Public Accounts Committee on June 13th, 2019

[Andrew Hayes]

Yes. We have looked at other jurisdictions—

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

For example?

[Andrew Hayes]

— largely New Zealand and the U.K., and we've looked at the provinces. We've looked at other examples like South Africa, Norway, Sweden and those kinds of countries where the office is not exactly the same, just to see if there are other good practices that we could—

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Okay.

According to this ad hoc committee, which existed from 2005 to 2011—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Arseneault, I'm doing it to you again. I apologize, but we're over our time here.

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

It's so interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

The poor chair is getting caught up in your questioning.

Mr. Christopherson, go ahead, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I just want to mention to Mr. Whalen who used a sort of common-sense approach—and I appreciate that—in the comments to say, hey, maybe politicians should decide what gets studied. I appreciate where that's coming from, but I can assure you that one of the golden rules of public accounts is the independence of the Office of the Auditor General to choose what it goes into. Otherwise we're into a whole other nightmare scenario in which it is being guided by politics. That independence is crucial, and I think that's what the chair was emphasizing, but I understand where you're coming from. I just needed to make that point. That's a golden rule with us: we can recommend, and when it's unanimous that office pays serious attention to it, but, at the end of the day the law says the office is independent and decides where to go, not us.

I had, I think, actually criticized the media—which is really stupid if you're running again, but I'm not. However, when I am trying to get something, doing that is just as stupid, and I don't want to do that. I'm imploring—that is more the tone I should have taken—the national media to please help us and pay attention to this. We need the public to focus on Parliament's plight here.

I want to give a shout-out. I mentioned Andrew Coyne, and he was good enough to tweet it, but Marie-Danielle Smith was the one at Postmedia who did a story immediately afterwards and then a follow-up one. I could have lived without the hook that created the story, but it got the story out there. That's what matters, and it's much appreciated.

I can tell you that within the auditing, accountability, oversight and transparency of government community, it was noted and appreciated. So, hopefully, we can get others to understand the importance of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Christopherson, I hate to interrupt you because I know you're getting to the crux of your question. The bells are now starting to ring.

We are close to the chamber. Do we have unanimous consent to carry on for maybe 20 minutes? That would give us 10 minutes to get up to the chamber, but meanwhile ask a few more questions.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It looks like we're good.

Continue please; that wasn't taken off your time.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate that very much, Chair.

I was talking about justification. The only justification we're getting in the House of Commons is from the government minister, who is standing up and going back to 2011 and condemning the Conservatives and using that as justification for what they did. First, even if it were true, it's not justification to underfund the Auditor General. Secondly, it's not true. We've got it in writing; we've heard it from our Auditor General. It was voluntary. I can tell you that it was my friend Tony Clement who was the president of Treasury Board. I know that he was actively working the phones and talking to the Auditor General's office because he knew that if they said no, they would have a bit of a problem. He was showing respect and doing what he could to avoid that.

That is not what the government is saying that the previous government did. I don't belong to either party and I was here for both Parliaments. It is absolutely unfair and unjustifiable that the government would make up stories about the previous government to create a phony fig leaf to hide behind.

Next, I want to point out again that while we have a majority government, we often lose track of the fact that Parliament is supreme—not the government. Parliament decides who is the government. Parliament decides who is the Prime Minister by a majority vote. Whoever can get 50% plus one in the House of Commons is the Prime Minister, but at the end of the day, the executive council—the Cabinet—has no legal right to spend one penny that Parliament hasn't approved. Parliament controls the purse strings, but because we have a majority government and the government wins every vote and when they put the budget forward it carries, it looks like the finance minister is calling the shots. At then end of the day, though, structurally.... You really see this play out when you're in a minority government. You and I have been there, Chair.

The reality is that here we are going, cap in hand, to a subordinate body to ask them to match the funding that we recommend and yet we control the purse strings. That's the absurdity of where we are.

I also want to point out the following, because it just jumped in my head, and I thought it was a good point. We asked the question—I think it was Mr. Arseneault who asked the really good question—whether there are any other jurisdictions that do that. Nine times out of ten, Mr. Arseneault, when other jurisdictions around the world ask that question of their auditor general, guess who gets held up as one of the one or two best in the world? The answer you heard was New Zealand and the U.K., because when you remove us from the equation.... We like to fight with the U.K. about whether we're one or two. It's a lovely fight to have, but I just want to point out to you that that's the respect we have in the world and that's what's at stake, too. Internationally, this government had a mandate to reposition Canada on the international stage and here you are damaging our reputation in an area where we already are seen as world leaders. I just wanted to put that on the record.

With the greatest of respect, if the government would change its mind and acknowledge and say that it was going to respect the agents of Parliament and it said it was going to respect the standing committees of Parliament and now the agent of Parliament and a standing committee by unanimous vote have called for this $10.8 million to be put back in. As much as it was question period yesterday and I was full of rhetoric and everything else, I do beg the question: Where is the respect?

I have one absolute last point I want to make and then I will be completely finished on this subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Do it very quickly.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I don't have it right in front of me, so it can't be that important.

All right, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Arseneault, we'll come back to you and then to Mr. Blaney.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

How many minutes do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have four to five.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I was referring to a comparison with other countries in terms of an independence mechanism, not to Canada's reputation, of course. The public will have clearly understood my question.

We don't have that type of mechanism. Mr. Hayes, you said that there was a mechanism in New Zealand. Do you know what it might look like in comparison with other countries? What would be a good model for a Canadian mechanism to ensure the independence of the Office of the Auditor General? In my opinion, this is the most important issue when it comes to the office's demands.

[Andrew Hayes]

There are positives and negatives to virtually every kind of mechanism we explore. It's a policy decision at the end of the day for Parliament, but we are looking at a number of options to propose. The New Zealand model, which can compared with the U.K. model and that of some of the other provinces in Canada, has a role for the parliamentary committee where the expenditures that officers of Parliament would like to have are considered. We already have a model in Parliament whereby the Parliamentary Budget Officer or the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner have an independent funding mechanism. That is well-known by parliamentarians, and it could work for us.

There's the model that Mr. Ferguson proposed, where you link the funding of the agents of Parliament to metrics that relate to the work that they do, the mandated functions. For the Auditor General, it might be the overall government program expenditures that the Auditor General suggested. For another agent of Parliament, it might be connected to the complaints or the workload they have.

I guess the crux of this—and we appreciate the support of the committee in this regard—is that we would like a model that doesn't require us to seek the funding through the departments that we have to audit.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

I hear you loud and clear.

I learned this morning that the Office of the Auditor General is governed by the same funding framework as other federal departments and agencies. I didn't know that this was the case. This has been the case since the dawn of time, since Canada was founded. Does your proposed solution fall outside the scope of the overall funding framework, which covers all federal agencies?

[Andrew Hayes]

I wouldn't say that we need to be taken out of the overall management of our office by government policies. Quite frankly, the government does a great job of putting in place policies that are important and help control the way that organizations operate. We are not looking to have that happen, if that answers your question.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Ricard referred to the ad hoc committee that ended in 2011. Could you tell me about the findings in relation to this mechanism? I don't know who can answer that question.

[Andrew Hayes]

All I know is that there was a report at that time.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

You were not there?