Thank you, Mr. Chair.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
