Evidence of meeting #57 for Public Accounts in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was issues.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Michael Ferguson  Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Joe Martire  Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Nancy Cheng  Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Frank Barrett  Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

3:30 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

I now declare this 57th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in order.

First of all I have an announcement for everyone in the room. For security reasons, the doors to the side will not be accessible until after 4 p.m. because of the ceremony taking place in the hallway and security, but the back doors are open.

I had mentioned to colleagues at our last meeting that, hopefully, we would have a couple minutes to do some business at the end of this one. Other than that, we're ready to go.

We're here, colleagues, to formally receive the Spring 2015 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada. Yesterday we had an in camera informal session in the morning, to be apprised of what was contained in the report and to allow people to comment on it. There was a lot of media activity. Today, we formally receive it and we will deal with it in the same way we handle other chapters. It will be a full public hearing with full rotation speaking opportunities for everyone.

I will turn to Mr. Ferguson, our Auditor General, and not only give him the floor but ask him to introduce his delegation.

3:30 p.m.

Michael Ferguson Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to present our Spring 2015 Reports, which were tabled in the House of Commons yesterday.

I'm accompanied by Nancy Cheng, assistant auditor general; Joe Martire and Frank Barrett, principals; and André Côté, director.

We have presented seven audits that we completed since last fall. Some of the audits included in our Spring Reports were led by assistant auditors general Ronnie Campbell and Wendy Loschiuk, both of whom retired this past month. I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their contribution to the office. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution to the performance audit practice of Neil Maxwell, assistant auditor general, who will retire in June.

As you will see, some of the audits that we are talking about today highlight government activities that are not delivering their intended results for Canadians, and where there's a risk that the underlying issues could get worse if they're not addressed quickly.

First, let's look at our audit of antimicrobial resistance. Data shows that some drug-resistant infections are on the rise in Canada. Already, in hospitals alone about 18,000 Canadians contract resistant infections every year. We found that Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada have not done enough to help contain the proliferation of drug-resistant organisms. Health Canada has not taken some important steps to protect the effectiveness of antimicrobials used for treating serious infections in humans.

Though the department requires a prescription for the human use of these drugs, prescriptions are not always required for their use in food animals. The imprudent use of antimicrobials in food animals can lead to the spread of drug-resistant organisms through the food chain. Health Canada is aware that there are gaps in the regulations that make it possible for farmers to import unlicensed antimicrobial drugs and active pharmaceutical ingredients for use in their own animals, but the department has not acted to strengthen the control over their importation.

We also found that the Public Health Agency of Canada is not collecting all of the surveillance information needed to understand the scope of antimicrobial resistance in Canada. In 1997, the federal government first articulated the need for a pan-Canadian strategy to address antimicrobial resistance. This was reiterated in 2009 and the agency acknowledged that stronger leadership was needed. However, there was no provincial or territorial consensus on what the Public Health Agency of Canada's role should be. There is currently no national strategy in place and in our view it will likely be many years before there is one.

Continuing on the topic of health, we also looked at what Health Canada has done to support first nations' access to health services in remote communities.

Health Canada has an objective of providing first nations individuals living in remote communities with access to health services that is comparable to that provided to other provincial residents living in similar locations. We found that the department has not achieved this objective.

In most cases, access to health care in these communities is initially provided through nurses deployed in nursing stations. We found deficiencies in the way nursing staff and stations are managed. For example, only one of 45 nurses included in our sample has completed all of Health Canada's mandatory training courses.

We also found that Health Canada had not addressed 26 of 30 health and safety or building code deficiencies present in the eight nursing stations we examined. Deficiencies ranged from malfunctioning heating and cooling systems to unsafe stairways, ramps, and doors. Health specialists cancelled visits to one community because they could not stay in the residence intended for their use due to issues with the septic system dating back more than two years.

In another audit we focused on whether the Canada Border Services Agency has managed its information technology investments to ensure its projects meet their objectives. The agency's current portfolio is made up of 30 information technology projects, with a budget of more than $1 billion.

In December 2013, the Canada Border Services Agency put in place a portfolio approach to strengthen the management of its information technology investments. We found this approach was comprehensive; however, a review of five projects against the new framework showed it was not being fully applied. For example, the information provided to senior committees tasked with overseeing the information technology project portfolio did not contain accurate financial information, project status information, or timelines. As a result, the agency faces significant challenges in managing these projects, sometimes resulting in duplication of effort or projects being delivered late.

Let's turn to our audit of tax-based expenditures. The total of tax-based expenditures accounts for billions of dollars annually. These expenditures are similar to direct program spending, we found that less information is provided to Parliament about tax-based expenditures than about direct program spending.

We found that Finance Canada does a good job of analyzing new tax measures and of monitoring existing ones. However, Finance Canada does not systematically evaluate tax-based expenditures to ensure that they continue to achieve the intended results.

We believe that Parliament needs comprehensive and consolidated information about tax-based expenditures to understand not only total government spending, but also what money spent through the tax system is accomplishing.

In our audit focusing on how the Correctional Service of Canada prepares non-aboriginal male offenders for safe re-entry into the community, we found that offenders are seeing more of their sentences in custody and spending less time under supervision in the community.

In 2013-14, about 1,500 offenders were released directly into the community from medium or maximum security penitentiaries without the full benefit of a gradual re-entry into society. Eighty per cent of offenders were incarcerated beyond the time that they first became eligible for parole even though many were considered to be at low risk to reoffend. We also found that in many cases offenders were not receiving correctional and rehabilitation programs prior to becoming eligible for release. Many offenders were not assigned to these programs while in custody, despite having histories of criminal associations or substance abuse.

Let's turn our attention to our audit focusing on the recurring reports that are required of federal organizations by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, the Public Service Commission, or legislation. We found that, for the most part, reporting intended to support accountability, and transparency was serving its intended purposes. However, in our view, the efficiency and value of government reporting should be improved.

We also found that some Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat reporting requirements applied equally to all organizations, regardless of their size or mandate. For example, the Canadian Polar Commission—a small organization with 11 staff members—was required to prepare 25 annual or quarterly reports.

We also found that about half of departmental security plans, which were due by June 2012, had not been finalized at the time of our audit.

Our audit of the Office of the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces covered the period of February 2009 to August 2014, coinciding with the terms of two different ombudsmen. We found that, during the tenure of the first of these two ombudsmen, the office had in place inadequate controls for managing finances, contracts and human resources in compliance with government rules and policies.

In addition, existing controls were often overridden by management.

We also found that the first of the two ombudsmen and some senior managers did not respect the Values and Ethics Code. This resulted in grievances, complaints and high levels of sick leave and turnover. These issues, combined with a lack of standard procedures contributed to delays in processing investigations. After 2012, the workplace environment stabilized, and efforts to close long-standing files were successful.

National Defence's monitoring was insufficient to ensure that government rules and policies were being followed in the ombudsman's office, and the department did not fully address employee complaints about workplace issues filed from 2009 to 2013.

Since the ombudsman's office investigations are carried out independently from National Defence, but the office staff and budget reside with the department, the organizational relationship with National Defence is a complex one that needs to be better defined to ensure adequate monitoring in all areas.

In 2014, our office performed special examinations of the Canada Lands Company Limited and the Royal Canadian Mint. Though we did not identify any significant deficiencies, we did note some areas of concern relating to the Royal Canadian Mint's contracting practices and management of travel and hospitality expenses.

Of the seven audits we have reported on, some highlight government activities that are not delivering their intended results for Canadians, and there is a risk that the results could get worse. The national strategy to address antimicrobial resistance is one example. Almost 20 years after the government identified antimicrobial resistance to be a public health priority, there is still no national strategy in place.

Our audit of the Correctional Service of Canada is another example where it is evident that fewer offenders are getting the benefit of a full gradual release back into society.

We're concerned that the issues we're seeing today may be the symptoms of bigger problems in the future if they're not resolved quickly. It's important for departments to focus on addressing these issues promptly to avoid bigger problems, which will cost more to fix down the road in time, money, and effort.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening statement.

We will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

3:45 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

De rien. Thank you, Mr. Auditor General.

Unless there are any last-minute interventions, I'll take us to the rotation. To kick things off, we'll begin with Mr. Albas. You, sir, have the floor.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome the Auditor General and your staff with you today. I appreciate all the work you've done. I'm glad to have your report, the overview briefing today for everyone.

As I was listening to your statement and reading along with you, Mr. Auditor General, I noticed that you start and you switch. Instead of a numerical sequence you have a random shuffling. Is there a reason for that?

3:45 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

We wanted to start by dealing with the couple of audits that dealt with health issues, for example the audit on antimicrobial resistance, and then also the audit on providing health services to first nations. Then we moved into some things a little further on that are more, perhaps, administrative in nature, whether they be the audit of the reporting requirements of organizations, maybe some things related to tax expenditures and the ombudsman system. Those are more about how government and government departments manage some of their own programs, rather than the direct delivery of services to people. Some of that thinking went into the structure of the opening statement.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Thank you. I appreciate the explanation.

I'd like to start with chapter 2, with regard to Treasury Board's required reporting by federal organizations. First of all, you've already given a statement with regard to chapter 2. Could you please describe what a departmental security plan is?

3:45 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

A departmental security plan is a document that departments and organizations prepare that gives an overview of their security situation. It looks at the types of security risks that an organization may face. It would also look at, perhaps, some of the mitigating circumstances, mitigating controls, that might be in place, and also at what types of activities or actions that organization might need to do to deal with those security risks. It gives the organization that overall view of the types of security risks that they face.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Did you specifically look into the details of the security plans themselves?

3:45 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

What we were looking at really was whether the security plans were being prepared in accordance with the directive that had come from Treasury Board Secretariat, particularly noting the fact that these security plans were supposed to have been delivered by June 2012. We also looked at what Treasury Board Secretariat itself was doing to be aware of whether departments were on track to meet that June 2012 date. We identified in the audit a couple of instances where Treasury Board collected some information about that. Then, in the end, one of our main concerns about it was many of the reports were not completed by that June 2012 date, and some of them still hadn't been completed by the time we did the audit.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Sure. So it wasn't necessarily the quality of the plans per se, but whether or not they complied with the directive. Is that correct?

3:45 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

We did not audit the plans themselves in terms of their quality and whether they met all of those requirements. That would have been the role of Treasury Board as part of what they do to monitor whether organizations meet their reporting requirements.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Did you find the Treasury Board Secretariat itself offered guidance to help different agencies to be able to comply with the directive and with the other reporting requirements?

3:45 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

We found in a number of instances that, I believe, both Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission had provided guidance to government departments and organizations about how they should complete or meet some of the reporting requirements. In a lot of instances that guidance was useful. There was one instance, I believe it was of the departmental investment plans, where departments told us that some of the guidance was confusing. But overall I think we found that the two organizations did actively try to provide guidance to the departments and organizations that had to prepare these reports, and oftentimes that guidance was useful.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

In paragraph 2.43 of your report, it says:

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and the Public Service Commission of Canada, as they review existing policies or introduce new policies, should systematically adjust required reporting on the basis of its effort, cost, and value.

Now, both the secretariat and the commission agreed with the recommendation, but how will this recommendation affect the quality required in reporting efforts of organizations in the future?

3:50 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

What we are saying here is when the central agencies are asking departments to provide periodic reports, they should make sure they understand how much effort needs to be put into preparing those reports on the part of those departments. In the course of the audit, we found that wasn't something that was being analyzed or estimated. Also, we felt there is an opportunity to look at reports from the point of view of the size or the mandate of different organizations. Certainly the idea would be to maintain the quality of what was necessary, but make sure that the cost of attaining that information is understood, as there may not be the value for small organizations to prepare certain information.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

Very good. Thank you. Time has expired.

Moving over now to Mr. Allen. You now have the floor, sir.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the Auditor General and his team.

Mr. Auditor General, in chapter 1 you talked about the antimicrobial resistence. This has been identified for about 20 years. Is that correct?

3:50 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

I think we indicated that it was 1997, so about 18 years ago it was identified as a priority for public health issues, yes.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

You've articulated somewhat that it's a priority issue, but it doesn't seem to have leadership in the sense of who's actually going to take it on, albeit there are partners. I'm not denying that there are provincial partners in the federal piece. It's a pan-Canadian endeavour. Is that true?

3:50 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

The Public Health Agency, I think we indicated in the audit, noted a couple of times that there was a need for stronger national leadership to get to having that overall pan-Canadian strategy. We did also note, as I said in my opening statement, that there was not agreement on the part of the provinces and the territories about what exactly the Public Health Agency of Canada's role should be. Certainly the agency has identified that this is a priority. They've identified a need for a national strategy and a need for stronger leadership. We think we're still many years away from actually having a national strategy on this issue.

3:50 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

I noticed that in the actual report itself, on pages 6-7, it talks about the strategy in 2011, then there's 2012, and then there's 2013. It talks about 2014, some mileposts, if you will, around we did this, or we did that, or we tried to do this. Then in paragraph 1.34 it talks about the agri-food sector, the agencies, and the partners, and it reads:

It has not yet been determined whether and how the health and agri-food sectors will work together.

Certainly health has multiple partners. We have a health ministry federally in this country, which Public Health falls into, as well as an agri sector in this country that has a federal piece, albeit provincial. Is there any consensus in this audit, Mr. Auditor General, around the sense that at least the federal departments are on the same page when it comes to antimicrobials?

3:50 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

What we identified, in fact, was that the Public Health Agency determined that its first step was to try to work together with other federal organizations and agencies involved in this issue. I think it's in paragraph 1.32 that to coordinate a federal approach to antimicrobial resistance:

The Agency worked with Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to develop this approach.

What we have seen is an effort on the part of the agency to engage its federal partners. When you're dealing with something like public health or a health issue, obviously the provinces and territories are very significant partners that need to be engaged to a great degree of depth to deal with this problem.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON

Let me switch tacks to the tax expenditure piece. The obvious question comes up for many folks. I've already been asked it by somebody in the riding, “Why do we need to report it? It's a tax expenditure.”

Can you explain for us, Mr. Auditor General, exactly the need for that type of reporting on a tax expenditure? Why would it be important, and why indeed, as your recommendation states, should it be sent to parliamentarians for their approval?

3:55 p.m.

Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada

Michael Ferguson

When we're dealing with tax expenditures in this audit, we are talking about measures that could have been delivered through direct spending types of programs. In paragraph 3.6 there is a quote from the International Monetary Fund, its fiscal transparency code, that states that “because the government policy objectives could be achieved alternatively through a subsidy or other direct outlays, [tax expenditures] are regarded as equivalent to budget expenditure”.

It's important for parliamentarians to understand the extent of these tax measures, particularly what we are referring to as tax-based expenditures, because many of them could have been delivered through direct budgetary spending programs. For direct budgetary spending programs, there are a number of requirements. There are requirements, for example, to do periodic evaluations at least every five years. When departments prepare their reports on plans and priorities, they present three years' worth of estimates for their programs. That type of information doesn't exist for the tax-based expenditures.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

The Chair NDP David Christopherson

Very good. Thank you.

Time has expired.

Over to Vice-Chair Carmichael. You have the floor, sir.