Public Accounts Committee on May 27th, 2008

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci, Monsieur Lussier.

Mr. Lake, four minutes.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

When I think about the issue we're talking about today, I think about some of my constituents. And on the consular services side of things, I think about balance. I have low- to middle-income constituents who could never afford to travel outside the country, and if the fees aren't high enough, I guess those people are, through their taxes, subsidizing other people's luxuries, in a sense. On the other hand, if the fees are too high you have people overpaying for their services, and money being used for other departmental priorities.

I think we need only look at what happened with EI to see how that works. You have $54 billion collected under one premise, but then being spent on other priorities--the gun registry, or who knows what in HRDC or whatever the case may be. So it's about accountability.

I'm following up on what Mr. Fitzpatrick was talking about. Should there be some sort of rate-setting mechanism, obviously simplier than EI, within each department to ensure that not too much money is collected? This would be more in the long term, as opposed to looking at it dollar for dollar--maybe in a little bit of a broader timeframe such as one, two, three years, that kind of thing. Has that been looked into at all?

Mr. Monette, you're nodding. Maybe you can answer that.

[Rodney Monette]

Yes. In fact Mr. Rigby and I chatted about this the other day. One of the things we need to look at in terms of our best practices is should we have some sort of a calculation that looks at maybe three years or four years for some of these organizations? You might have some minor fluctuations over a couple of years, but you don't want to be adjusting it every time you have a minor fluctuation, so do you average it over three or four years and make an adjustment then? I don't mean to put words in my colleague's mouth, but that was something we talked about that we need to look at in Mr. Rigby's department, for example. So, yes, I think that would be an important tool to have a look at.

[Stephen Rigby]

I agree with that. We did indeed talk about it.

As I said earlier, when we made our original erroneous calculations showing us in a deficit position over three years, we did not move to increase the fee because we wanted to see whether or not there was a reasonable trend. I think a conversation that led to a little more clarity for departments in terms of what that time period should be, and what sort of normal versus extraordinary costs should be included in the calculation, would probably be quite helpful.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Monette, Mr. Williams was asking questions about accountability, whose responsibility is what here. It seems to me that obviously the individual departments have to take responsibility for setting these mechanisms, whatever they might be, because each circumstance is unique to the department. But I would think that you do have a role to play, obviously, in terms of best practices, in terms of monitoring, to ensure there is something in place for each of these departments. You would agree with that?

[Rodney Monette]

Yes, absolutely.

I know there are experts in this room who are more expert on the accounting officer issue than I am, but it seems to me the deputy ministers or the accounting officers have to make sure their departments have the system, and so forth, in place. But the Comptroller General has to make sure the proper tools are available for them to use, and in terms of looking at an issue across government, to make sure that's understood and there's visibility there, so there's some monitoring and oversight, so if something isn't working across a number of departments, that it's getting some visibility, absolutely.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

In terms of the shortcomings up to this point, it would be fair to say there are shortcomings with departments themselves in not having the systems in some cases, but I guess the shortcomings for your office would be that you weren't aware of that. You should have been aware of that and helped guide them and demand that they have better systems in place.

[Rodney Monette]

I think we need to ramp up our oversight somewhat and make sure we're getting the right people together. Just getting the chief financial officers together and saying this is something we want to work on has a pretty big impact. I agree that we can do more, absolutely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Mr. Christopherson, four minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

My first question builds on the point Mr. Lake was making. You talked about tools just now. My question is around the guide to costing, and I believe that in the AG report on page 27, 1.91, in response to the report, you noted, sir, that you released one in March 2008 and you're going to do an update in March 2009.

Given that the problem is lack of uniformity of applying the rules and the law the way they should be—you have all these different entities doing it differently—in making sure you have the tools, and giving the entity the tools, why would you limit it and leave it as a guide? Why would Treasury Board Secretariat not impose a policy, a directive, something that says they should do it this way? But instead you leave it as a guide, which then leaves the regime and the schemes to be different once again from place to place. Why not make it very clear as to what they do, that you don't want to see it done any other way. Then everybody is on the same page over a short period of time.

[Rodney Monette]

Thank you for that question, Mr. Christopherson.

I think at some point we may need to look at whether we need more policy here, but my general experience in departments, having been a chief financial officer in a few of them, is that there usually are a number of differences among departments, and you need to look at how these things apply a little bit differently.

My first instinct on these kinds of things—and we are trying to do our best to limit the number of new policies we're generating, just because there are so many policies out there—is to put out a guide, work with the chief financial officers, sit down and talk about these issues, talk with their staffs, and see if we can work it through. If that doesn't work, I think you need to say that people aren't paying attention and then you need to have a policy. My initial instinct is try to avoid a policy as the first measure.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm curious, then. Being from the Treasury Board Secretariat, with all the things you're left to coordinate, I'm just surprised that you would take that approach—“let's try this”—a minimalist sort of approach. I understand not wanting to inundate the books with policies—Lord knows, we have policy enough—but given that the alarm has already been raised and we're already into fix-it mode, into repair, into damage control, all those kinds of things, why go halfway; why leave the risk that we're going to have to re-visit this? It seems to me that in a repair job you go a bit further, trying to head off the next repair job too.

[Rodney Monette]

It may be that a guide isn't sufficient. I guess all I can say, Mr. Christopherson, is that at this point my instincts are that the most important thing is actually to work with these people, sit down with them eye to eye.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I guess time will tell, won't it? When the AG goes back, we'll find out whether this was the right approach or whether we lost a little bit of time.

The last question, because we only have a few minutes, will be to Mr. Rigby, and it's an easy one. I just need a quick civics lesson. What is what you refer to on page 2 of your opening remarks as the “Vienna Convention on Consular Relations”?

[Stephen Rigby]

I will defer to a man more expert than I: Mr. Crosbie.

[William Crosbie]

It's the only international multilateral framework to govern consular relations. It was negotiated and agreed in 1963. It's the primary legal document that governments use to provide consular services and it has in it, for example, the clear obligation to allow you to provide consular services to your citizens and to notify the foreign government when a citizen is—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

So this is more about the host country and what they are willing to allow for, for example from our Canadian embassy, as opposed to stating “all governments shall provide x services” to their expats.

[William Crosbie]

It works both ways. It applies to governments that are the recipients of foreigners and to governments that are trying to provide services to their citizens in another country. But it's very thin in terms of the level of obligation.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll bet.

Thank you, Chair, very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Bélanger, you have four minutes.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to continue where I was a moment ago.

Given that 216 of 220 fees that have been looked at have not been increased since 2004 when the act came into effect, I'd be curious to know whether there is an opinion—and I don't need it today—from the Auditor General as to the reason. Is it because the act is too cumbersome, too complex? Or is it because there was initially—and I recall this was a private member's bill, not a government-generated bill—still a built-in resistance to having Parliament issue directives through legislation, which is its mandate, its authority.

I join my colleague Mr. Cullen, who was talking a bit of an affront to Parliament here. I would like an opinion, if there's one to be had, from the Auditor General on that, because it's been four years, going on five. That's on the increase side.

Then, I must admit I'm very surprised that it's you, Mr. Monette, who is here today for Treasury Board. I must admit that I had a different conception of the role of the Comptroller General of Canada from one of your sitting here organizing or setting policy—or at least, if not policy, then methods and best measures and so forth—for fee collection. I've always thought or conceived of the comptroller general function as one that oversees spending and that comes into play where any new spending has to be authorized, as opposed to only involving collection on the fee side. I want to put that on the record. I may have a misconception of the role of the Comptroller General's Office.

I'm sorry, though, that there isn't someone here from the Treasury Board Secretariat, which I don't think you represent—and if it's the case that you do, then really I think we have to explore the conception and the role and the reporting mechanisms and so forth—who can talk about the fact that over four years nothing has been done.

All of what you've said, Monsieur Monette---

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

He wasn't the Comptroller General.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Well, he was the assistant comptroller, Mr. Williams; it falls in the same category.

When I read your Treasury Board Secretariat action plan, I see that firstly in March 2008—I suspect that's because the Auditor General had started to look into this—and secondly, by November of 2008, you'll provide this. And then, by March of 2009....

That tells me that essentially nothing has been done. Do you want to comment on that?

[Rodney Monette]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Bélanger.

In terms of role, one of the things the Comptroller General has to do is make sure there are proper financial systems and so forth in place. Looking at costing and at whether or not you're collecting performance data and performance information is something the Comptroller General should do. In having me here, I think there is a recognition that a lot of this issue has to do with whether or not we're getting the right costs or whether the system is producing this information. Then, are people taking it; are they reporting on it properly? Are they being held accountable for it? I think that's a part of what the Comptroller General does.

In terms of the last couple of years, I asked our colleagues at Parks Canada, because they've gone through the system, how long it took them to prepare their submission and go through the consultation and so forth. They told me that it took over a year. I'm told that for others who have gone through the system, it takes one year to two. I've also asked how many of these proposals are lined up, getting ready to go through the system. I'm told there are more than 20, which led me to the conclusion that a number aren't actually taking this seriously and getting ready to go through.