Thank you, Chair.
I, too, am disturbed that these kinds of discussions are creeping into this committee, which has always prided itself on being non-partisan and studying the Auditor General's reports in a fulsome way. For members on either side, and I can think of examples where it was in....
When we're sitting on this side, or when the opposition was sitting on this side, there are very careful considerations made of what the Auditor General has to say and a very deliberate manner of bringing those points forward to the government of the day. This is because we all have the same objective in mind, which is that we want to have a better functioning public service and delivery on government policy for Canadians.
Therefore, a statement—and I think we do this on a regular basis—in which we uphold the integrity of the Auditor General's work is one that I am very comfortable making at any time. I have been very uncomfortable in past meetings, when there were accusations or insinuations that the Auditor General was somehow working on the government's side, or however it was put.
It was very unfortunate, because, as members have pointed out, the Auditor General is named by the government of the day, but there are nomination hearings. Again, it's the integrity of that office that is most important, even over and above the person themselves. The integrity of that office.... We are known internationally for the quality of the public accounts work that we do, and I know our ministers appreciate the reports that are produced by the Auditor General.
I always go to how the Auditor General works. They go into different government departments. They speak with public servants in their workplace. They look at the day-to-day operations. They are there to provide the kind of.... It's better than the best-paid management consultant you could hire, having the Auditor General in your offices.
I know our ministers, including our Minister of National Revenue, deeply appreciate the work that was done. Of course she does, and of course we do, because the Auditor General has brought forward some very important points that need to be looked at. We need to look at different ways of doing things, and we are very happy to do so.
I am distressed any time—and I've discussed this in other forums here—this committee wants to compel the Auditor General to do certain audits, because we know the Auditor General looks at the functioning of government and her office will choose to study independently those areas that she deems are the most important to Canadians. However, as she said today, these audits were produced by an act of Parliament, and she's followed them. I have every confidence that the work was done to the highest degree of excellence that we've come to expect.
Chair, I can only say that, again, this committee normally operates by consensus. Normally, we would be in the subcommittee or in camera right now, discussing the Auditor General reports and operating by consensus. However, members have brought up motions and want to have things done in public and to have votes when it suits them, and then go back to consensus when it suits them as well.
I am very disturbed, and it does not bode well for the future of the work of this committee, but again, I stand by my belief that the Office of the Auditor General.... I remember when it was Michael Ferguson who had the office and the tremendous work he did. I know we had ministers who were very appreciative of the comments he brought forward and the themes he was attacking and addressing before his untimely death, and he was named by a Conservative government.
Where are we going with this? This is just nonsense, and it's not worthy of this committee.
Thank you, Chair.