Evidence of meeting #144 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 office.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Okay. It concerns me that since 2015 we're still nowhere. It's frightening, again.
Conservative
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Your comments this morning are very troubling. We like to believe that the Auditor General ensures that the Canadian public has a credible relationship of trust with government institutions.
We find that Justin Trudeau's Liberal government is not only preventing you from obtaining the money that you need to do your job, but is basically interfering with the choice of topics that you can study.
As a former Minister of Public Safety, I can assure you that cybersecurity is important. The chair mentioned it. An election is imminent, but you have neither the money nor the tools to reassure Canadians that measures have been implemented to counter foreign influence. It's very troubling.
My next comments will concern the re-establishment of the independence of officers of Parliament from the executive. This issue is at the heart of Canadian democracy, and the government is clearly on the wrong track.
Mr. Chair, I'll address this point in my next comments.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We'll go back to Mr. Arseneault now. I know he had much more to say in the opening round. We'll now give you opportunity again, Mr. Arseneault.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This meeting is televised. I want to provide some context for Canadians before I start my questions, Mr. Ricard.
I want to remind my learned colleague Steven Blaney that the Harper government, of which he was a member, asked the Office of the Auditor General at the time to make budget cuts and to handle the constraints of a reduced budget.
That's my understanding of what you told us, Mr. Ricard. You made these budget cuts and, above all, you scaled back your audit activities under the previous government. You also told us that, after accepting this reduction in your activities in 2011 for various valid reasons, your initial request was for a 31% increase in your budget, a significant increase that you hadn't planned.
Have I fully understood and summarized the situation?
Interim Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General
I want to add a nuance.
Interim Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General
It would have been impossible to predict most, if not all, these things in 2011.
Interim Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General
Everything was stable in 2011. Ten years later, even if everything had remained normal, it would probably have been necessary—
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
I now understand that the situation was unforeseeable.
A new government then came into power. In its first year, you asked the government for a $9 million increase, as the initial part of a total request for $21.5 million divided into two amounts. I'm referring to your opening remarks.
Is that correct?
Interim Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General
The total increase requested was $21 million.
Liberal
Interim Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General
The first increase was $9 million, and the second increase was scheduled for the following year.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
I gather that you received $7 million of that $9 million.
Interim Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General
Yes, because the $8.3 million actually included $7 million from our vote 1. I think that it was in the voted budgetary appropriations.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
I have the context. Thank you.
I think that money is a secondary issue. Money is indeed important. However, I think that, above all, we must determine how we can establish a mechanism to ensure the independence of your office. Pardon my ignorance, but Mr. Leswick said this morning that your office is treated the same as other federal departments and agencies.
We've heard that recommendations have been made in this area since 2005. Have the people from the Office of the Auditor General already had serious discussions with the current government about this type of mechanism?
Interim Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General
I don't remember exactly when this type of mechanism was in place. I think that it was a pilot project, but it wasn't renewed. I'll ask Mr. Hayes to elaborate.
Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General
I might answer this in English, if that's okay.
Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General
There was an ad hoc committee of the House of Commons in the mid-2000s, from 2005 to 2011, with an advisory role. The decisions on funding were still made by Treasury Board and the government. Although the agents of Parliament were comfortable with that mechanism, it wasn't made permanent after 2011.
In terms of your question, there are a number of options available for an independent funding mechanism for agents of Parliament. There are examples in other jurisdictions, other Commonwealth jurisdictions, like New Zealand and the U.K., where committees of the House would have the mandate to determine what the budget of the agents of Parliament would be.
Mr. Ferguson proposed a formula connected to overall government expenditures, but there are a number of ways in which this could be done.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Has a comparative study been conducted with countries similar to Canada to establish whether these countries have implemented an independence mechanism? Does this type of mechanism exist anywhere in the world?