Thank you, Chair. Is that deputy in the right spot, or what?
Mr. Chair, I appreciate your indulgence. If I could have just a little more, I'd like to come back to the issue of mandatory training. It was an excellent discussion. I'm probably going to be looking to the Auditor General and Mr. Matthews in particular, but I'm open to comments from others.
It would seem that we have a systemic issue facing us at the public accounts committee. Right now, wherever there is a definition of mandatory, to quote Mr. Glover from the beginning of the meeting, “mandatory means mandatory.” As much as we're hard-fisted around here regarding certain things, we try to be fair-minded. I know some people are saying, “Oh, really?”, but we do try to be fair-minded.
I was listening very intently to the responses from the deputies on mandatory training for risk assessment, and I thought there was a lot of logic to them. They made sense.
When the Auditor General had the floor, Chair, he was also being somewhat sympathetic to the idea that 100% isn't necessarily what it takes to be sure that everybody...because you're going to have some people who are transiting; you're going to have people who are changing. There are legitimate reasons. I liked it when I heard that those who are in decision-making positions prioritize what has the greatest impact.
These were, then, good answers from deputies. I want you to know that we do listen. Here, though, is our issue, the problem that we still have systemically, all of us.
First, I'm not sure who makes the decision on what is mandatory in training per se, but the Auditor General has indicated that there's certainly room in his thinking for mandatory to not necessarily mean everybody.
For the purpose of accountability, how do we go about separating, by way of measuring, what really is mandatory from what is not? When you only get 40%, you can't make the argument that systemically something doesn't work because of this, that, and the other; that's all gone. If we separate it out, then we can hold you to account—you, the deputy—in the areas in which you legitimately should be held to account, and we get these other things out of the system.
After all, the numbers would have been different; 59% is only good when you look at it compared with 24%, but 59% is still a better starting point, and it's more accurate.
Chair, I pose to anyone who can help—and I see the Auditor General raising his hand ever so helpfully—the question of how we go about systemically separating out things that really are mandatory, so that when mandatory things are mandatory and are not being done, we're going to be on the case and you're going to be answering why.
Separate out, however, things that legitimately may be.... Mandatory may not be the right word, but to end where I began, I agree with Mr. Glover: if it's mandatory, it means mandatory, but if it's not necessarily mandatory, then let's not measure it that way.
Auditor General, can you help us, sir?