Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 13th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

And it is your opinion that the accounting officers are aware of their obligations and responsibilities under the Federal Accountability Act?

[Sheila Fraser]

I would think they should be, but I would hesitate to give you a guarantee that they are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

On the second issue, Mrs. Fraser, in paragraphs 31 and 32, dealing with the report from the Commissioner of Environment and Sustainable Development, you've made the comment, and I'll read it:

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

As well, hearings before the Public Accounts Committee often encourage government to produce action plans with detailed timelines.

I thank you for those comments. This was a very important report. It was very concerning to all members of Parliament and all Canadians.

It is a decision entirely for the committee, but, as you know, this committee deals with accountability. We deal with the expenditure of public money after the money's been spent, as opposed to the estimates, which deal with the money before it's spent. The report of the Commissioner of the Environment borders on policy or lack of action, and it really isn't purely about the expenditure of government money.

As you can see from the previous discussion, the committee is not necessarily looking for work. I just want you to elaborate on those comments.

[Sheila Fraser]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Again, that would be a decision entirely for the committee.

Mr. Hubbard, eight minutes.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

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?

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, let me answer some of the questions, please.

The cost of this audit, including all of our overhead, was about $1.4 million.

It does not include reservists. We audit management systems. We do not go out and survey and discuss with people across the country. Obviously we are aware of some of the issues. For example, the mental health care problems in Petawawa were in the newspaper. There is an example in the report about mental health care issues.

I guess I would like to ask the member why he believes this is so narrowly scoped, because it's 63,000 members in Canada.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

I would think, Madam, when you're looking at providing a service, if you don't evaluate the quality of the service in terms of the people who are being served.... Are we getting good value for the money we're spending? For example, the major concern we have with families and health care within the military is whether or not there is health care available to families as they go to different locations. When we see military people leaving the service in great numbers, and in fact we're not even maintaining our force, we have to ask why they're leaving. We're spending a tremendous amount of money on individuals, but are we treating in health care the whole...?

Probably, Mr. Chair, we can pursue this further, but I'm a bit taken aback by looking abstractly at a service and not wondering about the quality of the service.

I see you did complete a lot of surveys, but the real survey is the corporal or the master corporal or the sergeant or the lieutenant who is out there in the field, and we are spending some $8,600 a year in terms of that service. Is he getting the proper service to meet his needs?

Maybe, Mr. Chair, I'm outside the public accounts spectrum, but I think that is part of the answer we have to receive when we look at whether or not we get good value for the money we're putting into the system.

I've probably used a lot of my eight minutes already. How many are left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Four are left, Mr. Hubbard, and you wouldn't be the first one to be outside the scope either.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Maybe an answer then.

[Sheila Fraser]

Can I respond? I think it's important for the member to realize that under our act we cannot do evaluations of services. Our act specifically says we look to see if the department itself has the means to evaluate the service, which we did here, and we said they do not have the information that we would expect to be able to know.... The surveys that are referred to here are surveys that have been done by the department, not by us. So we would have expected them to have the information systems in place to know the level of care.

The other information that I think you should be aware of, and that would be perhaps a subject of discussion with the department.... The department--and this is a policy decision--says it is the member who is covered by the military health care system; the family is not, unless it affects the member. So if the member has, for example, mental health care issues that involve the family, the family will form part of that treatment. If the family has mental health care issues with a child, for example, while the parent is overseas, they are not covered. So that could be a discussion, obviously, here, but that's again a question of policy on which we cannot comment.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

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.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

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?

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, this is the cost of the audits that are done by the Office of the Auditor General. These are all audits that we do. We have a system for allocating our costs based on timekeeping. Some of the audits, you will note, will be joint audits with the private sector—those are few—but these, generally, are all audits that we are conducting, and this is an allocation of our costs.

So as to whether Parliament is receiving value for money from us, I guess, is determined through our review of plans and priorities and our departmental performance report.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

From that, would we think it could be more efficient or more competitive if we were open to bids by auditors to do the audits in those corporations?

[Sheila Fraser]

Certainly when we are joint auditors, we are very competitive with the private sector. I would say our costs are certainly no higher, because, as you are well aware, we do not have a profit element in our business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Fitzpatrick, you have up to eight minutes.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

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.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

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?

[Sheila Fraser]

I'm afraid, Mr. Chair, we really didn't look at that issue, and I'm not familiar enough with the kind of information that's captured. The agency might be able to provide more information on that, if there were a hearing on this.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Have you any idea how they do deal with a problem like that, if it's a John Smith who shows up at the border and there's a John Smith on the watch list? How in the world would they sort that out?

[Sheila Fraser]

I know only anecdotally by having seen colleagues stopped and having to go through a lot more scrutiny than other people.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I understand there is a John Williams on the watch list. Mr. Williams can verify that.

I think that's something to be cognizant of--the passport system. Maybe that's why the Americans have moved to that system as a way of dealing with those problems. We may find it very inconvenient to all have passports, but maybe at the end of the day it is the most efficient way of dealing with these issues.

The other question I wanted to deal with is that in my province of Saskatchewan there are some municipalities and cities that have brought a problem to my attention, and it's something unusual in Saskatchewan. We've had a surge of people moving into the province. It sounds as though we're almost getting to be like Alberta in Saskatchewan. It's a dangerous thing for the past government to have too many people coming in; they're better at letting them leave the province. Saskatoon is one place that I can think of that has really experienced a fairly major surge of people over the last couple of years.

The municipal authorities have indicated to me that a lot of the funding they received from senior governments, particularly provincial, is based on a per capita funding arrangement. From what I can gather, the provincial government relies on Statistics Canada information for allocating their grants and making their payments and so on. The municipalities have concerns that the data that is being provided by the census people is not up to date and accurate, and they're getting shortchanged on their funding. Is this a legitimate concern? If it is, what can be done to fix the problem?