Evidence of meeting #4 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fraser.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
It was a deliberate decision made by the department and other officials not to record that.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
You referred to it as “an error” in your report, Madam Fraser. In my view, errors are the result of accidents. It seems to me this was a deliberate, calculated decision made by somebody in the government, and in that sense it gets more into the area of a conscious decision rather than an error.
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
There was a decision made. There was a conscious decision not to record the costs. The government believes it has reasons that justify that decision. We indicate, in the additional report, why we do not feel those reasons in fact justify it, and why we take exception to each one of them, but I'm sure the government, if ever they come to a hearing, will tell you they felt they were entitled to make that decision.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
During their deliberations and dithering on this issue, they sought legal advice. I understand they obtained a legal opinion as to their status. Is my understanding correct--that you were not given access to it, on the basis of solicitor-client privilege?
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
No. We obtained the legal opinion. We generally obtain all legal opinions that we request. These are what are called “privileged documents” and cannot be disclosed, so unless the department receiving the opinion waives that privilege--
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
It would be the Canada Firearms Centre.
Conservative
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Actually, it was Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada that received the legal opinion. That department would have to waive the privilege.
Conservative
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
They could waive the privilege, but they have not in this case, as is their right. So we have seen the legal opinion and we have discussed it with the government; we just cannot cite it, though in fact the Canada Firearms Centre itself presented the substance of the legal opinion in its departmental performance report and we have shown the extract of that performance report in our report. It's just that we feel bound not to discuss the legal opinion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Fitzpatrick.
We'll move on now to Mr. Christopherson, for eight minutes.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
Welcome again to the auditing team and Madam Fraser.
I want to start with chapter 5, management of programs for first nations. We've been here before on some issues, and it's deeply troubling to see that this is back again. And it's the same kind of problem, in that we've had original audits with recommendations, commitments from the ministry to do something, and then a follow-up audit shows that it wasn't done.
If I remember correctly--and somebody please stop me if I'm wrong--this was exactly the same ministry we ran into with exactly the same problem I remember launching two or three times. The reason I know that is because I could start to feel the same feelings. I'm sitting here thinking, “You know, I've felt this before about this ministry. What is it? What is the issue here?”
It's one thing to find out you're not doing something, or you're doing it wrong, or it's inadequate, or it's not meeting the requirements, and to be taken to the woodshed on it, and then you clean things up. That's one thing. But with this business of us doing the audit and getting all kinds of promises and then nothing is done, that is what's maddening.
I say to new members, pay attention to this, because it happens more often than you want to believe, and it's terribly frustrating.
What I find most upsetting is that where there was some movement in the areas you audited, where we had been, where there had been improvement, it was on the administrative side. It was inside the beltway, inside baseball, one department and another moving paperwork. These things are important, but what didn't get done--if I'm reading this correctly--are the things that make a difference in improving the quality of life of our first nations people. Those are the issues that didn't get fixed.
I hope this is another one, Chair, where once again we call this ministry, and we have to stay on top of this ministry until this gets turned around.
The first thing I want to do is to speak to the issue of the treaties. Hamilton is a stone's throw from Caledonia. We all know what's going on in Caledonia right now. I can tell you, the frustration level on both sides is just incredible.
I find here that you're speaking to the fact that it's taking up to 29 years. I have to say, I don't know yet, and I hope we bring them in to ask them, whether or not the issues you dealt with are directly related to Caledonia--in other words, whether that would be one of the ones identified that didn't get movement or not.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay, how does that fit in, then? If that dispute is not in the category of unresolved treaties, what category is it in?
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Well, it would be, obviously, in the category of unresolved disputes; it's just not one of the ones we would have looked at specifically as part of our audit.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Right, and we don't want to get too close to that because it's an ongoing issue, and I respect how difficult it is. But by the same token, we know one of the claims from the natives in that dispute is that they weren't getting their treaty issues dealt with in at least an acceptable timeframe, let alone an acceptable resolution. So I hope we follow up on that one.
There are two others in here that are really upsetting. On the prescription drugs analysis, Health Canada had made commitments that it would liaise with the provinces and the territories and, if I understand correctly, do an analysis of the number of prescriptions and then compare that to some standards to determine whether or not there may be some potential abuse. The ministry used to do it and then they stopped. It would appear that they then recommitted to get back into the business, and nothing has happened, at least not the kind of action that you'd expect and that you were given assurances would happen. Is that correct?
Ronnie Campbell Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
In that particular case, it's a situation where they're not yet able to demonstrate the results. We saw the results in previous audits. When they stopped doing it, those numbers changed. Now that they've restarted doing it, they haven't yet been able to demonstrate to us the effects.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
What I'm pointing out here is that the one issue deals with treaties. I'm pointing out that Caledonia may not be directly related, but it's still on the same issue of treaties not being resolved in a timely fashion.
We know there are serious drug issues on reserves, on first nations lands. For this not to be a priority, having already been identified, is what's maddening. It's fine that there are some nice administrative processes that are working better than they used to, but the lives of first nations people are not being improved.
This segues me over to mould, which sounds like a rather interesting subject. You state on page 163, just to set this up, that mould is a fungus that under certain conditions produces poisonous substances that can cause headaches, dizziness, and nausea. Again, we have visited this before as a country, and from what I can determine, there were some meetings held, which was the first step, but nobody at any of those meetings took responsibility to actually make sure something happened. Therefore, at the end of the day, we may have had some meetings happen, but if I'm reading this correctly, your impression is that nothing else is taking place. It still isn't happening. So as we sit here, paperwork movement is being made more efficient, but poison that's inside the homes of Canadians is not being addressed.
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
You've put that very eloquently and absolutely accurately.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I would hope that's a slam dunk for bringing in the ministry, and that we keep doing that until this gets turned around, because that's just unacceptable.
Chair, I don't know how much time I've got, but I want to quickly--
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
I'd like to move quickly to the acquisition of space. Obviously I'm a member of the committee, but one of the examples you use of $13 million lost was right in the heart of my riding, what we call the new federal building. Apparently, and I'll leave it to you to tell me if I'm right, they were given a number of options—“they” meaning the government—in terms of whether they should build it or lease it. They did an investment analysis report, and in that report the most expensive option was the one they took. Had they taken the one that was recommended, we would have saved $13 million of Canadian taxpayers' money.
I know you can't speak to political motives, but is there anything outside of politics that can speak to why they would make that choice?
Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
One issue we raise here is the way funding is given to the department. If the department acquires a building, it records the whole amount of the purchase cost in that year. And government and all the appropriations—and this ties into another chapter—are still on that cash basis, so they would show the cash outlay all in one year, whereas if they rent, under leasing they show a very small portion, so they stay within their appropriations.
We really believe the way funding occurs is also influencing the fact that they're not acquiring buildings. There could be other policy decisions, but we saw no evidence or any documentation that would indicate that government has a policy of leasing rather than purchasing. Certainly, as Auditor General, unless we see that, we would obviously always go to the least-cost option.