Committees (44th Parliament, 1st Session)

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE

Thursday, March 14, 2002

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance

has the honour to table its

TWELVETH REPORT

Your Committee, to which were referred the 2001-2002 Estimates, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of March 1, 2001, examined the said estimates and herewith presents its final report.

Respectfully submitted,

Lowell Murray
Chairman

FINAL REPORT ON THE 2001-2002 ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION

As is customary the Committee held several meetings to examine various aspects of the government’s planned expenditures. In all, eight meetings were held throughout the year to examine items in both the Main Estimates and in the Supplementary Estimates. The Treasury Board appeared on four occasions, including a meeting on 30 May 2001 at which the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, President of the Treasury Board appeared. At these meetings with the Board, the President and/or her officials explained the items in the 2001-2002 Estimates, or in the Supplementary Estimates, that were of interest to the Senators.

At other meetings, the Committee examined in greater detail several aspects of the Estimates. Specifically:

§ On 24 April 2001, Mr. David Kinsman, Executive Director of the Transportation Safety Board explained the process involved in the investigation of aircraft accidents in general and with regard to Swissair Flight 111 in particular;

§ On 29 May 2001, Mr. Scott Serson, president of the Public Service Commission outlined new developments in the Public Service; and

§ On 23 October 2001, Ms. Margaret Purdy, Assistant Deputy Minister at the Department of National Defence, discussed the establishment of the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparation.

The Committee reported in three earlier interim reports: the Third Report of 22 March 2001, covered the initial meeting with the Treasury Board Officials,

the Eighth Report of 12 June 2001 covered the 30 May appearance of the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, the 24 April appearance of Mr. Kinsman, and the 29 May, appearance of Mr. Serson. The Tenth Report of 4 December 2001 reported on the discussion with the officials of the Treasury Board regarding the Supplementary Estimates “A” for 2001-2002. This Report, the Committee’s final Report on the Estimates 2001-2002, also covers the 23 October 2001 meeting with Ms Purdy, and comments about various items that continue to be of concern to the Committee.

A. The Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness

In the spring of 2000, the Committee completed a study of Canada’s emergency preparedness. Its report entitled: Examination of Canada’s Emergency and Disaster Preparedness made five recommendations. Although the Committee did not request a specific response from the government on its report, the creation of the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness (OCIPEP) presented an opportunity for the Committee to conduct follow-up discussions with federal officials.

On 23 October 2001, Ms. Margaret Purdy, Assistant Deputy Minister at the Department of National Defence, appeared before the Committee to discuss the establishment of the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparation. The Senators were able to ascertain the extent to which the recommendations of the committee were accepted and implemented. It was also an opportunity to examine the role and actions of the Office during the 11 September crisis. Ms Purdy explained the working of the new Office, particularly as to how it improves on its predecessor organization the Emergency Measure Office. OCIPEP covers a broader range of concerns, which reflects the growing importance of new types of infrastructure such as the Internet. On the whole the Senators are satisfied with the creation of the new organization.

B. Continuing Concerns

Throughout the year, the Committee has expressed its views on a number of issues that continue to remain of concern to Senators because they relate to the authority of Parliament. The following is a brief overview of those matters, which have not yet been fully addressed by the government and which will likely continue to draw the Committee’s interest in the next fiscal period.

1. Treasury Board Contingency Vote 5 Items

In the Other Place, and in the Senate, and in earlier examinations of the 2001-2002 Estimates by this Committee, questions were raised regarding the funding of initiatives through the use of the Treasury Board Contingency Vote 5. Specifically, Parliamentarians were concerned about the advancement of contingency funds to provide temporary funding for the creation of the Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology in Canada. These Supplementary Estimates “B” 2001-2002 contain two items of $25,000,000 each, in response to the ruling of the Speaker of the House of Commons on 22 November 2001. Although these items might address the original objections of parliamentarians, there continues to be concern among Senators regarding the use of Contingency Vote 5 to fund government initiatives. The Committee hopes to examine the question further with a view to recommending changes to the policy and practice of the government in the use of this Vote.

2. Foundations and Agencies

On 28 March 2001 the outgoing Auditor General, Mr. Denis Desautels appeared before this Committee and expressed his concern that government transactions were becoming less transparent. He was especially concerned that federal spending on programs lacked accountability because a number of the newer agencies and foundations operated at arms length from government and were not subject to the usual financial supervision. This includes both large agencies such as the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, and numerous small foundations that oversee relatively large budgets such as the Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology in Canada, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, etc. Senators questioned the process by which these organizations are created and operate. The Committee intends during the coming fiscal year to examine in greater detail this process of initiating new government programs that are not subject to the scrutiny of Parliament.

3. Reform of the Public Service

In February 1999, the Committee submitted a report entitled Retention and Compensation Issues in the Public Service. It drew attention to a loss of experienced managers in the government. This arose because of a growing problem of retention of government employees, and the potential for a massive loss of senior public servants who were approaching retirement age. During the last year the Committee has continued to monitor public service issues through its discussions with the President of the Public Service Commission regarding ongoing efforts by the government to retain public service employees and to attract new recruits. During these discussions Senators were concerned to learn about the abandonment in some cases of the merit principle in the selection and promotion of public servants. In particular, they are alarmed that the creation of new federal agencies such as Parks Canada, the Canada Food Inspection Agency and the Canada Custom and Revenue Agency (CCRA) removes a large number of federal employees from under the Public Service Employment Act, and away from its guiding principles. While Mr. Serson assured the Committee that the Public Service Commission has some power to review the personnel operations of these organizations, he felt it was too early to assess the situation. The Committee intends to continue to monitor this matter.

On Wednesday, 30 May 2001, the Honourable Lucienne Robillard, President of the Treasury Board appeared before the Committee and addressed several issues that deal with the management and reform of the public service. Foremost in the minds of Senators were questions concerning the introduction of measures to protect whistleblowers. Several Senators expressed a need for legislation that would contain provisions similar to those found in Bill S-6: The Public Service Whistleblowing Act, on which this Committee had reported on 28 March 2001. The Minister did not believe that legislative measures were needed at the time to protect those public servants who reveal wrongdoing in the government. However, she did believe that the current process needed reform. In the fall the government introduced a policy that claims to provide a clearer statement of ethics and values in the public service as well as a process to follow in dealing with the discovery of wrongdoing in government agencies and departments. The Committee has not yet had the opportunity to discuss this new policy with the Minister. However, the Committee will proceed with a comparison of the government’s initiative and the provisions of Bill S-6 during the coming fiscal year.