Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to sub out for Mr. Chambers, who's going to take over for me from here. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Chambers, you have the floor for four minutes and 50 seconds.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for appearing here, Ms. Hogan. You can put me down as a supporter of changing the way you receive your funding and moving it to parliamentary appropriation.

Earlier this year, you were asked about a CRA audit with respect to the CERB process. I'm wondering if you could provide an update. Do you have enough resources to complete that audit? Is that something we can expect within a number of weeks?

[Karen Hogan]

I believe the audit you're referring to is the one in Bill C-2, which was to look at post-payment work for six different COVID relief programs.

We are at the tail end of that audit and expect to release it in early December, before the deadline, which was supposed to be December 19.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

That's wonderful. Thank you very much.

Early in December is helpful. I make that point because Parliament has been asked to approve an additional dental care plan that is seeking to rely on the same process. I think it would be very helpful for parliamentarians to have your impartial view on the process that the government has set up.

In 2017, your office also included some performance review metrics of CRA with respect to customer service—call wait times, etc. Given that we've asked CRA to do a lot more work in recent years—CERB, dental care and so on—I'm wondering if you have the resources to update and check back on how they've been doing since then. You had some recommendations. I'm curious if that's on your map at all on a go-forward basis.

[Karen Hogan]

I appreciate the question, because we actually did follow up on it. As I've mentioned at this committee a few times, we have an online searchable database that we call “update on past audits”. It displays certain elements that we've picked from previous audits. The call centre work is included in there. I'm just not sure if that iteration is out in public yet or if it's coming.

Maybe I could get back to the committee with that, if you'd like. I just don't remember where it is in that process.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

That's wonderful. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Just following on my colleague Mr. Genuis's earlier comments with respect to the growth in the size of government, we just heard some numbers—547 FTEs, and about 600 FTEs held flat for a number of years, basically. Government has grown in size by one-third since 2015 in terms of the number of FTEs. Your office has been asked to basically increase its productivity levels with respect to the work you have to do or the amount of work we're asking you to do, but the government does not seem to be keeping productivity levels to a reasonable degree. Most of the customer service standards across many of the departments are in some cases the worst they've ever been, with wait times for passports and immigration backlogs. They're actually doing less with more people, and you're doing more with less people, on kind of a per capita basis, in terms of the work you're pointing out.

Do you think the government needs a true workforce plan—a people plan or an FTE plan—about how much productivity they're getting from an employee, how much they're planning to hire to accomplish the objectives and the tools they need to carry on what they're trying to do for Canadians? It seems to be a little bit haphazard.

[Karen Hogan]

Thank you very much for the compliment. I'll make sure everyone in our organization receives it, because they do work very hard. They take to heart the work they do for Parliament.

I don't think it's just a work plan. I'll be really honest: There's a need to look at how IT can help with efficiency. To just say that it's a work plan, that it's humans, I think would be wrong. There are so many aspects of the public service that need that human interface because it is service delivery, but there are ways to improve efficiency and effectiveness with other means. I think it would be wrong to just say it's a human resources work plan that's needed.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I look forward to any future comments you have on a review that you might do on the government on how it's working on efficiency and productivity.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses today.

Auditor General Hogan, in front of me is the notice of meeting, which says the topic of today's meeting is “Briefing on the Office of the Auditor General”, so you'll forgive me if I at least begin with a general question. My colleague MP Bradford touched on this.

Across the world we see democracies, established democracies, with real questions in front of them about their future. Crucial to that is the independence of institutions, including the offices of auditors general. How crucial is it that auditors general remain free to take up issues as they see fit instead of being pushed in that direction by political parties?

[Karen Hogan]

In my view, it's a foundational element to the independence of the Office of the Auditor General. That is why I believe the funding mechanism should include Parliament and be free of the departments we audit. I do think every auditor general will tell you that it is a foundational element.

I think this committee actually plays a really important role in that. This committee is one that is meant to be non-partisan, where everyone comes together and stays focused on the spending of the money and the delivering of services. It isn't just my office that ensures good democracy; many elements together ensure good democracy.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Tell me more about that. I'm a relatively new member of this committee, but I've come to see it as the audit committee of Parliament, and therefore non-partisan. Tell me about the importance of this committee remaining non-partisan.

[Karen Hogan]

I have always enjoyed this committee for exactly that reason. We stay focused on the work at hand when we're here. I believe this committee is an extension of the good independent work that my office does. I honestly don't believe anyone in Canada should silence the Auditor General—I don't believe any levels of auditor general should be silenced—and this committee plays a huge role in that respect.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Certainly we respect your role very much.

I'll move on to something more specific.

Is there a danger, in your view, if political parties are seen to be interfering in your labour negotiations? How would that affect your ability to negotiate a deal on your own?

[Andrew Hayes]

I might handle that question.

Being able to negotiate with our employees in the context of the federal government is important for us. We compete with other government departments for the skills we need from our staff across all of our organization.

The question about political interference, in all honesty, is a concerning one. At a fundamental level, we need to be independent and we need to be able to negotiate in a fair context with our employees. We recognize, though, that we are part of the federal public service and that what happens at our table affects the public service and what happens in the public service affects our table. We understand that reality. We're competing for the same staff.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you.

This is a different line of questioning. Earlier, in response to some of the questions put by MP Dong, you talked about the attrition that was very common in your office from 2005 to 2015. How did that outcome, which was a result of lack of funding, affect the work of the office? What was the overall impact on not just the work, but I suppose democracy in general?

[Andrew Hayes]

The information that was provided to the committee was helpful. The fact that we went from 577 employees down to 547 employees over the 10 years shows that there was a gradual reduction in the number of staff we could have. There was an erosion, if you will, in our ability to maintain staffing levels.

As we worked through that 10-year period, we saw an inability to invest in some modernization on the IT front. We also saw discretionary audits having to be scaled back. We always had to do the financial work; it was in our performance audit work that we had to reduce the numbers.

What does that mean? It means that at a fundamental level, committees such as this one don't have as much material from our office to hold government to account on the services it provides and the money that is spent.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much. That is the time.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Auditor General said earlier that legislative changes would be needed for Crown corporations, who receive hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government, to finally start disclosing information on their expenditures to MPs and Canadians.

My question is for the representative of the Treasury Board Secretariat.

What changes would have to be made to legislation to have Crown corporations disclose their expenditures the same way departments do?

[Stephen Diotte]

Unfortunately, I don't have any information on that; I apologize.

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

Could you send us that information, please?

[Stephen Diotte]

Yes.

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

Excellent.

Madam Auditor General, I will continue my series of questions about best practices.

You stated that special examinations of smaller Crown corporations must have a similar scope, which makes it harder to examine larger Crown corporations.

Could you tell me a little more about that, please?

[Karen Hogan]

Perhaps I misspoke. It is not that the special examinations of big Crown corporations are more difficult. It's rather the fact that the approach or the scope has to be the same, whether the corporation has 30 or 30,000 employees.