Evidence of meeting #21 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was money.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
In the first round, we established that the department needs as much money as it could get. It needed more than the $19 billion that the budget was for, and it used this money for—
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Can I interrupt just for a second?
I want to point out that the committee is mainly concerned with administration and the spending of the money and proper administration. The auditor can answer for her department, but whether the department had enough money would be more an issue of policy, which they're not going to comment on, or I don't think they are.
Madam Auditor, am I correct there?
4:50 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Chair, the only comment we could ever make is if the department itself said that, and I don't know that the department has said that as regards the $19 billion.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We'll take that off your time. You can ask your question, but I wanted to say that.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
I'm referring specifically to the comment in paragraph 5.39, which says, “This is a serious consequence for a department that has stated a need for additional funds to fulfill its mandate.” That's where that comment came from.
Now, in this particular year, Ms. Fraser, $500 million of the $19 billion was not spent. Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
That's correct.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
Of the $500 million, they could have done a couple of different things. They could have, as we call it here, re-profiled it--in essence, pledged it to future years--so that they would have had the availability to use that money into the future. Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Re-profiling can occur if there is approval by the Treasury Board.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
Okay. So that's one option.
The second option is that they could have spent it on whatever might be needed, whether it was the fight in Afghanistan or for whatever other needs there might be. Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
The issue is that they had to know that they had this surplus, and they did not know in time to be able to spend it.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
I agree, and I'm getting there.
They could have spent it if they had known about it. They could have had the benefit of this extra $500 million.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
And because of the way this particular department works, the most that can be rolled into the next year by way of a carry-forward is $200 million.
4:50 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
That's correct.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
So by definition, because, as you said, they were not aware of the fact that there was $500 million not yet spent, by definition, they carry forward only $200 million and they've lost $300 million for whatever good uses they wish to have for this department. Correct?
4:55 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
That's correct.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
And those good uses could have been anything. It could have been, for example, for extra equipment for the Afghanistan campaign. It could have been extra soldiers. It could have been extra pay and benefits for soldiers. It could be any of that. Correct?
4:55 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Presumably, yes.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
In addition, last year, I understand that they closed four squadrons across Canada. I'm only aware of one specific example in terms of the name, but the 439 Squadron in CFB Bagotville in Saguenay was closed.
How much does it cost to operate that over a year?
4:55 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Chair, I have no idea what it costs.
I'm not sure that the point that's being made.... I mean, that's a policy decision to close their operations. I'm not sure that this has any relationship to the surplus that was generated.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
But if they had known, which they did not, that there was $500 million that they had to use, they could have chosen to keep any of these bases open.
4:55 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
That again is a policy operational decision. I'm not convinced that the linkage can be made between that. That is a discussion to have with the department.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
That's fine. I understand that it is a policy decision. The point is that they had money that they could have spent on whatever it was, including on keeping bases open, including extra equipment, including soldiers. There was $500 million available to them, which they just were not aware of.
I consider that to be incompetence.
4:55 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Mr. Chair, I personally--