Agriculture Committee on Nov. 6th, 2012

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Has an audit ever been undertaken?

[Neil Bouwer]

Mr. Chair, if I may, the CFIA is subject to regular audits that are both internal to the government and also external. The agency is audited as a matter of course by international partners—various programs at various times. In addition to that, we have our own internal audit functions within the agency. We are also, like other agencies of government, subject to oversight by the Auditor General who chooses to audit agency operations from time to time. Those are, in the main, financial audits.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

When was the last time the Auditor General did an audit of the CFIA?

[Neil Bouwer]

I would have to check, Mr. Chair, on the exact date, but I can tell you and the member that these are ongoing in fact. There have been audits as recently as this calendar year.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

By the Auditor General?

[Neil Bouwer]

By the Auditor General, yes.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

What does he audit in this case?

[Neil Bouwer]

In short, Mr. Chair, the Auditor General has the discretion to choose what part of the agency's operation he audits. He will choose, based on his own priorities, different areas of the agency.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Has there ever been a comprehensive system-wide audit of the CFIA by the Auditor General: system-wide, all resources, human resources, financial resources, the adequacy of the CVS, and the deployment of all of its programs?

[Neil Bouwer]

Mr. Chair, the Auditor General focuses on performance audits and audits for financial comptrollership. It does not generally undertake resource audits of the nature I think you're suggesting. The scope of the Auditor General's activities are laid out in legislation that guides the Auditor General. I think some of the things you are alluding to fall outside the scope of the Auditor General.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Very briefly, just before I get started, I want to pass on my appreciation to the opposition members for the goodwill they've shown around working with this piece of legislation.

In fact, Mr. Chair, may I suggest we have the fireplace on more often? It seems to bring out a lot of goodwill.

I think what you're going to see here in any of these amendments isn't necessarily that we will agree or disagree on the theory behind them or on the wording and implications. Even when you look at this last amendment, I think if you talk to CFIA, their process review is ongoing. If you were to do a benchmark at this point in time and go five years ahead from now and look back, you would see that the system is totally different. They're always changing, always in flux, always in motion. There are always new best practices coming into play, depending on the sector. So doing a benchmark right now would really be a waste of time in a lot of cases.

I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Valeriote.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, this is my last crack at this and I've got to ask you. The former president of the CFIA, Carole Swan, was asked that very question about an audit versus a survey back in 2010. It was not ruled out of order at committee, and yet now it's ruled out of order. Can you explain to me the discrepancy, why it would be a question in order then and now it's out of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I can't make comments on previous decisions. But I know that when you ask a government employee an opinion, you're out of order.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Any other comments?

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

To my good friend, Mr. Hoback, yes, of course, systems evolve and change.

The only way to measure if they've changed is to know where you started. It's like my saying that I'm going to drive to Edmonton, but I don't know where I am. I don't know whether I should go north, south, east, or west. I could be in Yellowknife or I could be in St. John's, Newfoundland. But I'm going to Edmonton and I'm going to get there. I might drive all the way around the world to get there because I went in the wrong direction; I ran into the ocean and said, “Ooh, now what?”

The idea of benchmarking—and everyone in every organization understands the term. The only way to know where you're headed is to know where you’ve started. If you don't, you could go in the wrong direction or you could go in the right direction. But you still don't know if you're headed in the right direction because you didn't know where you started. That's the idea.

Mr. Bouwer, you're absolutely right. Internally, this stuff goes on all the time. You're absolutely correct about the AG, by the way. I sit at public accounts. Your description of the AG is bang on. Consequently, we didn't ask for the Auditor General in this amendment because it was too limiting, quite frankly. Mr. Ferguson isn't mentioned in our amendment because of the limitations he has under statute to review, and the fact, as Mr. Lemieux, correctly pointed out, that we cannot tell him what he must do. We certainly can request something of him. He can take that under advisement and make a decision, yes or no. Right? It's the same thing we do at the public accounts committee; we can make suggestions to the Auditor General if we choose to and write reports back that say we would like to see something at some point from whomever. That's how it works.

As I say, if you're on your way to Edmonton, great city that it is—I was there last weekend. I knew that when I left Toronto, my starting point, I was flying west. I had a starting point to leave from. This is why you folks need to have a starting point. Otherwise, when you get to your destination in five years, you'll try to figure out what the next destination is and it'll take you 10 years to figure out how much it’s actually changed.

Mr. Bouwer, to your point that you do the internal thing, let's hope you do one of those really big internal pieces that gives you your benchmark that you absolutely need to go forward with. Otherwise, the question will remain an open question on CVS and the resources for it, on a continual basis, which does not need to be. I stress that: it does not need to be.

You can plug this hole once and for all by doing this. Then it's done and you will not have to continue to answer through the government—because they are the ones who will get the questions: how many do you have, how many do you need? We will do the dance of, “We have 700 brand-new.” “Yes, but they're out in the field, looking for pests.” “No, they're not.” “Yes, they are.”

We can fix this with this amendment and then it's done. I welcome the government's opportunity to help us fix that.

I'm going to end there, Chair, because I understand the bells will ring soon and I know you want to get to the naming of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Seeing no other comments, shall NDP amendment 11 on clause 68 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 68 agreed to)

(Clauses 69 to 110 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 111—Order in council)

We have Liberal amendment 4.

Mr. Valeriote, go ahead.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I raise this again. When you look at clause 68, it says, “Five years after the coming into force of this section”. Clause 111 says, “This Act, except sections 73, 94, 109 and 110, comes into force on a day to be fixed by an order of the Governor in Council.” I added clause 68 so that it too would come into force to be fixed by an order of the Governor in Council.

Could you explain the difference between the coming into force as cited in clause 68, as opposed to in clause 111, on a day to be fixed by an order of the Governor in Council? I want to make sure that clause 68 comes into effect immediately so that the five years will start to count down immediately from now.

I'm not sure who will answer that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bouwer.

[Neil Bouwer]

Mr. Chair, just to clarify that, as drafted, the resource review provision would....the clock would begin ticking upon coming into force of the act. Therefore, if there was, for example, a delay of six months, in terms of coming into force, the clock would begin six months hence.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Can you see any reason why it wouldn't come into force now? Why would it be delayed six months?

[Neil Bouwer]

For example, it may take us six months to go through the regulatory process that's required by various sections of the act.