Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 18th, 2016

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the interest of carrying out our duties as elected representatives even more efficiently, I'd like to know whether some sort of table or summary exists. Specifically, something that lists the recommendations made over the past 15 years, along with an evaluation column or section indicating how much progress has been made towards implementing the recommendation, in other words, 50%, 75% or none.

Is there any such tool that could help us in our efforts to set priorities?

[Michael Ferguson]

Certainly all of our recommendations are accessible. We could probably go back a period of time and pull out the recommendations we've made on a number of topics.

One thing we try to do in each audit, at the very back of the audit, is list the recommendations.

I'm looking at the one at report 4 on implementing shared services. At the very back on page 27 of that report the recommendations are listed, as well as the response of the department.

If you're interested in the recommendations, it's fairly easy to get them, but I think we could probably go back and put together some sort of a tabulation of it.

In terms of what action has been taken, that's more difficult, because that would depend on whether we have done a follow-up on those particular recommendations or not. We haven't followed up on every recommendation.

Sometimes we can ask a department if they have done anything in terms of a recommendation, and they will give us an answer. We don't tend to publish that, because we haven't audited it.

A department could tell us they've implemented all the recommendations, but we're not going to come here and tell you they've implemented them, because we don't know. We haven't gone in and received the level of assurance that we need to be able to say that yes, they've done that.

If the committee is interested in having some sort of a tabulation of some past recommendations, that's something we could do, or we could work with the clerk and the analysts to do it, or whatever. That would at least give you the topics and recommendations.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Please understand that a list of the recommendations isn't what would be helpful to us but, rather, the follow-up information on those recommendations.

You issue recommendations and we question department officials. But when it comes to the next step, the application, follow-up or oversight piece to ensure that those recommendations have been put in place is lacking. That might be something worth considering to make your recommendations more effective. Now I'm not sure whether that's a request for your office or the committee, Mr. Chair. Perhaps that's a tool we could decide to develop going forward.

My understanding, then, Mr. Auditor General, is that no such tool exists on your end.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

I think the offer from our Auditor General to work with our clerk and our analysts we would certainly welcome. We can figure out the process to do that a little later on.

Madam Murray, please.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Ferguson.

I have a question about the gender-based analysis chapter in your report.

You said there are three barriers. One of the barriers was lack of capacity in the departments to apply gender-based analysis.

Another barrier is that there is no requirement to do the gender-based analysis. It's more policy advice managed by Status of Women.

You also said there is a shortcoming in that even when there is more activity in terms of education and training, it hasn't necessarily been accomplished by results.

That really makes me think. As our government has a strong priority on gender equality, and the departments are taking a look at the impact of their programs on various genders, it has to be effective.

This may be in the form of advice or your thoughts. Have you looked at how other countries incorporate gender into program analysis? Is there a fundamental shortcoming with the system we're using in Canada? Can you talk to us about how this is done in other countries where it is working? Are there other systems besides the GBA one that we're using in Canada? Could it be about good people trying to manage a poor process? What are some improved processes that we should be thinking about?

[Michael Ferguson]

It wasn't really something that we included in the audit in terms of a comparison to others. I think probably, if you bring Status of Women witnesses in for a hearing, they could probably give you a better sense of some of that.

We do lay out, though, in paragraph 1.25 in the report, the components of the framework: a statement of intent or policy; a responsibility centre to monitor the implementation; training for senior officials, analysts, and other appropriate staff; guides, manuals, and other appropriate tools; annual self-assessment on implementation of a GBA framework.

When you look at the basics of the framework, it seems they have a good basis of the framework. What it comes down to is that not every department has been implementing it, and even the departments that have been implementing it aren't always completing it.

The other thing we identified in the audit is that, when it is done, it identifies that there can be a different impact on men or women from a given policy decision, and that has caused there to be adjustments to the way policies have been implemented. I think that shows that that type of analysis does have an impact, and it can cause adjustments to the way policies are put in place.

I think the framework is probably pretty good, and I think there are indications that it can produce results. Not everybody is doing it, and they're not doing it all the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you both very much.

We'll go to Mr. Christopherson, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, to continue on this, I appreciate Madam Murray's interest and the questions. They were very helpful.

If we wanted to go to a mandatory system, what would that look like? Can you help me with the mechanics of that? It seems to be voluntary. If it was mandatory, they'd be breaching something and there would be some ability to hold people to account. Therefore, I'm assuming that it's still all voluntary. What could we do, in your opinion? Where can we go to explore the idea of making this mandatory so that, from now on, everybody who has an obligation to report under the current system, it's no longer whether they want to or a kind of a fuzzy like-to-do thing, but they have to do this and there are serious repercussions if they don't? What might that look like, Mr. Ferguson?

[Michael Ferguson]

Well, that would end up having to be something that's in, perhaps, a cabinet directive, Treasury Board policy, or something like that, because it doesn't exist right now. It would be something that would provide a mandate.

Again, we haven't made any recommendation on that, because that is fundamentally the government's decision about whether it's going to have a mandatory policy about that or not. However, the basic framework is there, and I think Status of Women knows what needs to be done, but what isn't there is any of that imperative, if you want, existing in a directive or a policy.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, it seems to me that's the next step, and I hope we can work on doing that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right, we'll go to the official opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is on report 5, on Canadian Armed Forces housing. In paragraph 5.32, after the note “private housing market”, you state that National Defence approved the military housing requirements of 11,858 units. Were those units owned by the military? Were they constructed by the government, or were these private housing units?

[Michael Ferguson]

Of those 11,858 units, there are a few that are leased, but it's a very few, I think mostly in the north. Most of them are housing that is owned by National Defence.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

You indicate that National Defence should have considered the ability of the private housing market to absorb the demand of CAF members. Is that an accurate summary of your conclusion on that point?

[Michael Ferguson]

That comes from the report, starting at paragraph 5.17, which is looking at general government policy:

Government policy requires that Crown-owned housing be provided only when the housing directly supports operational requirements, or when suitable housing is not available in the private housing market.

That's the overall government policy. Then National Defence's own policy reiterates the same thing. Again, it's not just us saying, “Well, you should consider that”. It's that we're going back to this being the overall government policy about housing, and that same requirement is within National Defence's policy.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

So the decision to construct 11,858 units may have been at least partly in contravention of that policy, given that you found the department had not considered how the private market might have met the needs of CAF members.

[Michael Ferguson]

When you're dealing with something like housing, you're always dealing with changing circumstances. A number of these units were built many years ago. In some cases they may have been built in places that did not have deep housing markets at the time but have since established housing markets. There's always a requirement to have to make some adjustments.

There are two aspects of trying to manage the inventory. One is to add to it. The other is to say, “Well, okay, now the market is sufficient so we don't really need to be owners of housing. Should we be considering divesting ourselves of some of what we own in some markets?” When you're dealing with housing, it's not like you just make a decision and change each day. It's something that takes a little bit longer to do. Fundamentally what's happening is that they are still providing housing units in a couple of markets where the housing markets are, and they know that they are deep enough that the markets themselves could provide that housing.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

In the following paragraph, you indicate that the market analysis performed for the agency showed that the private housing market could generally have met members' needs in urban locations such as Halifax and Valcartier. By not considering the private market, the agency was not acting in a manner consistent with National Defence and government policies.

How much do you believe the department could have saved if it had taken advantage of available private housing rather than owning the units itself?

[Michael Ferguson]

That's not something we were really able to put a number on. I think that goes back to the fundamental issue in all of this, that they have a policy which says that if the local market can provide it, it should provide it. However, in order to be able to determine how much housing is needed, you also have to look at who among the members of the armed forces should be getting access to housing and what type of housing that should be. There would be a lot of other factors that would go into that to decide how many units they are providing now that could be provided by the market. We didn't do that analysis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll move to Monsieur Harvey, please, for three minutes.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Like a lot of other members here, I am new to politics and new to this committee.

I just have a few questions and they concern the special examination of crown corporations.

I come from a background in private business which had regular audits of all departments within the business I was in, both quarterly and yearly, my questions are centred around this.

You performed two special examinations of crown corporations in 2015. On what basis was the determination made to examine those two particular crown corporations?

[Michael Ferguson]

The requirement to do special examinations of crown corporations exists within the Financial Administration Act, and for the vast majority of crown corporations, other than a couple of crown corporations, they each have to have a special examination done once every 10 years. It was the turn of these two organizations for the special examinations to be completed. There's a list of crown corporations. Every one of them has to have a special examination done once every 10 years. That's all laid out in the Financial Administration Act.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Okay.

There are two parts to my next question. First, would you typically do two per year or a set number per year, depending solely on where the 10-year line fell? Second, do you think it would be beneficial to perform those audits on crown corporations on a more regular basis? Instead of 10-year intervals, maybe they should be performed at five-year intervals or two-year intervals.

[Michael Ferguson]

That's remembering that every crown corporation has a financial statement audit done every year.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Yes.