It's important for me to lead off and say that I don't want to sound dogmatic in any one approach—that we have it right and others have it wrong. I think that's the wrong perspective. Likewise, from a bureaucratic perspective, we clearly recognize the importance of a strong audit function. In my job, on a daily basis, we work with the Office of the Auditor General in the performance of the financial audit against the governments financial statements. We do that in partnership, and they are fantastic colleagues.
In the context of answering your question, I think it's important to recognize that the office was provided with a significant increase in resources. In fact, they did come to the government and ask for an increase of over 30% in their operating base—some approximately 150 new employees. Through our process, and through the budget process, the government did grant the office a 10% increase in resources, representing a 16% increase in their resource base, over the last four years. That does outpace government spending as a whole.
They weren't stonewalled. It's not as if they received nothing. I understand there's a gap. That gap is what's being argued and debated. I completely respect and understand that. Part of the job we do at the Department of Finance in providing our advice to the ministers is saying no a lot more than we say yes. That's not just picking on the Office of the Auditor General; it's managing government finances as a whole. The requests and proposals far exceed the fiscal capacity to respond.
As I said in my opening remarks, we consider these business cases from a vertical perspective, going line by line. We appreciate the information the Auditor General has provided in his business case. We challenge every line. We consider it from a horizontal perspective, against priorities and spending proposals from across government.
That's where we landed.
I'm happy to answer additional questions.