We are pleased to be here today to present our May 2008 report, which was tabled in the House of Commons on May 6.
As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Assistant Auditors General Ronnie Campbell, Doug Timmins, and Mark Watters.
The report addresses a variety of issues that affect Canadians. We have also presented an overview of our special examination practice for crown corporations and for the first time the key findings of recent special examinations.
[Translation]
In a special examination, any major weakness in a corporation's key systems and practices that could prevent it from safeguarding and controlling its assets or managing efficiently, economically or effectively is reported as a significant deficiency.
Since we last reported on Crown corporations in 2000, we have seen a marked decline in the number of corporations with significant deficiencies.
[English]
We are pleased at the improved results we are seeing in crown corporations, and we hope that presenting annual summaries of our key findings will be useful to parliamentarians.
Let me turn now to results of our performance audits, starting with the government's management of fees charged to the public and industry.
[Translation]
In 2006-07, federal departments and agencies reported collecting about $1.9 billion in fees for anything from a passport to a license for manufacturing pharmaceuticals.
The fee charged for a good, a service or the use of the facility must take cost into account. We found that Parks Canada is a good example of fee management. Its entry fees are based on the full costs of the related programs.
On the other hand, we found that some federal organizations do not adequately consider cost and, in fact, some do not know the cost.
[English]
As well, the total amount collected from a fee for a service should not exceed the cost of providing that service. In Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, however, we found that for a number of years, revenues from the consular services fee, which is part of the charge for an adult passport, exceeded the costs of the activities set out in the Treasury Board approval.
One of our audits looked at the support provided by National Defence for the Canadian Forces' deployment to Afghanistan. We found that National Defence has been able to deliver its equipment and supplies to troops in Afghanistan who need them; however, there have been some delays in moving supplies to Afghanistan.
[Translation]
We also found that some key equipment has been difficult to maintain because of a shortage of spare parts. Also, the supply system does not provide enough information to track the arrival and whereabouts of ordered items. This has resulted in losing track of some items needed for operations.
So far, the military has been able to adapt and adjust so that operations have not been significantly affected but, unless the problems we found can be resolved, the Canadian Forces could have increasing difficulty supporting the mission.
[English]
Another chapter of the report looks at Transport Canada, which is in the process of changing its approach to the oversight of air transportation safety, a requirement of the International Civil Aviation Organization. This means that Transport Canada's focus will shift from traditional oversight, such as conducting inspections and audits, to assessing the safety systems that aviation companies themselves have in place.
Although Transport Canada deserves credit for being the first civil aviation authority in the world to introduce regulations for this new approach, we found weaknesses in several areas.
[Translation]
We found that in planning the transition, the department did not formally assess the risks involved in the change or forecast the cost of managing it. Nor has it measured the impact of shifting resources from traditional oversight activities to the new approach.
The first part of the transition affected 74 airlines and aircraft maintenance companies. The rest of this transition process would be more complex to manage with over 2,000 smaller companies affected.
We hope our recommendations will help Transport Canada to complete this change successfully.
[English]
In this report, we also look at the first nations child and family services program of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Government policy requires that services to first nations children on reserve meet provincial standards, be reasonably comparable with services for children off reserve, and be culturally appropriate.
Funding for the services needs to match the requirements of the policy. We found that the department does not take sufficient account of these requirements in establishing levels of funding for first nations agencies to operate child welfare services on reserves.
[Translation]
The Department's funding formula dates back to 1988. It has not changed significantly to reflect variations in provincial legislation and the way child welfare services have evolved. In addition, the formula assumes that all First Nations agencies have the same percentage of children in care and that the children all have similar needs.
In practice, the needs of children in care who are served by First Nations agencies vary widely. The outdated funding formula means that some children and families are not getting the services they need.
[English]
We turn now to the Public Health Agency of Canada, created in 2004, and now responsible for leading federal efforts in the surveillance of infectious diseases. Well-informed and rapid public health actions based on effective surveillance can prevent and contain outbreaks, reduce the economic burden of infectious diseases, and ultimately save lives.
[Translation]
We found that while the Agency has surveillance systems in place, weaknesses in some aspects of surveillance have remained since we last reported them, in 2002. For example, except for Ontario, the Agency has no formal protocols or data-sharing agreements with the provinces and territories.
Formal agreements would help ensure that the information that the agency receives is timely, complete and accurate so that it can better respond to a disease outbreak.
One of our audits examined the maintenance of official residences. These residences are more than housing provided to the country's senior government leaders. They are part of Canada's heritage and need to be preserved.
[English]
We found that the National Capital Commission has improved the condition of most official residences in recent years, although further work is needed at Rideau Hall. However, the Prime Minister's residence at 24 Sussex Drive has had no major renovations for 50 years. The National Capital Commission estimates that completing the needed work would require full access to the residence for 12 to 15 months. It has a schedule for the planned repairs, and delays are likely to result in further deterioration and higher costs.
[Translation]
Finally, let me turn to our chapter on the Canada Border Services Agency. Since its creation in 2003, the Agency has been responsible for detaining and removing individuals who enter Canada illegally or who pose a threat to Canadians.
We found that the Agency has made progress in certain areas but it needs better processes for detentions and removals to ensure that individuals are treated consistently.
[English]
The agency does not monitor its detention and removal decisions across the country to ensure that they are consistent. We also found that it does not collect and analyze enough data at a national level to properly manage detentions and removals. The agency has improved its tracking of individuals. It has established a database of 63,000 people with removal orders, and it knows the whereabouts of 22,000 people who have been ordered to leave Canada. Although a growing number of people might still be in Canada illegally, the good news is that the agency is focusing its available resources on the higher-risk individuals.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chair. We would be happy to answer your questions.
[Translation]
We will now be happy to answer your questions.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you again, Madam Fraser. You and your team have done another great service for the Canadian people. We thank you for that.
I want to begin with Indian and Northern Affairs' first nations child and family services program.
Every time we deal with this, two things happen. One, it's complicated and very difficult to understand because it's so unique in terms of how it's operated within the Canadian federation. Second, it's always absolutely mind-boggling and distressing beyond belief what we as non-aboriginal people continue to allow to go on, on the reserves.
If anybody wants to get some idea of the core of why there's so much unrest and trouble in the country, just follow the trail of the Auditor General's reports alone. We've had reports on treaties and the nightmare there and how long and delayed they've been. It's unacceptable, as stated by every caucus here. The education reports are a nightmare again. They're only getting a fraction of the service we're getting elsewhere in Canada. Health services are abysmal, and now we have a report on social services.
At some point we have to start doing something more than what we're doing. Our normal goal is to get ahead of the curve on big problems, but we just don't seem to have long enough arms to get in front of this curve. I don't even know where it is.
I want to ask you two things.
One, are there other ways for us to assess the services, the quality of life, in a broader way that brings all this together and could help Canadians understand what's going on, how unacceptable it is, and how the rest of the world looks at it, so that we could start to have buy-in from the rest of Canada to actually get serious about things? I'll leave that one with you. Is there another way rather than just the piecemeal one?
Secondly, I ask your opinion--and, Chair, I leave this with the committee as an idea: maybe from now on we need to start holding joint meetings with the Indian and northern affairs committee to assist us in getting through it. We spend an awful lot of our time asking questions. I won't say it's deliberate, but we end up doing a lot of running around and a lot of learning of civics lessons about how all these things work, and then we run out of time. If we had the benefit of our colleagues who work with this every day, maybe we could pierce through here and get to the core issues a little more easily.
What are your thoughts?
I noted your report, in chapter 1, on the management of fees. It's good; it reads well.
About 15 years ago, the Financial Administration Act opened up a new way of charging fees. This, for the bureaucracy of government, is of course a vehicle to charge fees and bring in revenues. At another committee of the House, the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, there's been an ongoing running battle over fees. As you point out, the revenue from fees is not supposed to exceed the costs of the program. One of the agencies we chased was Parks Canada. I note you gave them a reasonably good mark, even though they charge fees for entry when the statute that governs them says that Canadians have a right to use the parks; we can't figure out, if there's a right to use the park, why they feel they can charge a fee. But that's kind of a theoretical thing that goes on.
We may be looking for your guidance here. A recently decided Supreme Court of Canada case approved Parks Canada's charging a percentage on the alcohol sales in Banff National Park restaurants. The committee felt that was a tax. The Supreme Court of Canada accepted that it was a fee. The bureaucracy is pushing the envelope here.
There's another case now, which will probably go to the Supreme Court, involving the Broadcasting Act, the broadcasting licence fees. The committee found that millions of dollars of excess revenue over the costs of managing the licences constituted a tax. That will likely go to the Supreme Court now.
The committee has forced the agencies to give back fees or give credits where they've charged illegally in the past. The problem we're running into now is that whether this is a fee or a tax, how do we resolve this problem where the government wants to charge like a tax? For example, for the broadcasting licences, they charge the part II fees, or millions and millions of dollars, where it only costs them about one million dollars a year, or half a million, to run the thing.
How are we supposed to deal with that in Parliament? And how will you come to deal with it as you look at the appropriateness of a fee when it's not a tax? If it's a tax, Parliament will approve it. But a fee is not approved by Parliament; it's simply struck by the bureaucracy.
:
I would like to talk a little bit about chapter 7, but I would like to start by giving some background on why I think it's important.
My riding is a very immigration-heavy riding, and I oftentimes have constituents come visit me because of problems they've had with temporary resident visas. They've been turned down, and oftentimes we're dealing with a situation where it might be a grandparent, for example, wanting to come for the birth of their first grandchild, or something as important as that. Sometimes we're dealing with temporary foreign workers--unattached young adults who want to come as temporary foreign workers.
In both cases, the main reason we hear for the denial is insufficient ties to the home country. In other words, they don't believe they're likely to go back, or they're at least a risk, I guess, not worth taking to accept these applications. There's enough of a risk that they might not go back. Of course, the number of resources required to remove somebody and go through the entire legal process if someone decides to stay are so great that it hinders the process.
When we deal with this issue of being unable to remove people who break the rules, what we're really doing is hurting people who are willing to follow the rules, or probably willing to follow the rules through this process.
The second problem, of course, is queue jumping. In permanent resident applications, there is a backlog. If the perception is that it's easy to come here and stay and there aren't going to be efforts taken to remove somebody, I think it creates an increased incentive to jump the queue by coming here illegally, and that's a real challenge.
First off, I'll follow up on Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's question about temporary resident visas. I think I know the answer. Does the 41,000 or 63,000 people we're talking about not include people who have come here on a temporary resident visa and have simply not left after their six months?