I'm talking about going forward.
Evidence of meeting #120 for Public Accounts in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agency.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #120 for Public Accounts in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agency.
A video is available from Parliament.
Principal, Office of the Auditor General
Moving forward, our audit plan is evolving, and we will once again look at all of the issues facing the department to determine what the right audit is to carry out.
Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC
As a parliamentarian, I'll say that it doesn't give me confidence when I see the way that an in-depth dive is done on one report, versus another one here that doesn't have the same depth of study. Neither does it have the same type of evaluation of different mechanisms being employed by the government to create an artificial or manufactured operational discourse and stress within our Royal Canadian Air Force or to bring in aircraft that will make things worse instead of better for our pilots and aircrew.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
On that as well, as a supplementary question, when you did the audit, was the Hornet still in the mix?
Principal, Office of the Auditor General
In terms of the decision to buy the Super Hornet, once again, that decision had not been made. It wasn't the final decision of government.
We looked at the analysis that the department prepared in determining whether or not it was going to buy the Super Hornet, and in that case, it demonstrated that what it needed was more personnel.
With respect to the Australian jet, once again, the decision had not been made by government, so there was no information to audit in terms of the cost.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General
Mr. Chair, maybe I will reiterate something that we often say to members: We always take members' concerns and suggestions into account as we go forward and determine which audits we will do next.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
In closing, we've come to inviting the departments and, starting next week, we will have various departments before us.
As you know, our committee has been very focused on this data problem, and it has come up today. Madam Mendès and others—Mr. Kelly—have clearly expressed the frustration that we have on this issue.
As we look through these reports, it's of particular concern when we see, for example, the one that Madam Mendès mentioned in Report 2.
I'll quote straight from your report dealing with conserving federal heritage properties, in which you state:
Because we could not rely on the data in the organizations’ databases, we could not put together an accurate overview of the condition of federally owned heritage buildings and national historic sites.
Then, with Parks Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, you said they “did not have up-to-date information on the condition” of their heritage buildings. Parks Canada and Fisheries and Oceans didn't even have accurate information on the number of their heritage buildings.
Needless to say, this is a rather disturbing finding, particularly given that there were previous audits in 2003 and 2007.
On page 5 of Parks Canada, you mentioned this:
...Parks Canada had an asset management database that did not indicate all of its heritage buildings. We found that the database identified only 186 heritage buildings. The Agency took over four weeks to provide us with what it said was the complete list of 504 heritage buildings.
To you, is there anything, any way, any method that you have, or that we as a committee have, to again drive it home? Can we have this little box in our reports drawing attention to the data? Is there something more that we can be doing?
We're seeing all these reports mentioning data compilation, inaccurate data, data analysis, not being able to use the data because you don't know how to find it. Is there a way that you can send out something, almost like a shot across the bow, that says, “You know we're coming. You know that we want to see upgraded methods of access and retention of data.”
is there something more that we can do or you can do?
Mr. Goulet, would you comment?
Principal, Office of the Auditor General
I think Mr. Berthelette mentioned earlier the question of management. In the case of the conservation of heritage buildings, to be very honest with you, it just wasn't a priority of the departments. However, we stressed to them, as we did in our previous audits, that we will be coming more and more for the data. The data is really what allows us to have a clear view of what's going on within the different departments.
If we come back over and over again and find that the data is not good, I mean, the government doesn't look good. We have to reinforce that over and over again with the departments. Certainly we are doing that as the Office of the Auditor General. We are really appreciative of the fact that you are also doing it when the departments come in here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
There's the old question of what comes first, the chicken or the egg—so what comes first, the management will or the data? Is it just a complete determination by the department that this is the method by which they will up their game when it comes to the data?
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General
Mr. Chair, I think what we have found is that departments have data and have lots of data. Often it's in different databases. Sometimes it's on Excel spreadsheets.
However, what departments need to do is put an emphasis on managing the data, on figuring out what story they want to tell Canadians about the programs they manage and the way they run their departments, and on put together a process to put that data in an order they can manage and use in order to allow Canadians and members of this committee to understand how they are managing the programs and what the outcomes of the programs are.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Berthelette.
I think as we go forward now with the invitations to the departments, hopefully some from the departments will hear your message today and will come and give us hope and confidence that they will improve exactly what you've asked for.
Thank you for being here and for helping us do that—
November 26th, 2018 / 5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Yes, I am optimistic. I believe we have very good public servants, but sometimes they just need to be prodded a little bit. No one is questioning the professional public servants we have.
Again, thank you for coming and for helping us with our job.
The meeting is adjourned.
