Evidence of meeting #8 for Public Accounts in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was departments.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michael Ferguson  Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
John Affleck  Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Maurice Laplante  Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Wendy Loschiuk  Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Gordon Stock  Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

I now call this eighth meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to order.

Colleagues, as per our previous decision, today we are formally receiving from the House the 2013 Fall Report of the Auditor General of Canada.

May I just mention that we have officials here from Ghana and Tanzania who are on a 10-month attachment to the Office of the Auditor General under its international fellowship program. We also have an official from the Australian national audit office, who is on a one-month secondment to the OAG.

On behalf of all colleagues, I extend a welcome to all our guests. I hope you enjoy your time with us today, and in Canada.

Welcome.

I think it's worth noting, colleagues, that Canada, public accounts, and the Office of the Auditor General continue to receive a fair bit of attention, particularly from many emerging democracies as they're looking to set up their auditor general system and the public accounts piece that goes with it.

Internationally, we have been to Burma and Jamaica, working with those countries, but we've also been receiving a lot of international delegates, and I think that will continue as long as we continue to provide as close to the gold standard as possible.

In terms of the work of the Office of the Auditor General and its partnership with the public accounts committee, we will continue to be seen as a model of public accounts, accountability and transparency. We're not perfect by any means. We're still pursuing and struggling and trying to get better and better, but make no mistake that there are an awful lot of countries that are looking at the office and at this committee and saying that's where they want to get to. They want to get to this level of transparency and accountability. The work here goes beyond just the borders of our own country, colleagues.

I would also remind everyone that on Monday we will be doing committee business.

Unless there are any interventions, and I don't see any, we'll proceed with the orders of the day. For the newer members of the committee, the process is very similar to the informal meeting we held yesterday morning.

I will turn the floor over to the Auditor General. He will read his opening statement, and then we will begin the rotation in the usual fashion. We'll continue until we've exhausted the speakers list.

With that, I will now formally turn the floor over to the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Michael Ferguson.

You, sir, now have the floor.

3:30 p.m.

Michael Ferguson Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to present my Fall 2013 Report, which was tabled in the House of Commons yesterday. I am accompanied by assistant auditors general Wendy Loschiuk and Maurice Laplante, and principals Gordon Stock and John Affleck.

This report touches on a range of long-standing issues the government has been struggling to address, with potentially significant impacts for Canadians.

Rail safety is one such issue. Fourteen years ago, Transport Canada recognized the need to shift from an inspection-based oversight approach to one that integrates the oversight of safety management systems. This shift is ongoing. Much work remains to be done, and the transition is taking too long.

Transport Canada completed only 26% of its planned audits of federal railways over a three-year period. Most of these audits were narrowly focused and provided assurance on only a few aspects of railway safety management systems. The department has yet to establish an audit approach that provides a minimum level of assurance that federal railways have implemented adequate and effective safety management systems for complying on a day-to-day basis with Canada's framework for rail safety.

Our audit of Canada's food recall system showed that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency does a good job of managing most aspects of recalls. However, the weaknesses we saw in both follow-ups with industry and in large emergency recalls leave significant gaps in the system. While illnesses were contained in the recalls we examined, I'm not confident the system will always yield similar results. The weaknesses we found in decision-making and follow-up stand in the way of the continuous improvement of a system intended to deal with food safety incidents in Canada.

In this report, we also looked at how the Canada Revenue Agency followed up on a list of possible Canadian residents with accounts in a European bank. The Canada Revenue Agency's initial work on offshore banking information shows promise. However, with more lists to look at and changes in legislation that will give the agency access to more information, I believe that it needs to formalize its approach to deal with the increase in its workload.

In another audit, we looked at border controls to prevent illegal entry into Canada. It is very important for the safety of Canadians that controls at the border work as they are supposed to. I am very concerned that our audit found too many examples of controls not working.

Though the Canada Border Services Agency has made significant progress in some of its efforts to detect high risk travellers, it often does not get the information it needs to identify these travellers before they arrive in Canada. Furthermore, even when the agency has the information, we found that controls do not always work. We also found that the RCMP does not know the extent to which it is successful in intercepting people who enter the country illegally between ports of entry.

Though it is not the first time we have raised these issues, border controls are still not working as they should. With better analysis of existing information and better monitoring, many of these issues can be fixed.

Our audit of disaster assistance to agricultural producers is an example of a program with a disconnect between the program's objectives and its outcomes.

Providing quick assistance to agricultural producers is a key goal of the AgriRecovery program. While Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has delivered assistance to producers for large disasters within their targeted timeline, those producers impacted by disasters with a smaller total payout often wait more than a year for financial help.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada needs to streamline its processes for smaller initiatives, and it must track whether it is meeting its timelines.

Let's now move on to our audit of online government services. We found that, since 2005, the government has not significantly expanded the services it offers online to its citizens. As Canadians rely more on the Internet in their day-to-day lives, they expect the government to provide them with online information and services that address their needs.

The government has estimated that savings can be realized by providing better online services for Canadians, but there needs to be a concerted client-focussed strategy. Departments need to work together to make this happen.

Our audit of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada's role in supporting emergency management on first nations reserves showed that the department is in a cycle of reacting to emergencies. It has not been able to focus on what can be done to prevent and mitigate these events.

Some reserves continue to be adversely affected in significant ways by repeated emergencies, such as floods. These difficulties are compounded by the fact that the respective roles and responsibilities of the federal government and other stakeholders are unclear. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada must work with other stakeholders, including first nations, to reduce the human and financial costs of emergencies over the long term.

We also followed up on our audit of internal controls over financial reporting. Eight years after the government made it a priority to have in place effective internal controls over financial reporting, I am concerned that several large departments are still years away from knowing whether these controls are in place and working effectively. With annual spending of nearly $300 billion across government, effective internal controls are a necessary part of safeguarding public assets. It is imperative that departments get this work done without further delay.

This report also looked at the national shipbuilding procurement strategy, specifically whether it has been designed and managed to help sustain Canadian shipbuilding capacity and capability over the coming decades. It's still early, but so far the strategy has resulted in the transparent and efficient selection of two yards to build ships for the navy and the coast guard.

Although only a few contracts have signed to date, and it will be a few years before any ships are delivered, the national shipbuilding procurement strategy shows promise. As with anything new, there are risks involved, and these will need to be closely monitored on an ongoing basis.

A look over the audits that we are reporting on today shows that, in many cases, the results need to be improved. Even when the government recognizes a problem, it takes too long to develop and implement solutions. The resulting delays can have significant impacts on Canadians, both directly and indirectly.

Departments need to focus on critical success factors that are proven to work. These include setting clear priorities, applying lessons learned, and monitoring deliverables against timelines and objectives.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening statement.

We are happy to answer any questions the members may have. Thank you.

3:40 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

Thank you, Mr. Ferguson.

Colleagues, we'll now begin questions and comments in the usual fashion, beginning with Mr. Albas.

You have the floor, sir.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the Auditor General for being here today along with his staff. Obviously, it is a very important function to make sure that Canadians are getting value for money. I certainly look forward to working with you during my time on this committee.

I'd like to start with chapter 1 of your report. Specifically, I want to understand not just the recommendations, but also the problems that are at hand.

First of all, it's my understanding that the Treasury Board policy on internal control was implemented back in 2009. To me, it sounds as if the purpose was to shift the department's focus from audited financial statements to mandatory annual public disclosure of their risk-based assessment of controls over financial reporting and their planned improvements. It's moving from that. It sounds to me as if they're moving from just keeping the numbers, tracking the numbers, to keeping an eye on other priorities such as inventories, liabilities, etc.

Could you explain a little bit more what that shift is?

3:40 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

The internal control systems are important for many different reasons. They are there to help protect the government's assets. They are there to make sure that all of the revenue that the government is owed is collected and recorded. They are there to make sure that expenses are authorized.

Financial internal controls are not just about producing statements. They are about many other things, such as protecting government assets.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Thank you for that.

Your report in paragraph 1.7 states:

While the departments had made some progress toward completing their annual risk-based assessments, none of the departments had fully assessed their internal controls for financial reporting.

I'm bearing in mind that this particular committee takes a non-partisan approach. We're not about the policy per se; we're about value for money. I was disappointed to hear that there was an illusion that none of the seven departments had made improvements, but it sounds to me as if two particular departments made some significant progress. Is that accurate?

3:45 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

We found that two of the departments involved in this audit, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Department of Finance, completed all of the work necessary to put in place their system of internal control, assess that system of internal control, determine if there are any gaps in it, address those gaps, and put in place a monitoring system. Two of the departments we looked at had completed the work we expected them to have completed.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

So assertions in this chapter stating that the departments do not have controls over spending are not necessarily accurate. What we're talking about is transitioning to a higher level of accuracy and control from a system where they only monitored through statements. I also believe that it has to do with accountability, as in the Comptroller General's overall position in helping guide departments to comply with the policy.

I think that's another issue you've taken up with the departments. Is that correct?

3:45 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

Again, it's important for the departments to put in place these systems of controls. I think that's been a priority for a while now, to make sure there are good systems of controls in place. Certainly, there is a role there for the Comptroller General's office as well to encourage these departments to get the internal controls in place.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Because the policy itself didn't actually set deadlines, is it a fair characterization to say that your office, the Office of the Auditor General, and the Comptroller General's office disagreed with the notion that the Comptroller General, as part of the central agency oversight, would have more of an active role in trying to bring those departments into compliance? Is that correct?

3:45 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

One of the things we noted—and I think it's in the table that's in the chapter—was there were at least two departments that told us they were going to have this work done by the end of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013. There were three departments that told us that, and in this audit we found that two of them didn't have it done. That was a concern for us.

Also, yes, we spent a lot of time discussing with the Comptroller General's office what their role is and, I guess, what activities they undertake to encourage these departments to put their systems of internal controls in, assess them, and make sure they have monitoring processes in place.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

Your time has expired, Mr. Albas. Thank you.

Moving along to Mr. Allen, you now have the floor, sir.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the Auditor General and the department for coming.

I have a quick question regarding chapter 1. My friend across the way has been talking about that.

In your comments I think you stated that this actually is not a new audit of a similar situation, but an audit was done of this some time ago and the government committed to making immediate changes on how they do this. Is that a fair summary of what the last one said? I don't have it in front of me today, obviously. I don't think you do either, Mr. Ferguson, but it seems the gist of it was that this was done before and somehow it was going to get fixed, and it's still not fixed.

3:45 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

This audit was a follow-up audit of an audit we had completed in 2011. The reason we came back and looked at it again so quickly in 2013 was that some of the departments told us they were going to be finished in 2013.

I think it's clear in the chapter that other than for the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Department of Finance—and I want to be clear that for those two departments, we judged their performance to be satisfactory—the other departments we looked at, as well as the role of Treasury Board, we judged the progress that had been made since the last time we did the audit was unsatisfactory.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

I guess I would use the term.... I won't ask you to comment, but you can comment if you would like to, of course, Mr. Ferguson. I always love it when you comment.

It would seem when you did the audit the government made a commitment to complete something. You went back and checked, because they said they would do it quickly, and what you found in this particular case is that a couple of departments managed to make it, and a whole pile of them didn't get there at all.

I don't know if you want to comment on that. It's more of a comment from me. I recognize that's not a direct question.

3:50 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

Again, I think the summary of the audit was.... It was a follow-up audit. When we're doing a follow-up audit, what we are looking at is what departments have told us in the past, and whether they have done what they said they were going to do. Then it's very clear in a follow-up audit. We look at what they have done, and we judge it to be either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. I think our determination is very clear throughout the chapter.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Thank you for that.

I will switch now to chapter 4, which is on food safety. In chapter 4 of your report, at paragraph 4.57, you reference the Weatherill report, which obviously folks in your department looked at during this audit process, because it talked about what things they were supposed to do with respect to the Weatherill report. By the way, this individual, a lady by the name of Sheila Weatherill, was hired by the Conservative government. In 2009 she did a study of the listeriosis crisis of 2008. I happened to be part of the subcommittee on listeriosis, not part of the Weatherill report, so there were two reports at once.

Ms. Weatherill made a comprehensive number of recommendations, of which you are kind of talking about one. It's the ICS, which is basically on emergency management. My understanding of this—and I don't know whether this became part of your documents—is the government actually said it had completed all of the Weatherill report's recommendations. They were all complete. If that was true, then how could the ICS still be in draft form, untested from 2004?

3:50 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

We didn't do an audit specifically looking at the government's response to the Weatherill report.

To go back to the last chapter, we weren't following up on those recommendations and what the government said it was going to do, but certainly, when we were doing this audit, there were some components of what came out of the Weatherill report that were in the same areas that we were looking at, and in those areas, we made comments about what we found. However, we didn't go back and do a direct comparison to necessarily what had been said in the response to that report.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Fair enough. I wasn't sure. I didn't actually see that but I wanted to find out if that was true. All I can say is the agriculture critic said at the agriculture committee, “the minister told me they were all complete”. You don't have the documentation in front of you, so it's unfair to put you in that particular spot. That's information I actually know.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

A quick question please.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

The piece I want to get to, the ICS piece, is especially around last fall's XL Foods crisis. It seems to me that the left hand, if you will, didn't know what the right hand was doing when it came to management of that crisis from a perspective of who was supposed to do what. Is that a fair summary in layman's terms, if you will?

3:50 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

I will ask Mr. Affleck to give us a bit more comment on it, but in general, again I think it's important to remember that in the XL Foods situation the number of illnesses was contained. We did find, though, that there was some confusion about roles and responsibilities and who was making decisions.

Mr. Chair, I'll turn it over to Mr. Affleck. He has more details.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

Keep it tight please, if you can.

3:55 p.m.

John Affleck Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Yes, okay. Thank you, Mr. Allen, for the question.

The confusion surrounded basically two areas. When the ICS was created, it created new governance structures, so it wasn't clear to a number of people who was making the decisions and what government mechanisms were in place. Also, the functional plan was still in draft and it wasn't communicated nor well understood by everybody in the agency.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

Great, thank you. Time has expired.

We'll now go to Mr. Hayes, who now has the floor.