Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 17th, 2011

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

For many years I was one of those small business entrepreneurs in this country that many people call the backbone of the nation. I was completely frustrated with the amount red tape that we were continually dealing with—thus the establishment of the red tape commission.

I'd like your perspective on the recommendations of the red tape commission and how you've been able to implement any of those suggestions, and/or if you feel there is mutual benefit from that, both for entrepreneurs who are experiencing difficulty and government itself.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you for the question.

This is just a small point, but one of the elements is that we call it the Red Tape Reduction Commission—

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

[Michelle d'Auray]

—not the red tape commission.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Touché.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Lots of people say that, and I keep making that little, fine point.

One of the elements that came out of the first set of the “What Was Heard Reports”, and that was also picked up in the budget, was the development of a small business lens. One of the key elements we have heard from business, particularly small and, I would argue, medium size business, is that when the government develops a regulation, it doesn't take into account what the impact will be on a certain size of organization, whether or not it has to comply with all of the elements or if there are different ways in which we can apply the regulation. I think that's one of the key recommendations that emerged out of the public consultation process, which government has picked up on and we're on developing right now.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

Do I have any more time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Yes.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I have a quick question.

Regarding the semantics of the word “reduction”, I thank you for that and stand corrected, admirably so.

Madame d'Auray, people confuse the deficit reduction action plan with the strategic reviews that go on. Can you illustrate a difference between them so that we can understand them more fully?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Mr. Chair, the strategic reviews that we completed last year, the four-year cycle, looked at program expenditures but did not particularly focus on operating expenditures. This year the strategic and operating review, as part of the deficit reduction action plan basically.... And the “o” in “operating” was very important, because it meant that we would be focusing on the costs of operations, looking at internal services, overhead, and how we organize the delivery of services. Are there different ways we can consider how we are structured or organized?

So that is one of the major differences between the strategic review and the current exercise that has been launched.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Good.

Mr. Wiersema, how many years—

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Sorry, Mr. Kramp. We are out of time now. We're at five and a half minutes now.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

Thank you for your responses.

Madame Blanchette-Lamothe, you have the floor.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

I have a question for Mr. Wiersema about the strategic and operational review.

You said that the review will lead to significant reductions. Could you tell me more about the significant reductions you are anticipating as a result of the strategic and operational review?

[John Wiersema]

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated when I talked about this, we are in the process of finalizing the review of the office, so it would be premature for me to get into too many of the specifics.

Michelle talked about the strategic review and the operating part of the review. The Office of the Auditor General has done both reviews at basically the same time. When doing one of these reviews of the work of the office, we used the opportunity to consider strategically where the best value added from the efforts and the work of the Office of the Auditor General was. Do we need to keep doing all of the audits we've been doing in the past? In fact, I'm in the process of talking to the secretary about the possibility of discontinuing, in particular, some of the financial audits. Do we need to keep doing all the financial audit work we do every year?

We are also looking at operating efficiencies inside of our office. Are there different ways of providing some of the audit support services we receive in the office? Can they be organized differently?

Frankly, we have put hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of hours of work over the summer and early fall into some pretty fundamental rethinking of what we do in our audit practice, how we do it, and where the opportunities to save money for Canadian taxpayers are. We have done this while continuing continue to protect our ability to serve Parliament well. That's the one non-negotiable. We think that we have to provide you with effective audit services, but we are looking pretty fundamentally at how we do that. There is the potential for some saving there—non-trivial savings.

As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, I will be sending you a letter in the coming weeks telling you what we're thinking of. We would welcome feedback from this committee, as well as from the advisory panel on the oversight and funding of offices of Parliament, on the services we are thinking of cutting back.

As a public sector institution, we believe that we have an obligation to do our part to support the economy and the fiscal position of the Government of Canada. We have done quite a thoughtful exercise. I look forward to discussing it further with the committee.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, I'm done.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

You're now my favourite committee member.

Mr. Shipley, you have the floor.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you.

I'll just get right to it.

Thanks for coming. I have one question for the secretary and also for the Comptroller General.

I'm always asked a little bit about how government works when Parliament is not in session. Here I just want to go a little bit to the Governor General's special warrants.

How does the approval for spending work? What is involved in getting spending approval for the warrants? What sort of due diligence was put in to make sure those warrants were actually carried out in the way they should be? That question would likely be for Madame d'Auray.

Mr. Ralston, are other general warrants captured by the public accounts?

[Michelle d'Auray]

I'll start.

Thank you for the question.

On the Governor General's special warrants, as Bill Matthews mentioned, when Parliament was prorogued, the supplementary estimates and the appropriations bill for the last supply period had not been voted. So to close off the fiscal year, we worked with departments and organizations in seeking to obtain what specifically they required to meet their obligations.

Essentially, the warrants operate on a requirement and an obligation. What are the government's obligations on an expenditure basis? We require attestation on the part of CFOs and on the part of ministers. We also do a validation at the secretariat to make sure that, in fact, the obligation is a true obligation. The requirements have to be met.

Once we receive the attestation, the first wave exhausts whatever resources, or authorities to expend and funds to expend, are in existing votes. We deplete the votes entirely, and then we seek approval for those expenditures that cannot be covered within existing resources. We seek authority from the Governor General, literally, to access the consolidated revenue fund.

All of this is predicated, first, on a requirement or obligation on the part of the government to make an expenditure; second, on an attestation on behalf of the minister that the expenditure is indeed required; and third, on a challenge function within the secretariat to make sure that those expenditures are indeed matched against obligations. We then require Governor-in-Council approval to go to the Governor General for him to allow that withdrawal.

We also report on the GGSWs, as they're so fondly known, to Parliament—as we did when Parliament resumed. I think it is within 30 days or 15 days of Parliament's resumption that we actually have to table in the House of Commons the expenditures and the uses of the warrants.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

They'd be noted in the public accounts, I would think.

[James Ralston]

Each year in the public accounts there is a portion showing the total authorities granted and the total spending against those authorities, for comparison purposes. For the public accounts of March 31, 2012, you will see included in the appropriated amounts the sums related to the GG warrants, but I think we may also show details allowing you to see that particular detail out of the total appropriation.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I'd like to move quickly because I'm running out of time.

Mr. Ralston, I go to your comments about the new quarterly financing reporting. One, why is it new? Two, what are the expenses attached to that? And is it an audit tool, in particular, or a management tool for departments and crowns?

[James Ralston]

I think with regard to the origins of the requirement, you have to trace back to a private member's bill. It wasn't the private member's bill that was enacted ultimately but in fact something the government put forward.

In terms of the why and what it does, it is meant to serve parliamentarians primarily. It's not primarily a management tool; managers already have that kind of information. It's not primarily an audit tool because the quarterly financial statements aren't audited and the auditors would have full access to all information at year-end. So it is truly meant to be a tool for parliamentarians to help them monitor in-year spending and results.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Byrne, you have the floor.