Public Accounts Committee on May 14th, 2019

[Andrew Hayes]

There's no doubt that every department makes requests for funding, and some get the funding they request and some don't. That's a reality of the budget process. What's different about our office, I would say, is the independence and objectivity that's expected of it. It's a challenge. There's a tension involved when we work through the budget process with the government because it's the very same departments that we're auditing on a regular basis. There's a tension, a difficulty for us. We go to great lengths to preserve our independence with those departments, whether it's the Department of Finance or some other.

We had the e-commerce report that came forward. We were working through it at the same time as we were working through our budget request. It was likewise with the fossil fuels audits that the commissioner delivered in the spring. The Treasury Board Secretariat is involved. We know from dealing with the officials at those departments that they're very professional. They're working their hardest. They treat us as they treat every other department. We expect that we will be held to account for the way we spend our money and the requests that we make, just as every department is.

What I would say is that we are just looking for a mechanism that will allow us to preserve our independence, work with Parliament and deliver the reports that we want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

I'm going to leave it there. I'm going to shock Mr. Christopherson, because he's already said that you can expect at the end of this meeting the question from the chair, “Do you have sufficient funds to carry out your mandate?” I'm not going to ask that question. I think the question has unfortunately been answered. I think we will be looking at this a little more closely, on all sides.

I appreciate your being here today.

Mr. Christopherson, I'm in your hands, because I'm told that we don't need a motion. We can just automatically bring it back, because it's open. I think we have a kind of consensus right now that this is what we would do. We'll probably do that. I'll instruct the clerk to put this on the agenda for next week.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's two weeks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, it's following our week's break.

Part of the problem for some of the Canadians who may be watching is that the total amount, as you've already said, is $78 million, roughly, or a little over—$78,084,000—of which $19,521,000 has already been given in the interim estimates. That has already been allocated. What we would vote on is the balance, $58 million and some dollars. For Canadians, if we had called the motion it would have been in regard to the remainder, the $58 million available. There are many different numbers that come here, but the big package is that $78 million that we're talking about.

Anyway, thank you for coming and helping to—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Chair. I apologize but we have a little time.

I just want to make one point. Really, it's quite salient, and it is that the examples Ms. Mendès was mentioning.... That is how it happened, but I was here and the difference is that the Auditor General, when asked, “Can you still properly carry out your work?”, said yes. When we cut back from three reports a year to two.... In both those examples, I was really concerned—obviously, from the fact that I'm making the same point today—that things are being cut. What's going on? This is not good.

But the AG was saying, “We can manage it. It would be difficult, but we can do it, as part of our effort, back in the day, to make our contribution.” To me, the distinction, and the reason I'm the way I am, is that in the past, being good corporate players and being team players and part of the government, the AG absorbed what they could, and that's when the funding went down. That, however, was them saying they could still do this and do their job. It's in the Hansards. I asked the pointed questions.

Now when we ask those questions, the answer is, no, we can't do all the audits; all the audits should be done, but we have no choice but to reduce audits. This business of “least important” is just a bad choice of descriptors, because we're talking about things, as you pointed out, such as cybersecurity.

I just want to point out the difference. Whereas in the past when there was reduction, the AG testified to us that they could manage it within their budget and it wouldn't affect the work that they wanted to do and felt needed to be done. The difference now is that the AG is being very clear that they are being impeded in carrying out what they want to do and feel needs to be done, because their funding requests were denied. That is new.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

May I make a point here, just to summarize what we heard?

The most important take-away that I get from the testimony today—and Mr. Hayes just said it—is that what we actually need is a recurring mechanism to ensure the funding of the office doesn't depend on going to knock on the Minister of Finance's door every year.

If I understood correctly, that is what you would like to have, a recurring mechanism. Is that it?

[Sylvain Ricard]

If I may, I'll just use the opportunity.

There are two things. To be able to operate, we need more money. Second, we've had many discussions with the former auditor general, who found—these are my words, and my lawyer colleague will correct me with the exact words—that it's not appropriate for us to be talking to Finance and TBS to ask for funding when we're auditing them. In this very latest tabling, we have a chapter—an audit on e-commerce—that included the Department of Finance. At the same time we had to file with them to ask for money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

That's a tough—

[Sylvain Ricard]

That's not appropriate.

I don't know, Mr. Hayes, whether you want to —

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think that's sufficient. I think we're there.

I'll just close by saying thank you for being here and for clearly—and I think you've done it in a very appropriate way—reporting on the estimates and letting us be aware of the concerns. We know that you are doing extremely good work and we commend you for it.

We're going to suspend. We're going to have committee business for about 10 to 15 minutes on some of this. That will be in camera, by the way, so we'll suspend to go in camera.

Thank you again.

[Proceedings continue in camera]