Public Accounts Committee on April 18th, 2024

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Fantastic.

In examining the work that is being done through the lens of sustainable development goals and equity, diversity and inclusion and looking at differences within regions, what is your perception of how departments themselves have initiated their own work to further these very important goals that Canada believes in, and certainly your department believes in?

[Karen Hogan]

Well, I will definitely see if Andrew wants to jump in on this. For a while he was our interim commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, so he probably has some thoughts for sure.

I think that many departments, as we have shown through all of our audits, really talk about the sustainable development goals, but then have a hard time figuring out how they contribute to them or how they can measure whether or not they're actually having a positive contribution to Canada's commitments. When individual departments aren't doing that, it's hard to take a step back as a whole of government and see if Canada is meeting them. I think there's a lot of work to do there—not just talking about the goals but actually trying to measure progress and think about how programs are impacting them.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to have you hold off for Mr. Hayes.

[Karen Hogan]

That's okay. I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chair. You're letting us go on and on.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You're very welcome.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have two minutes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you.

As you clearly saw, your ArriveCAN report disclosed many deeper problems within the federal government. How are you going to address these issues in future audits? I mentioned double-dipping in particular, which is a little more widespread, hiring companies that ultimately do no work, and procurement problems, which are also widespread, that have been going on for at least 15 years. A lot of issues need to be explored.

Do you intend to conduct performance audits and make solid recommendations in that regard?

[Karen Hogan]

You began by asking how we've changed our approach and how we're going to take account of the ArriveCAN findings when conducting other audits. These days, I have to admit that, when we produce a report, we wonder whether we should consider some of the items identified during the ArriveCAN audit.

It's changed our approach and the questions we ask about contracting out and conflicts of interest a little. We've modified our programs a bit to see if any other issues might come to the surface if we dig a little deeper.

It has definitely changed our approach.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Okay. Basically, what I specifically wanted to know is whether you intend to conduct future studies on the more important issues uncovered by the ArriveCAN study.

[Karen Hogan]

We could examine contracting out processes and potential conflicts of interest in the course of various audits. We could step back and perform a more horizontal audit of all government programs.

I'd like to see the government's response to the findings first, and give it time to make adjustments. We could consider that later. However, we'll certainly keep it in mind when choosing the appropriate time to audit these issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, you have time for a brief question.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I think this approach seems appropriate in a number of cases, but we could immediately start examining our use of companies that are nothing more than headhunters, for example, since it's a widespread problem within the government.

On the other hand, we need to conduct a performance audit of the procurement system now, before we waste even more money.

[Karen Hogan]

I understand your question.

Yes, work is needed on government procurement. There are lots of regulations right now. I'm concerned that the government could add more, when what we may really need is to step back a little and see if the regulations are overly complicated, if people tend avoid them, and if they can be improved.

There are lots of possible approaches, but the ombud is working on that too, in addition to internal audits by the departments and the work done by my office. We want to avoid double-dipping.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Next up is Mr. Desjarlais. You have the floor for two minutes, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to speak about the recommendation you made, Ms. Hogan, on an independent funding mechanism.

I think it's important that Canadians try to understand why that's important. Of course, for members of Parliament, including me, it's important that we understand the need for an independent funding mechanism.

Let's rewind the clock a bit to a time when the Office of the Auditor General didn't have the kind of funding needed to achieve its goals.

When I first became a member of Parliament earlier this session—when we first met—you came to us asking for more support and money. Of course, there is a deep connection between accountability and the Auditor General's office. If the Auditor General's office can't perform audits, the government can't accept recommendations. Worse yet, we can't hold the government accountable. The Office of the Auditor General is very important, which is why it's one of the oldest offices in the country. It's what made our country and what makes Canada highly democratic. It's a very valuable democratic contribution to the world.

What is the value, do you think, of a government that would fund the Office of the Auditor General versus a government that would not fund the Office of the Auditor General? What impacts would that have on your service and work?

[Karen Hogan]

I know Andrew wants to add here.

I will just mention that my office will be celebrating its 150th anniversary in 2028. It has been around for a very long time and is an important institution for our democratic system, absolutely.

Andrew will talk a bit more about funding mechanisms and the importance of them.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Before you go to Andrew, for the context I'm trying to get—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, why don't we hear the answer?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

No, I'm trying to get context here, if I can. I'll be very quick.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay. Be very brief.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

It's the context relating to the direct connection between accountability and a government that has to decide how much money you get. Let's say we rewind the clock, go to the Harper era and look at.... You just mentioned you didn't have enough money during that time to perform the audits.

Does that damage the Office of the Auditor General's ability to have good maintenance?

[Andrew Hayes]

I think I would like to answer that question by saying that the role of the Auditor General is critical to democracy. We bring forward impartial, objective and independent advice. We make our recommendations on the basis of facts that have been cleared and have been certified by the departments themselves as accurate.

Ultimately, when it comes to our funding, it is difficult to go to a government and say, “Give us more money so we can critique you.” That's where the role of parliamentary committees comes in. This committee, in particular, through a series of governments, has shown itself to be an incredible ally to the Office of the Auditor General and an ally to democracy. It was because of the work of this committee, even before 2020, that we got our funding. Quite frankly, it was the pressure this committee put on the government.

I would refer the members to the report that was submitted by this committee to Parliament in the previous Parliament signalling the importance of independent funding mechanisms. This committee does great work for democracy, and I would highlight the importance of non-partisanship and the importance of support for the Auditor General not being lost.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Stewart, you have the floor for three minutes.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This week the Treasury Board Secretariat provided the public accounts committee with a shocking summary of the contracts that GC Strategies, Dalian Enterprises and Coradix Technology Consulting have had with the federal government. There were 1,108 contracts in total, with a value of more than $914 million.

Just three companies closed in on a billion dollars. That's very concerning to us, but not, apparently, to the government—especially on top of the more than $120 million in untendered contracts the Liberal government has handed to McKinsey & Company.

Can I ask your thoughts on the massive number of questionable contracts for outside consultants? When do you expect your McKinsey review to be completed?

[Karen Hogan]

My office is in the process of clearing the facts with the entities involved in our professional services contract. It is a lengthy one. There are 10 departments and 10 Crown corporations included in that. Our goal is to have that tabled very soon, before Parliament rises for the summer break, so that Parliament has the opportunity to hold some hearings on it.

What are my views on using external consultants? At times, they are needed. At times, there should be a bigger challenge to it. For example, my office will use a professional service contract to supplement when we have a peak and don't have staff to do all the audit work we might need to, or we might use a professional service contract to get expertise—such as actuarial expertise—when we don't have enough work to keep someone busy 365 days a year.

At times, it makes sense. At other times, I think bigger scrutiny is needed on the use of contractors.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you for the answer.

You will probably not be surprised by my next question. Since your last appearance, this committee has received more information about the National Capital Commission's $8-million “barndoggle”, including detailed blueprints. The $8-million barn does in fact have a basement, so we now have confirmation that the infamous elevator does in fact go down but not up.

Why the $8-million barn has an elevator is still a very outstanding question, and the secrecy surrounding it is very interesting—