Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 14th, 2007

[Sheila Fraser]

Unfortunately, I don't have the sample details, but we could send them to the committee. For the moment, I can tell you how we arrived at that conclusion.

The biggest problem, especially in relation to advertising contracts but also with public opinion research contracts, was the way the contracts were awarded. You can see here in the audit that contract tendering rules and policy were followed in 2004-2005 advertising campaigns, and also through to August 2006. Moreover, tendering was carried out in a fair and transparent manner.

Yes, we did observe that officials failed to submit public opinion research work plan descriptions to Public Works and Government Services Canada prior to starting work. The main reason for this approach is that there is a group of experts at Public Works who can coordinate and improve the quality of research especially when more than one department is involved.

We deemed that this was indeed a weakness, but that the rating "satisfactory" was still warranted.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mention was made of a need to inform Public Works and Government Services Canada ahead of time for certain types of research activities. My question may seem similar to one I've already asked you, but I would like to know whether, in those cases when new guidelines were not complied with, it had to do with the same type of research. Is there a relationship between these contracts?

[Sheila Fraser]

Contracts were granted according to the rules. The fact that projects were not submitted to Public Works and that there was no coordination with other departments is the problem.

It may be a matter of effectiveness. Moreover, it would have been possible, in theory, to improve the nature of the research in that a panel of experts could have asked questions and indicated that research had to be carried out in a different way.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

In the highlights of the chapter on Human Resources and Social Development Canada, you refer to the lack of leadership as being one of the main causes for the slow pace of things.

Conversely, would you say that after having repeated for the fourth time that there was a problem with the social insurance register, that this is clear evidence of a lack of leadership? Is there a lack of political will? Are people poorly organized or poorly equipped?

It seems to make no sense to me, specifically when you've raised it on four occasions. I really relate that to a lack of leadership. You stated that things go very well when there is leadership and, conversely, when things don't go well—It begs the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That was your final question.

[Sheila Fraser]

We did not try to uncover the reasons why there has not been more progress made with respect to the register. In terms of the policy, for instance, officials told us that it really was a matter of priorities. The team had to work on other issues, and the policy on the use of social insurance numbers was a lesser priority.

I think it would be good to discuss this matter with departmental officials, in other words to say that you may want to know how they establish their priorities and the reasons for this slowness.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Laforest.

Mr. Sweet, you have seven minutes.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Madam Fraser.

First I want to go paragraph 6.63 on page 23. Regarding the six million cardholders from whom no identification was required prior to 1976, do you know of any ongoing activities in the department right now to upgrade or verify this data? Did you notice this when you did your audit?

[Sheila Fraser]

Perhaps I could ask my colleague, Ms. Cheng, to respond to that.

Obviously we've noticed that there has been a decrease in the number of social insurance numbers issued prior to 1976, as we noted in the report. The department does have plans to validate them.

Perhaps Ms. Cheng can give more information on that.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

That's the other follow-up question I want to ask.

What is that decrease from? Was it mortality? How do we arrive at two million less?

[Nancy Cheng, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, in terms of the 6.4 million that remain, we are not aware of any particular initiative to reduce that. In reality, most of the effort taken was in trying to reduce the gap between the population over 30 years old and the actual number of active social insurance numbers in the registry.

In the case of the 6.4 million, it becomes a question of time. As Madame Fraser pointed out, these are people who received their cards prior to 1976, when there was no requirement for certification. So over time, that population decreases. Basically there is no activity to aim specifically at that. That's why we were concerned about the quality of the entire database.

They have done specific work on components of the database but haven't sort of looked at it overall to say, is this good enough to support the various social and other government programs that use the accounts?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

But to be clear for my questioning, when we follow up with the department, you're saying that they're simply waiting for this number to diminish naturally. There's no active verification of the data; there's no team phoning to try to verify the source documents that legitimize these SIN numbers.

[Nancy Cheng]

Mr. Chairman, I should point out the fact that they are pursuing the route of vital events statistics with various provinces. That can help to validate the data on a broader basis and not necessarily just aim at the 6.4 million. So there are other ongoing initiatives to try to provide better data quality in the register, but not specifically aimed at the 6.4 million.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I want to be precise. It's a big issue, as far as personal privacy and national security go.

In paragraph 6.27 on page 13, you also mentioned that there was unauthorized use in three departments.

Was this audit on the SIN also finished in August?

[Sheila Fraser]

I believe this one was finished in August, yes.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

So right up until then this program was still operating without authorization?

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

That's not good.

Page 12—

[Sheila Fraser]

I would just add that these programs we looked at were programs that had been noted in a previous audit report. Two have been authorized since and the third one has not been.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Okay, thank you.

Paragraph 6.23 extends over page 11 and page 12. You mentioned that the department had decided in one case that there was a data matching policy in one area and yet in another area, with old age security, they decided there wasn't. Did you ask them at the time of the audit how they drew this conclusion?

[Sheila Fraser]

This points to the inconsistency in the application of the policy and to the fact that the policy is not clear. The whole issue of whether it is considered a matching or not goes into the steps they have to take under privacy legislation. If there's confusion in the departments about how this is to be applied, this is one of the reasons we're saying the policy really needs to be updated. I don't know that we actually explored with them why they treated it that way; we just noted that there was an inconsistent application.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

So there was no further questioning on the discretion of why they did that.

[Sheila Fraser]

No.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Lastly, on page 11, 6.22 says, “The Secretariat informed us that progress in updating the policy framework was delayed in 2004 to address other pressing policy issues.” Again, I have a really hard time in thinking what would be more pressing than security and privacy. Did they indicate what these more pressing issues were?