under the agreement. For example, it has not yet taken the necessary steps to transfer control and use of several parcels of land to the Inuvialuit, nor can it demonstrate that it is meeting its obligations to inform the Inuvialuit of federal contracts in the settlement region.
In 2003 we made similar observations about the department's approach to agreements with the Gwich’in and the Inuit. It is disappointing that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has continued to focus only on specific obligations and has not worked in partnership with the Inuvialuit toward the goals of this agreement.
[Translation]
We recently began to include some of the smaller federal organizations in our regular performance audit work. Despite their relatively small size, these organizations can have a significant impact on the lives of Canadians.
This year, we looked at the Canada Industrial Relations Board, the Canadian Forces Grievance Board, and the Courts Administration Service. I am pleased to report that the results of our audit were generally positive.
In all three cases, we found good procedures and proper controls for the use of acquisition cards, executive travel, hospitality expenses, and executive compensation and benefits. We did find some problematic human resources practices in two of the organizations, and each is working to resolve them.
The Canada Revenue Agency has made a significant investment in employee training and learning on tax issues. We found that it has in place many of the processes needed to manage its investment well; it now needs to implement them fully.
The Agency's ability to protect Canada's tax base depends in large part on the knowledge and skills of its employees, especially those who must interpret complex, technical, and frequently changing tax laws and regulations. I am pleased to see that the Agency is on the right path in managing its investment in their development.
[English]
As you know, the annual report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development was also tabled in Parliament on October 30. In that report, the interim commissioner concludes that the weaknesses identified in sustainable development strategies over the past decade still persist to this day. He found that most departments still have not identified the significant sustainable development impacts of their policies and programs. Yet this was Parliament's expectations for the strategies.
The commissioner is calling on the government to carry out a thorough review of its current approach to sustainable development strategies. I am pleased that the government has agreed with the commissioner's recommendation and has made a commitment to complete it by October 2008.
Sustainable development strategies are a very important management tool. I would like to encourage the public accounts committee to review this matter. Attention from this committee would reinforce the importance of the review and would signal the expectations of parliamentarians. As well, hearings before the public accounts committee often encourage government to produce action plans with detailed timelines. This, along with recommendations from the committee, could result in concrete action.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chair. We would be happy to respond to questions members may have.
Thank you.
As was mentioned, we did note in the report that there were certain individuals who were on watch lists who did not go through the secondary inspection we would have expected. As well, certain containers were allowed into the country and had been clearly identified as ones that should not be able to come in. The difficulty we had is that the agency doesn't have a system to collect information, so we were unable to determine, for example with the containers, if it was because they had received additional information and determined that this was a low-risk container or if it was simply an error that occurred and the container came in and should not have come in.
It's the same thing with the people on the watch list. It was difficult to know why those people were let in. Was it an error, or was it because, as we mentioned in the report, sometimes the name doesn't exactly match?
So one of our major recommendations in all of this--and a recommendation actually the office has been making for several years--is that the agency should have much more information, should know the results of its secondary inspection, for example, and should have much more rigorous information systems. They are working on developing this, but it's still in the very early stages.
My second comment is also of a general nature. Earlier, I mentioned that I have been a member of the public accounts committee for one year and that I have had an opportunity to analyse various reports submitted by your office. On several occasions, you have pointed out that an agency or department had been audited three, four or five years earlier. Departmental officials had indicated that they would take the necessary steps to correct problems identified. Yet, when another audit was done five or six years later, the problem was still not resolved.
I see that in each of your report's chapters, you come to the same conclusion in terms of the reaction of the department or agency audited. For example, you observe that the Department of National Defence has accepted your recommendations and is taking steps to address the concerns... I imagine that the response was the same five years ago. I didn't read it, but I imagine the report said the same thing.
We've talked about this situation before and I find it worrisome. Have you already planned to conduct some surprise audits? Perhaps your audits are always unannounced, but maybe, for three or four years, you could audit a particular department or agency to ascertain if...
Take Chapter 4, for example. We read that in 2002, 25% of Canadian Forces members who reported some mental health problems expressed satisfaction with the care they received. That was in 2002, already five years ago. Is there some way that Canadian Forces members could be surveyed again next year? We know that some are experiencing some serious psychological problems. Could a similar audit of military health care be conducted again in 2008 and if necessary, again in 2009 and 2010?
I understand that you cannot conduct repeat audits unnecessarily, but you understand the principle here. It is a matter of putting the departments and agencies on the spot. As I see it, it is easy for them to say that they accept the audit results and will take steps to put measures in place, but the process is so time-consuming that many issues remain unresolved.
:
Thank you, Chair, and thank you again for an excellent report. If anything, it's too good a report this time. There's an embarrassment of riches in here. Some are stronger than others.
I'm not going to go into the merits of each of the chapters. I felt I had adequate time to ask questions when you tabled it the last time, so I would just immediately go to commenting on the dilemma we're going to face in terms of what we want to pick here.
The difficulty is going to be that two of them deal directly with national security, which is very difficult for us to ignore--nor would we want to--and then the other one deals with the health of soldiers, which, again, is just a motherhood, top priority issue.
I hear the Auditor General's recommendations around three and seven. I don't know whether there's some way we can do truncated versions on those too, so that they don't get left off--assuming others feel the same way I do, which they may not. But that's our dilemma. I'd like to see at least those three. Those would be my choices: one, four, and five. I know we'll do that at steering committee, but perhaps we could come to some agreement to do something with three and seven, if only for the reason that it's not often the Auditor General underscores and emphasizes that we should take a look at something because there are messages inherent in the process, and not just in the findings. We want to take that to heart. Somehow, given the fact that we're probably six months behind as it is, that's not an easy undertaking.
That would be my goal--that we could in some way take a solid approach to those three and at least a relatively quick one to those two to make sure they don't get left off.
Beyond that, Chair, everything else I have to say has either been said or I'll wait for the people to be brought in.
Thanks.
:
Under amendments to our act, the Auditor General Act, in 1995, the major departments are required to produce sustainable development strategies every three years. We are now in the fourth set of sustainable development strategies. Departments spend quite a bit of time and money preparing these things, and they are supposed to set out what the effects of their programs and their policies are and how they integrate sustainable development into that. It is very much about the management of government programs, in many ways considering the environment in addition to the social and economic impacts.
As the Commissioner of the Environment noted, these things have been a failure. They have not lived up to what the expectations were. It's really about managing. The commissioner's report has been referred to the environment and sustainable development committee, but that committee is more of a policy committee than an accountability committee. The true accountability committee, I think, is here, over management issues.
So while I agree with you that, yes, it is about the expenditure of money, it's also about managing well. And there is a requirement for us to consider environmental impacts in our work. We've brought a number of reports forward in the past about fisheries, about contaminated sites, or about whatever else. I would really hope that this...especially with this review that has been promised, which is really to look at whether these strategies should continue and how they can be made better. I think parliamentarians need to be involved in this discussion as well, because it could potentially have impacts upon an act and requirements of departments.
I would say that the status report that I mentioned earlier, and that will be coming in February 2008, will all be devoted to environmental issues or a follow-up of previous audits of the Commissioner of the Environment. Some of those the committee obviously may not choose to look at, but some I would hope you would look at. There are some very important issues that are going to come, including toxic substances, contaminated sites, habitat, and so on--I think there are 14 chapters--but I would think the environment committee would probably be more seized with the issues.
So there may be a little room in the schedule, and I would hope that this committee would become involved in this review as well.
I want to look briefly, first of all, at chapter 4, dealing with military health care. It's somewhat disappointing to me to see the narrow scope you took with this, although maybe it's much broader than what the report here would indicate.
When you determine the scope and your approach to it, you commit so much money to it. What did this chapter 4 cost? What did it cost you to do it? I guess that would be the first question.
Second, why is the scope so narrow? For example, with the regular force and the reservists, did it include both groups in terms of the $500 million spent by the Canadian Forces on health care? And who determines the scope?
We met with a number of people in the military this summer, and we heard major concerns with the military and health care.
In your work, Mr. McRoberts, you headed this group, correct? Did you, in meeting with military personnel, find any great concerns?
If I were stationed with my family at Camp Petawawa, for example, or Camp Gagetown, and I had a spouse and three children, would that be part of the discussions that you would have had with the military personnel in determining their impression of how well or how badly they are treated in terms of health care?
:
I recognize that, Mr. Chair, but it is a major concern. I was asking, in terms of your visiting these bases, if this could not be a supplementary concern that could be brought to our committee.
I guess one of the most damning parts of all of this is the fact that so many of our technicians and health care providers lack the skills to do what they should be doing. In fact, the report says that 1% of those people are up to date with the standards of training required for their categories. It's not acceptable in any business to have such a little bit of money spent on training.
I've been in the forces, and you expect the technician who's going to help the dentist to be skilled in his trade, but you're saying that 1% of those people have the up-to-date skills that are required to....
An hon. member: Don't go to the dentist, Charlie.
Hon. Charles Hubbard: Not in the military; I've been to good military dentists.
Mr. Chair, the second area I want to ask about is in the general report, the main points, chapters 1 to 7. We have an appendix D, where they talk about auditing. We have a lot of crown corporations and other agencies that are being audited, and the cost of audits is reported in those pages. That would be pages 45, 46, and 47. Are we getting good value on those? How are the contracts determined? If I were at Ridley Terminals, for example, would that be a competitive process that Ridley Terminals would have with appointing their auditors? It's the same with Marine Atlantic or the Blue Water Bridge authority. Are there any problems with that in terms of how the contracts for auditing are given and whether or not there is good value for the money those corporations are spending on their audits?
I do want to make a comment. Mrs. Fraser. I don't know what we'd be doing with government operations without your office, because it seems to me a lot of things would carry on without improvements and changes if it weren't for your audits and the follow-ups that come out of those things. I think you provide an excellent service to government operations.
I wanted to just focus on a couple of things today, and then maybe turn it over to Mr. Williams. It seems to me that the watch list problem at the border could become a fairly difficult task. If I were a border person, it would be sort of like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I'm thinking of common names. Mr. Williams here has a common name--John Williams. I'm sure if you look in the telephone book in Toronto there are probably two or three pages of John Williamses or maybe Mark Hollands.
At the border, it would seem to me this would become a problem not only for the person who has that name. If John Williams happened to be on a watch list--
Some hon. members: He is.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Not this one. He wouldn't be the needle in the haystack. He may be the needle on our committee, but he wouldn't be the needle in the haystack in this example.
I guess I'm looking ahead. It looks as if, whether we like it or not, the U.S.-Canada border situation is going to be one dominated by a passport system. Would the passport usage really resolve a lot of these difficulties in terms of watch lists?
:
Now, which Williams is that you're talking about?
Anyway, Madam Auditor General, congratulations on another report. I see this is your seventh, so seven down, three to go. It's good that you keep bringing these things to our attention and to the attention of the general public, because while we all know that the federal government tries, they don't always succeed.
I liked your little comment that it's really about managing, that it's not just about numbers and spending dollars but also managing and achieving results. Sometimes the things you bring to our attention really do shock us, as far as Canadians are concerned.
I'm looking at paragraph 4.56 of the chapter regarding military health care, where you say, “We surveyed military physicians, nurses, medical technicians, and physician assistants and found that few take advantage of the program”, that program being the additional upgrading of education, “although it is mandatory”, your word, “because they believe they cannot be spared from their regular duties”. Then you go on to give certain percentages--that, for example, only 6% had completed the program's requirements.
You're a professional, I'm a professional, many other people are professionals. We're into lifelong learning nowadays. In virtually every profession, in order to maintain your professional status you have to demonstrate ongoing, lifelong learning, maintaining your skills. What is going on here that the federal government doesn't even bother to ensure that the people who are providing professional services aren't maintaining their professional accreditation, their skills, training, or whatever?