Public Accounts Committee on May 13th, 2010

[Amanda Jane Preece]

We have definitions around--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

All right. I'll have to chew on that one later too--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We'll be back to you, but you're out of time.

Mr. Saxton, for seven minutes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions will be directed to Transport Canada officials.

First, on page 3 of your departmental performance report, it is stated that the creation of the transport, infrastructure and communities portfolio “has provided an unprecedented opportunity to integrate transportation policies and infrastructure funding programs...”.

Can you give us some examples of the integrated policies and how you've benefited as a result of the integration?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

The transport and infrastructure portfolio is truly quite a large portfolio.

Let me give you one example. Infrastructure Canada is a department just like Transport Canada under the same portfolio. When the government decided to put the economic action plan in place, when the infrastructure stimulus fund got put in place, there was quite a rush all across the country, at all levels of government, to ensure that we had projects that made sense, but that could be done fast and would actually support the broad objectives.

The work that the transport department had done under the gateways and border crossings fund with partners for a number of years actually identified some gaps, for example, in the port structures and the road structures, or for bridges and repairs that need to be done, etc. So the transport department was able to give quite a lot of input into the infrastructure department in terms of setting priorities with the provinces. That would be one example.

Another example would be Marine Atlantic, which is part of our portfolio. Their activities directly connect to all of the activities we have on the transport side with regard to roads, for example.

Those would be some of the examples of the connections.

I feel we have to do better in connecting the portfolio, and not all of our portfolio is completely connected to us. For example, the Royal Canadian Mint is part of our portfolio. It's really hard to find the transportation linkages, but nevertheless we have to provide the accountability and the governance regime for the portfolio.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

So would you say that overall the department has benefited in its efficiency and effectiveness as a result of the integration?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Yes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

On page 7 of the department's report, it states that it has improved the air transportation industry's competitiveness by amending the Canada Transportation Act, concluding a new air transport agreement with the European Union, and by negotiating new or expanded bilateral agreements with five other countries.

Can you explain the nature of the new transport agreement with the EU and how that has improved the industry in Canada?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

In Canada, we are governed by the Blue Sky transportation policy. It's like free trade agreements, but in terms of aviation. We give foreign countries rights to fly into Canada and we get reciprocal rights to fly into their countries.

The European Union agreement is an important agreement for us because, as you know, the European Union has many countries, and that means our carriers can have many ports to land in, where they can carry passengers to, and important hub relationships.

It is actually a very expansive open skies kind of an agreement with the European Union. I believe that has been announced, and ratification of it by Parliament is the only outstanding thing left to do for that agreement. It depends on the country.

Some countries don't want to have open skies. They want more restricted rights, so we negotiate. For the five countries that were negotiated in those years, I don't have all of the names, but I know that Turkey was one.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you very much.

My next question is in regard to the performance reporting information. What steps are you taking to improve the performance reporting information?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

On the performance reporting information, we have tabled this action plan. It's mainly an internal action plan for our department. It basically tells you how we have been working on performance reporting.

Very importantly, the first thing we did was realign our departmental program activity architecture. That sounds technical, but basically it is a chart that says, “We're in the following businesses”. We've revised that, which is a little bit of discontinuity for Parliament but a real tool for the department, to really articulate what businesses we are in, so I think we have made good progress. This year, we have aligned all of our governance decision-making process to run ourselves based on this particular business model.

We're working on developing better performance measurements. For example, Mr. Dion asked us why we have a five-year average for road data and another kind of data for marine areas, and whether we were just picking and choosing the data. In some cases, yes, we are, partly because we are not the holders of the data.

The road data comes from the provinces and private sector organizations that govern motorists and vehicles. Aviation data comes from the airports and airlines. We basically pooled them together and then tried to find a good enough measure.

But on the safety data, for example, we're not going to choose things that make us look good. I don't think we'd take risks about Canadian lives.

It is not easy always to find good measurements. Some of these things are not going to get any better. Take the example of aviation security. If we were not in the business of aviation security, if we didn't have our programs in place, what would happen? We can't really measure that. The absence of the programming is something we can't measure.

As I think my CFO can tell you, we are basically going through a process. This year, I would say, there is going to be a better report. The year after, there is going to be a report that is way better. As for whether it is going to be ideal and answer all of the questions, it probably will not be ideal, because we have some limitations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Before we go to the second round, I want the witnesses to address one issue and it is the uses made of this report. This is not my own anecdotal evidence. It is empirical evidence from reports written. These reports get almost no readership. The media doesn't use them. Parliamentarians don't use them. The public doesn't use them.

In my own view, if they were more user-friendly, people would use them, and I think the trust would be bridged.

Mr. Smith, obviously you've read this report prepared by CCAF. Does that not concern you? Have you made any move to make these reports more user friendly? Because I've always said that any department could take 60 blank pages, put a great big staple through that, submit it and say “that's your departmental performance report”, and no one would ever notice the difference.

Has this been discussed? Is there any thinking....? Right now your reports aren't being used. Does that not bother you? Are you trying to address that?

[Alister Smith]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the question. That is a very important question indeed.

They are part of the estimates, so they are an accountability document, and it's important that they do show results from planned spending. It's very important for us to have this kind of accountability document.

Now, I apologize if the guidance we provide for these reports doesn't make them as user-friendly and readable as they should be. We should keep doing a better job of trying to make them concise, having them in plain language, and making them usable and accessible--absolutely. We keep trying to do that every year. It's a continuous improvement cycle.

At the same time, I think there is an obligation to report on the actual performance of departments against the money they've been given by Parliament. There is an irreducible amount of information that has to go into these reports to make them useful accountability documents. That does require some formatting, some formulation of results, that makes them a little bit more intimidating and challenging for the general public. We recognize that. We keep trying to make them better vehicles.

The study that CCAF did for us shows that other governments are moving in the direction of making these reports--they have similar reports--more accessible and more electronically available, with a lot more information backing up, in the electronic layer, the individual performance reports. We would like to keep improving in this direction and to look at best practices around the world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. We'll start the second round. We'll probably only get into it for one member. Then we're going to suspend. Mr. Smith and Mr. Maxwell and their associates will remain with us, but we'll replace Transport with Industry.

Monsieur Dion, vous avez cinq minutes.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I didn't know that I would have a second chance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You'll have a third chance, too, with Industry.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Okay. Maybe I should allow the department to give more explanations about the series of questions I asked.

Before that, I have a short comment. I understand that you want to improve year by year. What we tried to do today was give you ways to do it. It's not only to improve here and there; it's to change your approach. I think Mr. Christopherson mentioned that it's important that you have a buildup over the years.

For example, if we want to know if our transportation is safer in Canada, we should be able to do it in this report, and not by data that change from year to year, but through a table, where each year you add the new data you have. If you don't have any data, you cannot invent it. But you can say that this is the data you have available and it shows that, yes, our transportation is safer, and these are the programs, the measures, and the strategies you are undertaking to be sure that's the case.

On the CO₂ emissions from the auto industry, it's the same point. You should have a trajectory that shows where we are going and, year after year, we would have a report that is workable for you. So not only is it readable, but it's workable.

So where are we on this trajectory on CO₂ emissions for the auto industry?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

First of all, thank you very much to the committee. Yes, if we're going to improve it and improve it to actually be useful not only to parliamentarians, but also to us as well.... It starts with us, for the department to find it useful and to show that we're proud to show what we have done, and also that we're very realistic about what we haven't done.

On the MOU with the auto industry, I think this is the last year, 2010. The agreement is finishing this year, as much as I remember. This is an MOU that was spearheaded by Transport Canada as well as NRCan. The reason why the connections are to NRCan is that Natural Resources Canada is the one that is working with the auto industry in terms of their reporting. I will get you the details as to what the trajectory has been.

Given the downturn in the auto industry, I believe there has been an overall reduction in the CO₂ emissions, but overall in Canada regarding the impact of transportation.... Transportation is the source of two things. One of them is the greenhouse gases and 27% of that comes from transportation, but there are also huge components of the NOx/VOCs, the nitrous oxide/volatile organic compounds, the whole list.... The honourable member knows these really well.

Our performance is that that CO₂ emissions have been going up from transportation; however, particulate matter is actually on a steady decline. So this kind of improves with the technology, etc. We can get you the performance around that. But your question is well put: why don't we have these there?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I have a question about that. Your measurement of the pollution linked to automobiles, trucks, and so on—not the one on CO₂ but the other one—are they in the air that we breathe or is the pollution coming from the cars themselves in Canada? Because there is a big difference. A lot of air pollution is coming from the United States, so when we say that it's decreasing, are we taking as an indicator the actual air that we use or the pollution coming from the cars in Canada?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

It's from the cars.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

So maybe it's not the case at all. Maybe we have more and more pollution coming from the United States.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Yes, but in terms of our measuring a performance for ourselves as to.... As the transport department, we can't really control the pollution coming from the United States.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I don't dispute that. Transport Canada cannot direct what is happening in the United States. I'm just saying that this is the kind of clarification that I would want to see in the report, because it's important for me, as a Canadian, to know if we are—

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

If it's from the tailpipe.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Yes, because pollution coming from the United States over Canada will have the same effect on the health of my daughter, my friends and me. This is the kind of clarification I would like to see in another report.