Evidence of meeting #162 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pco.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
February 25th, 2019 / 5:15 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I wanted to return to a kind of technical question about how the amount in the interim estimates is arrived at. It's not any kind of “gotcha” mission, but we have had a pretty watershed change in the parliamentary process for approval of funds in the last year or so.
Normally, the way it had been done under what was called “interim supply” was that you would take a fraction of the projected budget for the next year and then have that approved as interim supply. In June 2017, changes were made to the Standing Orders and we changed the name from “interim supply” to “interim estimates”. I'm just reading from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which says that those estimates will be based on a fraction of the current year's estimates, rather than a fraction of the upcoming main estimates, and will be tabled in the supply period ending March 26.
I'm wondering about the nature of the communication that came from Treasury Board to your organization to notify you of that change, that interim estimates would be calculated on a different basis than interim supply. I recognize that you may not be prepared to answer that question. If you have an answer now, that would be great. If you don't, I'm wondering if you could share with the committee any communication to that effect from Treasury Board or from government generally; and if there was no such communication, if you could write the committee just to confirm that's the case.
I'll be happy to start with Monsieur Trottier.
5:15 p.m.
Manager, Financial Services, and Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
I don't necessarily remember exactly the communication with TBS. Basically, to my recollection, it's always a third of the expected main estimates of the year. The wording might change. I don't necessarily think that the specific way we do it changed. It's similar to last year. It was a third of the main estimates of 2017-18.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
So what's changed for us for sure, which is consistent with the language of the House procedure and practice book, is that typically, interim supply, under the old system, would be tabled at the same time as the main estimates for the following year. Then we would know what you're asking for, for the entire year. Then we'd see the fraction.
Because the interim estimates now come before the main estimates—
5:20 p.m.
Manager, Financial Services, and Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Yes, the timing change.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
—the idea is that those would be based on the previous year's estimates as a percentage, because otherwise we're essentially finding out under the interim estimates process what you're going to ask for in the main estimates. That's privileged information until it's tabled in Parliament and we end up in a situation.... And you're not alone in that. The Privy Council Office was telling us the same thing earlier today. We're actually finding out what the Privy Council Office intends to ask for in the main estimates even though those haven't been tabled and we haven't seen them.
I'm just interested to know what the internal communication process within government is to ensure that different agencies, commissions and departments are on the same page with the—
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Unfortunately, since we're out of time, I would ask you to provide that information to the committee through the clerk in a written submission. The committee members and I would appreciate that.
Colleagues, we do not have enough time left for even a partial round of questions. I'm going to invoke the right of the chair to ask a question.
I do this sparingly, as I think people know, but it's a very personal one to me, Madam Fox. If you could help me out, I would appreciate it greatly.
A couple of years ago I lost a very good friend and former parliamentarian. I'm sure Jim Prentice was a friend to many people around this table. He and his father-in-law died coming back on a small aircraft from British Columbia. It has always been my suspicion, and I think the suspicion of many, that something happened to the pilot, either a massive heart attack or a stroke, something that caused him to lose control of the aircraft—although we've not been able to verify that.
My question is this. I believe, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that some rules and regulations have changed since that time. Even small aircraft, such as the one he was in, now require two pilots. Question number one: is that true? Secondly, did your agency make any recommendations in light of that accident?
5:20 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
We did investigate that accident. We released our final report last April, I believe. We indicated that we believed the pilot was subject to spatial disorientation. At the time the accident happened, he had not done the required number of takeoffs and landings at night to be able to carry passengers, so his lack of recent night-time flying in instrument-challenging conditions, we believe, led to spatial disorientation.
We did make a recommendation from of that, but it had to do with the carriage of flight data recorders and voice recorders for corporate aircraft. That aircraft was not being operated commercially. It was being operated under a private operator's certificate issued by Transport Canada. That company had not been inspected by Transport Canada since it had started operations. We made the recommendation about recorders. I'm not aware if they made any change with respect to having a requirement for two pilots. That airplane was certified to be flown by one pilot, although this company didn't have permission to operate it with one pilot.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
I have a follow-up question if I may. In your opinion, do you think it would be a worthwhile change for Transport Canada to regulate that even small aircraft require two pilots? I understand the implications of that cost-wise and otherwise, but I'm just wondering if, in your personal opinion, you think that might be a positive step.
5:20 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
It really depends on the type of aircraft. The Citation that was being operated that night is a fairly sophisticated aircraft. It's a jet, but it has been approved for single-pilot operation. On that particular night, the company didn't have permission to operate it with two pilots. It should in fact have been operated with two pilots.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you very much. I appreciate that greatly.
Colleagues, we will now adjourn, and I thank all of our witnesses for your testimony here today. Once again, should you have additional information you think would be of benefit to our committee, please submit it in writing to our clerk.
We are adjourned.