Evidence of meeting #37 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Before that, though, it's important—
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Could you please answer? I'd like you to answer that question.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
We will answer, but we have not cut back. We have not been given cutbacks by the DM or by the government. We simply have a number of positions vacant, higher than what we would like to have. We are staffing those positions. Everywhere in the country, we have managers in staffing processes right now. What was the vacancy rate five years ago, or what will it be in two years, in five years? I don't know, but the goal is to be staffed at 100% at any point in time.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Just to comment on the growth versus inspections, first of all, growth in industry does not necessarily directly result in more inspections.
For example, there's an audit cycle for Air Canada. If Air Canada grew by 20%, we would still only do the audit in accordance with the cycle. So it's not a one-to-one relationship. Is there going to be an increased requirement under the old sample-based plan? One would say intuitively, yes.
In terms of numbers, I do not have today's numbers for the last year. What I do have is going back to 2002-03. The title of that document is Civil Aviation: Number of Entities Inspected and Audited. According to my numbers, in 2002-03, it was 10,998; 2003-04, 10,984; 2004-05, 10,591; 2005-06, 10,441; and 2006-07, 11,775. These are inspections or activities at the coalface.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Could I ask you then to table that information for the past year with the committee, please?
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
We will, whenever it's available. It's not something that's...it's just done on a fiscal year basis. But yes, it's possible.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Julian.
Just to clarify that last point, there's going to be an undertaking to provide...? Has that been clarified?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
It's the information over the number of full safety audits that have been done in the past 12 months, basically from June 1, 2007.
Liberal
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
We'll provide you with available numbers, for sure, within the next two weeks.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Mr. Chair, I want to be sure that the committee does not think we are raising any concerns about the move to safety management systems and knows that we really looked at the administration of the process.
I'd like to draw a parallel with our work in financial audit—this is really all about auditing. In the world of financial audits we moved to reviews of systems many years ago. When auditors first did the audits of the Public Accounts of Canada, way back 100 years ago, they would look at every single expenditure. Today, quite honestly, there isn't enough money in the world to have enough auditors to look at every expenditure in government. We have to look at the systems the government itself has in place to make sure the expenditures are appropriate and duly authorized.
We document the systems, we test the systems, we do spot checks, and if the system is working well, then we can use our resources to focus on higher risk, which is really what is happening in this instance. To draw a parallel, it is a more efficient way of doing it, and it is also a much better audit, because you're actually focusing where there is greater risk.
I take the example of our office. We are actually doing more work now with fewer people than we were 10 years ago, and probably we can conclude better audits, because we're really focusing on the issues of higher risk rather than looking at every single transaction.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mrs. Fraser.
That, colleagues, concludes the second round. We have a couple of motions too that the committee has to deal with.
First of all, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you very much for your attendance here today. It's an element of government that's extremely important. I believe there is in excess of 100 million Canadians and non-Canadians who get on a plane each and every year, and safety is of paramount concern to every Canadian.
Certainly the Government of Canada has had a great record, and for that I want to congratulate you and thank you for the job you've done. We've had a good hearing today, and I wish you all the best in the future.
I would now invite the Auditor General and you, Mr. Ranger, to make any closing comments you have.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Again I'd like to thank the committee for their interest in the work of the office. I look forward to seeing you again—at a hearing next week, I think.
Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
As I said earlier, I think our system will be improved as a result of this audit.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much.
We'll suspend for 30 seconds, and then we'll come back to deal with two motions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
At this point in time, I'd like to call the meeting back to order.
We have two motions to deal with, colleagues. The first is a motion on ex gratia payments, and the second issue is the report of the steering committee held on Monday.
The motion on the ex gratia payments is coming in the name of Mr. Sweet.
Mr. Sweet, that motion has been circulated. Is there anything you want to say on it?
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
No, Mr. Chair, other than that what is written is for the privacy of those people who are getting these ex gratia payments, and that it's necessary, for them to continue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Let me add to that, colleagues, that this is a matter that comes before the public accounts committee each and every year. Under our regulations, in the preparation of the Public Accounts of Canada, should a waiver not be granted by Parliament, the Treasury Board would have to include the names of all these individuals, which in some cases, such as that of the heating and fuel oil, would be logistically impossible. In some cases, such as that of the claims for hepatitis C, it would be against the public interest.
We have a motion. Is any...?
Mr. Bélanger.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you for that explanation. It helps me. I'm new at the committee and I wanted to know. Indeed, I can understand in some cases its being virtually impossible, and in some cases it may not be.
But the question I had, in order for us to do some due diligence—and I'm not suggesting this is necessarily the case here—is this. In your recollection or the clerk's, has the committee in the past invited the officials to at least discuss this matter in camera—this or preceding ones? There is, as you know, on page 3 of the letter to you from Monsieur Monette, an offer that in the case of the names that are to be withheld from publication, they would also propose to provide the names to the committee in camera on a required basis. The question that flows from that is, who determines what's “on a required basis”?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I don't know the answer to that question, Mr. Bélanger. By agreeing to this motion, this does not sanction the integrity of the process. If we have any concerns at a later date as to the integrity of the payments, or if people are getting payments that they shouldn't be getting, we certainly can delve into it. All this motion does is allows the Treasury Board, in the preparation of the financial statements, not to have to list these individuals. That's all it does. If we felt, after deliberation, that we wanted to pursue it further or ask the auditor, we could, but these are fairly well-known programs. They're being looked at and debated by other committees. Certainly the Indian residential school system is well known.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, the reason I bring it up is the following. Over decades parliamentarians have ceded ground to the executive, sometimes, sadly, by laziness, if you will. I'm not suggesting this is the case here; I just wanted to make sure it isn't. I've sat on Treasury Board, and whenever the officials were asking for authorities not to publish information, the information was provided; therefore, the determination was done in full consciousness of the information itself. This is not the case here.
The question I'm asking is a very serious one. Who determines what is “on a required basis“? If it's us, I'm fine; I'm comfortable with that. Then all I'll say is that at some point, as a committee, with some special responsibilities of due diligence, perhaps we should invoke that authority and use it so it doesn't disappear over time. If it's not us, then I might have a problem with that and test the system. I think that's part and parcel of our work, to make sure that parliamentarians don't let go of any oversight capacity over time by not exercising it. That's the reason I'm bringing this up.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I'll make a comment, and then I'll invite Mr. Williams to comment. It would be as required by us. Parliament can get anything it wants unless it's a cabinet document. This would be a list of names, which would be out there. If we wanted it, we could certainly get it, but then we'd have to make the determination when we wanted it.
Mr. Williams.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This has been around on an annual basis for quite some number of years. I can't remember the first year it came to the attention of the public accounts committee, but I made a determination that we would only grant the waiver on an annual basis. Initially they asked for a blanket waiver that they wouldn't have to do it, and I refused to provide that, which is why we're discussing this today.
The key, of course, is this. Go back to the heating fuel rebates of 2000. There would have been millions of names required to be published, each one in the Public Accounts of Canada. At that point in time I thought about perhaps having it on the website rather than having a document a mile high, because they just asked that they publish the total gross amount. The amount that's spent is reported in the Public Accounts of Canada, but the names of the beneficiaries are not there because these are grants and ex gratia payments and they are required by the Financial Administration Act to be reported individually in the public accounts.
It's only Parliament that can provide the waiver. We've given the waiver on the detail but not on the amount, and you will find it in the public accounts committee. When we talk about the heating fuel rebates, which you may recall was an emergency situation in 2000, here we are in 2008 still paying out because it was attached to your income tax return. So if you're only filing your income tax return now for the year 2000, you will qualify for a heating fuel rebate, believe it or not. That is why the numbers are still showing up on the tax return.
The merchant navy and veterans situation was different. The extraordinary assistance one for tainted blood.... Personally, I would never want to call for names there, Mr. Chairman. Having the total amount, absolutely. Agent Orange problems and the residential school system.... Again, I would be very careful about calling for names, but absolutely, the total amount has to be and must be reported in the Public Accounts of Canada.