Evidence of meeting #2 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was you're.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I have a couple of quick comments and then my question—
11:40 a.m.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
I'm sorry, but our interpreter is telling us that there's another connection issue. Unfortunately, I think that it's on Ms. Burns's end.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Kmiec
Dr. Burns, there seems to be some interference sometimes when you're speaking that's making it difficult for interpreters to interpret you into the French language. I don't know if you want to just double-check to see if your Wi-Fi connection is okay. Sometimes that interrupts it. Or maybe I can just recommend speaking more slowly, and then we can try to figure it out as we go and I can interrupt.
Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, we'll continue the meeting. However, if there's still an issue, we'll suspend the meeting and try to reconnect so that the interpretation is available in both languages.
Is that okay?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you.
I have a couple of quick comments and then my question.
I want to say a big thank you to the clerk and the analyst. They did a fantastic job last time, and I think they are actually the best on the Hill, so thanks very much for that.
Also, I think somebody talked about efficiency and effectiveness, so I have just a quick comment on that. Having served one tour of duty on public accounts, I would say that after a little bit of a rough patch, I think we really found our stride towards the end of the Parliament. I can remember a committee meeting where, to the credit of the vice-chair, she was much more vehement with the questions than I was, and if you had looked at this without seeing our name tags, you would have thought I was a Liberal and she was a Conservative, and I think that's when a committee really works best.
Now I will go to my question. One thing I've thought about and would like to get your comment on is the extent to which, if any at all, it is the job of the committee to hold not only the department to account but also the auditor by questioning the audit and how the audit was performed. I'd love to get your comments on that.
11:45 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Audit and Accountability Foundation
Okay, I'll jump in first, Lesley.
Certainly having been in that seat, I will say that it's always encouraging to have the support of the committee. It's important to be able to ask the auditor what they looked at so you can fully understand the context of the findings.
It becomes a little less constructive when you challenge the auditor by saying, “Why didn't you look at this other stuff?” Well, they didn't, so you can have a discussion about how they made their selection, because it's important to understand. However, if it turns out to be, “Well, we didn't want you to look at that; we wanted you to look at this other thing”.... They make their selection taking into account many different views and they do it in a non-political way; they do it based on risk and significance, and on how they can make a contribution.
Some of those conversations are best had behind the scenes and not in a public way or it looks as though there's a battle going on, with some saying, “Well, we're not even going to support the audit report, so what's the point of even looking at it?” Then it can go down a fairly slippery slope pretty quickly when it looks as though there is no support for the work of the auditor. They have the luxury of getting into significant detail on a particular program area for which they've identified the biggest risks, and they're already trying to bring it up to a level that's of use to the committee.
Anyway, I think I have made my point that it can be quite a.... But it's also just fine to ask them in order to fully understand what they did look at, to fully understand how things went. They will likely be able to discuss only what they have looked at, versus some other side issues that might come up.
11:45 a.m.
Director, Oversight, Canadian Audit and Accountability Foundation
Just to add to that, it is okay to ask the Auditor General to look into a given topic. Doing that will carry more weight if the group is unanimous in requesting it.
Auditors general often get requests from political parties to look at particular things, and my understanding is that they take all requests they receive seriously, but they do have a great commitment to ensuring that the audits are non-partisan and evidence-based. Ultimately, it's incredibly important for the independence of the Office of the Auditor General that it have the ultimate say in setting out its audit plans.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Kmiec
I'm just going to turn to our analyst, if he wants to add anything to that answer.
11:45 a.m.
Committee Researcher
Yes, Mr. Chair. However, just before that, I believe that Mrs. Shanahan raised her hand to speak.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Committee Researcher
Okay. I'll expand on some of the responses provided by the foundation representatives.
As part of the estimates study, we have the opportunity to invite representatives from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, or the OAG, to obtain certain information. We can talk about the plans for the next year, but also about the results of the previous fiscal year. To that end, analysts prepare questions regarding the OAG's results, objectives and governance. This is another opportunity to fulfill our oversight role. One key role of this committee, in this case, is to provide oversight of the OAG.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The questions and answers are very good this morning.
In terms of oversight, I want to make it clear that there's a difference between oversight and management, right? I'd like the witnesses to elaborate on this.
My next question is about the three Es, which we can see on slide 17 of your document. The concept looks very simple, but it isn't really that simple. The difference between economy, efficiency and effectiveness is explained. In my opinion, this is where the Standing Committee on Public Accounts' approach to its work has evolved.
I want to add one last thing about the role of the Auditor General. I believe that one of the committee's roles is to review the work of the Auditor General. We must approve the budget of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada at some point.
I'll always remember when Mr. Ferguson provided an extraordinary report on the shortcomings in all departments that handle indigenous affairs. It was a heartfelt appeal to the entire government and to all parliamentarians. In a way, he's the one who put us in the spotlight. What he did was quite unique, but it was mainly to show that a trend had been set. In any case, it hit home for me. As everyone knows, Mr. Ferguson passed away very shortly after that. I hope that these memories aren't too painful for you.
I want to hear your comments on this.
11:50 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Audit and Accountability Foundation
Lesley, do you want to take the accountability triangle piece around oversight, management and audit, and those relationships? Then I'll make a few comments on the three Es and the indigenous....
By the way, it's three years ago tomorrow that Mike Ferguson passed away. I need a second to pull myself together, while Lesley answers the accountability triangle question.
11:50 a.m.
Director, Oversight, Canadian Audit and Accountability Foundation
Sure. If you refer to slide number five, you will see what we often refer to as the accountability triangle, with Parliament on top, government and the audit. The relationship among those is very important, because to have an accountability system you need all three actors working together.
Parliament or the PAC provides the oversight. The auditors go in, look at the information and provide you with the reports and the information from government or management and the public service, and then ultimately it is up to management and the public service to implement those changes that are found. We talked a little bit about the ways in which you work with management to oversee that and ensure that this work is being done.
I don't know if that answers your question, but working together in all three is very important. We do sometimes hear of witnesses coming in and some parliamentarians who will talk about wanting that to be a bad day or a bad week for that witness. Depending on your outset...I think we have a very hard-working public service for the most part. I don't think, for the most part, they're trying to pull the wool over your eyes. They do want to collaborate and improve things. They have worked with the audit office in advance of that audit report being published. They are aware of the recommendations. In most reports, you will actually see management's response in that audit report, and whether they agree or disagree. If there are substantive disagreements, you will also see that.
Carol, did you want to touch on the three Es now?
11:50 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Audit and Accountability Foundation
Sure, I'll move in here.
On slide 17, we mention value for money and the three Es. It is a bit of historical evolution. The original terminology used for what we now see in performance audits was “value-for-money audits”, but it has changed from what it used to be. Those were originally defined as looking at an aspect of economy and efficiency. When you get into effectiveness, it's a little trickier. Auditors want to determine not directly whether or not something was effective, but rather whether or not the ministry or organization has a system in place to determine its effectiveness. It's just drawing that line in terms of independence. They don't generally look at all three. They may look at one aspect of the three.
Now, in the language of audit, they also talk about the five Es: economy, efficiency, effectiveness, environment, and equality. Environment is often looked at as a separate topic. Of course, you have the Commissioner of the Environment looking specifically at that. That's not unique in Canada, but it's very rare to have a separate activity around environment audits. Then, more recently, we have equality. “Equality” is the language used internationally in the audit world for what auditors are now incorporating, but it is more accurately equity.
Again, those are just definitions, to give you a flavour for what a performance audit can be. It's very much a blank page before they start, and then they will look at which of those aspects are of the greatest importance when they select how they will narrow down the work.
With respect to questions on indigenous services and the reports of the auditors, I'd actually say Sheila Fraser started drawing attention to many issues during her term, which would have been before Mike Ferguson's. Most certainly, the audit office has written quite a few reports in various areas where.... When the discussion gets into several levels of government.... We did work in Manitoba on child welfare systems and it incorporated three levels of government: first nations, the federal government and the provincial government. Some of those discussions do get complicated.
As the federal Auditor General, the Auditor General can make a recommendation to Parliament to have a federal answer to something, but there are often overlaps. From time to time, you will see work done in collaboration with the other jurisdictions. That was the case with climate. There was a decision to have everyone across the country do an audit of climate change at the same time because of those interactions. It wasn't done together, because of legal restrictions. You can't share all your information—it's confidential, and that kind of thing—but it was issued at the same time, so it was considered a collaboration.
There are different ways, but the biggest complexity, I'd say, with respect to those indigenous services audits is that the federal government cannot solve all the problems on its own without other jurisdictional input.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Kmiec
I'm sorry, Dr. Burns, but I'm going to interrupt you there. We're short on time, and I want to make sure I get to all three people who raised their hands.
We're going to finish with Ms. Bradford, Ms. Yip, and then Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, and those will be the last three we'll take. We're going to go over time, but I think it's important for everybody to get their questions in.
Ms. Bradford, please go ahead.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Valerie Bradford Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As a newbie on this committee, and given the complexity and the uniqueness of the work that we do, I just wonder if you could recommend any additional training that could be undertaken and/or offered so that newcomers can get up to speed as quickly as possible and contribute in a meaningful fashion to the work of this committee.
11:55 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Audit and Accountability Foundation
Lesley, go ahead.
11:55 a.m.
Director, Oversight, Canadian Audit and Accountability Foundation
We are available to provide more training should you wish. We do have a lot of resources on our website. I would direct you to our pocket cards or quick reference cards. I believe the clerk has shared those with you. Those have the most condensed information we have. We also have a good practice guide there that you may find useful.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
One of the things I like about this committee is how, in the end—and hopefully throughout this time—we all come together and work together, just as Mr. Lawrence has referenced.
I'd like to ask a question about page 31: “Tips to Foster Cross-Party Collaboration”. Could you clarify the bullet point “Focus on strengthening public administration”?
Thank you.