Evidence of meeting #38 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 departments.
A video is available from Parliament.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
We found that the agency decides in favour of taxpayers in 65% of cases. I do not think the objective is to discourage taxpayers, but we did identify a great many problems in the system.
I don't think the agency understands all the problems in the process. After our consultations and what we reported, I think the agency will start re-examining the process.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Is it due to a staff shortage? What additional tools could speed the process up?
I understand that the agency will evaluate itself, but it should have done so before your audit. You did your audit and now they have the results in front of them and will react.
I do not know how long it will take them to react, but I think this organization should have taken the initiative to evaluate itself, but that is another problem.
In your audit, did you note certain tools? Is there a staff shortage or a lack of tools? If so, what tools should we as parliamentarians provide them?
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Once again, I think it is truly possible for the agency to improve its processes.
First of all, they will need an approach that allows them to draw lessons. When a decision changes, it is important to draw lessons, that is, to understand why the decision changed. Is there a way to change the process, from the outset, in order to reduce the number of cases in which taxpayers object?
In my opinion, the most important thing is having such a step at the end of the process. We have to understand why decisions change and how we can improve the process from the outset.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
So what you are saying is that we should be working upstream instead of downstream. We have to draw on the experience gained in processing files and consider the slow processing times in order to address the problems.
I think that is a very good solution. Moreover, I think it is unfortunate that you were forced to say that the department could have evaluated itself. We will have to live with that.
I have a quick question regarding “Report 5—Canadian Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention”. You said that the Regular Force had not met its target of 68,000 members. Why did you not make any recommendations in that regard?
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
We made recommendations about different ways of recruiting personnel for certain occupations. We think it is important for National Defence to determine the occupations for which targeted measures must be taken in order to attract people with those occupations.
This problem must be addressed through targeted measures for certain occupations in the armed forces overall.
Conservative
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is a very quick question, and honest to God, I don't remember who made the change or who took the decision on this. In terms of Revenue Canada, has there been a certain loss of accountability, direct accountability to ministers, to parliamentarians, since it became an agency instead of a department?
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
That's not something we noticed in any way.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Revenue Canada has done some good things. When you look at some of the work they've done with electronic filing and things like that... They have been looking at other ways to deliver services and those types of things. I can't really do a comparison about before and after, or anything like that. They still have a lot of work to do to understand the delivery of their services to citizens.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
It's more on the accountability side of it, whom you are accountable to as an agency. It's almost as if you have another layer of separation from parliamentarians and government, and you feel you're somewhat more separate. That's more my question. I know you probably didn't look at this in the audit.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
No, we didn't, but that is an interesting observation.
Again, as well, we've brought forward three special examinations. The special examinations are work that we do in crown corporations, where there is also that governance layer. When you have those organizations with a governance layer, obviously, as parliamentarians, you are relying on that governing board to make sure that those organizations are doing what they are supposed to do. When that is functioning the way that it should function, then you will see organizations that are run the right way and are achieving good results.
We had the special examination of the International Development Research Centre. Again, they had good strategic planning and a lot of good approaches, but they were at risk—
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
—because they were down to a minimum number of board members. As parliamentarians, you're relying on those governing boards to make sure these organizations are being managed the right way.
If that governing board layer is operating the right way—and we in no way looked at that in the case of Revenue Canada—it actually can be a very good, I suppose, almost comfort to you that there are people overseeing that organization to make sure it's working the way it should.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
Well, I'm still curious about Revenue Canada.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you.
I think that concludes most of the questions.
I want to thank you for your concluding comments in your presentation today. I want to read them into the record again. I think it's good for all members of Parliament, all those on this committee, to listen carefully to what the Auditor General said:
To close, I want to go back to my earlier remarks about the frustration of citizens with government programs. One way or another, everything that government does is intended to serve Canadians. As such, departments should “do service well,” to benefit Canadians both individually and collectively.
Then he said:
It is critical for government departments to understand that their services need to be built around citizens, not process. As they work to implement our recommendations, I encourage them to take a step back and focus on how they can deliver services that work for Canadians.
I want to thank you for that closing statement. As a businessman, I have been frustrated with government applications for programs. We've somewhat picked away at Revenue Canada today, but there are 900-day waits and months of waits for objections that have been filed.
As we go in as a committee to call these departments together, I think it's imperative for us as well to step back, as the Auditor General said, and run it through the lens of how it serves the average taxpayer, the average Canadian, the average one who may be overwhelmed with paperwork and book work. Is it there for them, or is it there as a make-work project for accountants or for others?
Auditor General, I thank you for these reports, for your report, for your presence here today, and we look forward to meeting again. As we bring other departments in, hopefully we will have a chance to meet again.
Thank you for being here.
The meeting is adjourned.