Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 31st, 2011

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Do you have a good understanding of the role, responsibilities, and policies of the Office of the Auditor General?

[Michael Ferguson]

I believe so.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Do you have a good understanding of the Canadian parliamentary system and how governments operate, the roles and responsibilities of deputy heads, and the management environment of the public service?

[Michael Ferguson]

Certainly at the provincial level.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Do you have knowledge of current Canadian and international developments within the accounting and auditing fields, including international financial reporting standards, international standards for auditing, and the implications of governments and crown corporations and experience in other jurisdictions with practices such as accrual-based appropriations and environmental auditing?

[Michael Ferguson]

Yes.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Chair, I could go through all 28 of these points. I think, in the interest of moving along, Mr. Ferguson needs to be treated fairly. We should look at his abilities, his qualifications. As I said, this has been a national search. He has been recommended to this committee and he has promised to improve and focus on his language skills, but his accounting skills are exemplary. I think he would provide a great future in auditing for Canada.

Mr. Ferguson, you said your definition of success in this role would constitute the strategic outcome and expected results that have been itemized in performance reports. Could you elaborate on your definition of success?

[Michael Ferguson]

When I look at what the federal Auditor General's office has said in the past in terms of things like their strategic outcome, it's to have well-managed and accountable government for Canadians by helping to keep Parliament well informed and engaged. I think that is a fundamentally sound summary of the vision for the office. The focus should be on well-managed government, on an accountable government, and the intended audience is all Canadians—and by “Canadians”, I don't just mean taxpayers. Taxpayers are one group, but also citizens who receive services from the federal government. The way to ensure that we have a well-managed and accountable government is to keep Parliament informed and engaged.

I think that sums up what the role of the federal Auditor General and the Office of the Auditor General is all about.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you. Time has expired.

That ends the rotation of questions.

Yes, I see you, Mr. Caron, but I have some things to say first.

With regard to the next steps, as I mentioned at the outset, it's entirely optional what this committee does. You've made the one decision to hold this hearing. There is now a decision to be made as to whether we will report to the House that we have had such a hearing. The second part of that is would there be a recommendation contained in there, and what would that recommendation be.

I remind committee that the rules provide that we have up to 30 calendar days in which to study this. If we haven't reported to the House within those 30 days, we will have forfeited that right. We will be deemed to have chosen not to report to the House and the opinion of this committee will be silent throughout the process. That is entirely legitimate and entirely within the purview of this committee to decide.

Are we clear on what our options are? Are there any questions about procedure?

Monsieur Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, can the committee invite other people, for example the people from the search firm that was hired to look for potential candidates? It would seem that they did not respect the requirements.

You know, Mr. Chair—I don't want to get into polemics, but we can if we want to—we're talking about certain requirements. Let me ask you a question. If the candidates presented to us had been unilingual francophones, what kind of reaction would there have been across Canada, Mr. Chair? We're talking about rights here. It's the very basis of our country. These are not insignificant matters.

I would like to know whether the committee could call other witnesses or groups.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

The second part I can't comment on; it was actually more debate than question, as I think the member knows.

In answer to your question, from what I see, and I stand to be corrected by the clerk, the rules are silent around how we would go about studying the proposed appointment. In the absence of any words providing that parameter, I would likely rule, if that motion were put, that it's in order. If this committee decided that as part of its review it wanted to take extra steps or other steps, I would rule that is within the purview of the committee to decide--recognizing, of course, it's by majority decision. I would not rule it out of order if that motion were placed.

Is there anything further on procedure?

Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Before that question was asked, I had one about this meeting. Given that we are making an important choice now, I just want to know whether the members of this committee agree to continue with one more round of questions. Since we must choose one person for the next 10 years, I think that it would be important to know as much as possible about that person. What I mean by one more round of questions, is one question per party represented on this committee.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Very well, I'll accept that as a motion.

I'm being “clarified”--that's why we have clerks--that apparently the government can move before the 30 days has expired. There is no guarantee that if the committee took time beyond today, assuming nothing happened in the House while we were here, the opinion would be part of the consideration. I have no idea what the government plans are, but apparently they have that right.

I just don't want members to think, as I had, that the 30 days holds up the process until it has expired or we have responded. That is not the case. Apparently the government does maintain the right to move this in front of the House at any time.

I didn't hear any further clarifications. I think I dealt with them all.

I heard a suggestion for next steps, that there be another round of questions.

Is that a full round?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I'm talking about one question per party.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Okay: one per party. I'll take that as a motion.

Is there debate?

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Could I hear the motion one more time, please?

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Sure.

Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I move that we continue with a round of questions of five minutes per party. So it would be three more five-minute periods.

This is an important choice. I just want to explain the reasons for this request. We have before us a potential candidate who, if chosen, will be in this position for 10 years.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Okay, I hear you. It's just that there was a clarification to have it read back to me, and you're sliding into debate.

So it is with Mr. Saxton. The motion is duly moved. You've heard it a second time.

You have the floor.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to say, first of all, we have no problem with continuing questioning of the witness, but we should stick to our pre-agreed upon order of questioning, which is to then start all over again.

That's what we would do, if you wish, Mr. Caron, to continue questioning: we will start over with the normal rotation.

That is my proposal.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Now your motion was that there be one per....

Somebody can challenge me, and I'll think about it harder, but at first blush I'll take that as an appropriate amendment. If I'm hearing it correctly, it's that you'd agree with the main motion but you would amend it to say we would go in full rotation--

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Correct.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

--as is our normal procedure. So we'd repeat what we've just done.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

That's the amendment. I will take that as an amendment.