Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 4th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

For the record, we are now being joined by Mr. Neil Maxwell, assistant auditor general.

[Neil Maxwell, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Chair.

Of the six departments, we found one that had reasonable practices to identify where things needed to be improved in terms of the evaluation function. In that instance, the sorts of practices that we saw were quite useful ones that could guide improvements in other departments. For example, these included surveys of users after the evaluation is completed, so they can determine whether the evaluation in fact met needs or not. There are several others I could elaborate on, should you wish.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Okay, thank you.

Since forming government we've put many new processes in place to ensure that we never again see the waste and mismanagement that occurred under the previous government. These include the Federal Accountability Act, the policy on management resources and results structures, and the policy on evaluation. I wanted to ask if your report, Madam Auditor General, covered any of these new processes.

[Sheila Fraser]

We only took into account the program evaluation policy in this audit of program effectiveness, and the difficulty departments are saying they may have in meeting the requirements of that policy.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I also noticed that the management accountability framework, which has been strengthened by the Treasury Board, was not covered either. Could you explain why that wasn't covered?

[Sheila Fraser]

It simply wasn't part of the scope of this audit. We had not decided to do an audit on that particular framework.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

You mention in your report the centre of excellence. Can you tell the committee what the centre is about?

[Sheila Fraser]

The centre is really a part of the Treasury Board Secretariat that should be providing guidance and expertise to the evaluation function across government. We note a number of areas where we think they need to improve their practices.

I can perhaps ask Mr. Maxwell to elaborate upon that, Chair.

[Neil Maxwell]

Yes, certainly.

We found that the centre had been monitoring developments in the evaluation community among federal departments. Our main concern was that they didn't complete many of the initiatives they had started.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Okay. In chapter 2, “Selecting Foreign Workers Under the Immigration Program”, it states: “...CIC followed a sound decision-making process in 2008 to design the Canadian Experience Class...”. Can you explain what that process was?

[Sheila Fraser]

Chair, I'll ask Mr. Flageole to respond to that.

[Richard Flageole, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Mr. Chair, we're citing this one as a good example of how programming decisions should be really supported. They did a very good analysis of the cost of that program, of the benefits, of the risk involved, and of the type of impact it can have on other streams within the immigration program. On that one, we were quite satisfied about the way the department did their policy analysis.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Also in reference to chapter 2, on immigration, less than a year into the action plan for faster immigration, which included $109 million over five years, the skilled worker backlog has fallen by 30% and new applicants are arriving faster. This is a step in the right direction. Can you comment on the administration measures that CIC has taken to reduce the inventory of applications?

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes, Chair, as was mentioned earlier, the number of job categories under which a skilled worker could come into the country has been reduced from over 300 to 38. This was introduced in November 2008 retroactive to February 2008. What effectively happened was that there is what we call a pre-February 2008 inventory. All of the applications from February 2008 were put into a new process. No applications were processed between February 2008 and December 2008, so the only processing was on the previous system. So of course the numbers went down from about 600 to about 450. Meanwhile, under the new system, all the applications were put in abeyance. So there has been an overall reduction of inventory of old and new applications of about 5%.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Regarding chapter 5, which is the delivery of vehicles, your audit found that National Defence has determined that the vehicles delivered to Afghanistan have met operational needs. I think most of our armed forces members appreciate having new vehicles, and we stand behind them. Can you comment on what would have happened if these vehicles had been delayed?

[Sheila Fraser]

I really can't comment on that, Chair. Obviously National Defence indicated that these were urgent purchases that were required to protect the armed forces in Afghanistan. We looked at four acquisitions. In three of them, National Defence and Public Works worked to get the vehicles there quickly. One project, though, was two years behind schedule and, I believe, is just starting to be delivered to Afghanistan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Saxton.

We can now start the second round.

Mr. Lee, six minutes.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Can I continue on that line on the military vehicle acquisition? These were land vehicles, were they? Do you happen to know what the fourth vehicle is or was?

[Sheila Fraser]

The fourth one that hasn't been...? Yes, it's called a light-armoured vehicle.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

They're all called LAVs. This must be a new iteration, a new model.

[Sheila Fraser]

I can give you the exact wording, with a remote weapons system.

I can perhaps ask Mr. McRoberts. I'm sure he can give you all the details.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

That's okay. We have the sense of what it was. I think we can all sympathize with the military needs. If you have forces operational in a theatre, you've got to get the stuff now or yesterday, so subject to what the additional witness may add....

I take it you're recommending DND adopt an express procedure that's transparent so everybody knows how to do it quickly if they have to do it quickly. Is that what you're proposing?

[Sheila Fraser]

That is correct. We found that obviously they did not follow their own guide and procedures for acquisitions. That process presumes things will be done sequentially. Obviously when there are urgent purchases, many of these things have to be done at the same time or certain steps are bypassed. We recognize in the audit that this is understandable in these situations, but a process should be developed for urgent purchases identifying the key steps that have to be met.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

That's a great idea, but who gets to make that decision? The last thing the generals want is a bunch of accountants outside the door as they're struggling to get their jobs done. Is it the Minister of National Defence who would say the department goes to express bus number two on this one because they have to get the equipment within 45 days? Would it be the minister or would it be...?

[Sheila Fraser]

I presume it would be officials within National Defence in conjunction with Public Works, because Public Works is of course the contracting authority for these very large purchases.