Canada\u2019s auditor general is relaunching a crusade for a new budgeting process that will protect her independence and ensure the office is properly funded to carry out the work of her mandate.<\/p>\n
Karen Hogan<\/a> is turning her attention toward finding a new funding mechanism after a long wrangle for $25 million in additional money to relieve financial pressures that forced the office to delay audits and for a much-needed overhaul of obsolete technology and processes.<\/p>\n \u201cI said that when I receive the additional funding, the long-term objective will be to find a better way to have an independent funding mechanism,\u201d said Hogan.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen you\u2019re dependent on getting funding from an organization that you audit, then it has an ability to impact your independence.\u201d<\/p>\n Hogan also has the support of fellow parliamentary watchdogs who are united in the need for an independent process. What it would look like is unclear other than it would involve Parliament \u2013 to which they all report.<\/p>\n The information commissioner<\/a> has had her own funding struggle. Caroline Maynard received stop-gap funding<\/a> for several years to handle a backlog of complaints until she finally got an additional $3 million in permanent funding<\/a> last year. Her predecessor Suzanne Legault endured a cash crunch that left the office almost broke<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile we have been successful in obtaining some funding through the existing mechanism, we don\u2019t see this as a substitute for what we are advocating: a funding mechanism that reflects the independent role played by the agents of Parliament,\u201d the commission said in an email.<\/p>\n The case for having a federal evaluator general<\/a><\/p>\n Some public service executives burned out by crisis management<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The search for a new funding mechanism is tug-of-war between control and accountability that\u2019s dragged on for years. One senior bureaucrat summed it up: \u201cCentral agencies control the operations of government, and Treasury Board, PCO [Privy Council Office] and Finance don\u2019t easily give up their authorities.\u201d<\/p>\n It boils down to the inherent conflict of interest of agents going cap-in-hand for money from the government they scrutinize. Each time the debate surfaces, MPs rail about it, reports are written, new mechanisms are proposed, but it never gets fixed.<\/p>\n The issue doesn\u2019t appear to be on the government\u2019s radar, especially with a spending review getting underway. But parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux<\/a> said the problem won\u2019t go away.<\/p>\n \u201cNow that the auditor general addressed her funding pressures, I think the issue is going to be on the backburner, but it will come back if and when another big agent is underfunded for its mandate,\u201d Giroux said.<\/p>\n Giroux and ethics commissioner Mario Dion<\/a> have different budget processes because their offices are created under the Parliament of Canada Act.<\/em>\u00a0 Giroux\u2019s budget is studied by the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate and then sent to Treasury Board. Dion\u2019s budget goes to the House Speaker who sends it to Treasury Board. (Speakers traditionally get the budgets they ask for to avoid any constitutional tussle over ministers challenging the will of Parliament to fund its operations.)<\/p>\n The official languages commissioner<\/a> could be the next in line looking for additional funding to handle an expanded mandate with the proposed overhaul of the Official Languages Act<\/em>. The privacy commissioner could then follow when the government modernizes privacy laws, as promised.<\/p>\n \u201cAlthough our organization has not recently sought new funding to support its ongoing operations,\u00a0we continue to see the value of an independent funding mechanism,\u201d the official languages commission said in a statement.<\/p>\n The auditor general is Canada\u2019s first officer of Parliament, created shortly after Confederation to check government spending. In the firmament of the nine agents of Parliament, the auditor general, with a $117-million budget, is the uber-watchdog, the most visible and often better known than ministers.<\/p>\n Paul Thomas, professor emeritus at the University of Manitoba who studied agents of Parliament at all levels of government, said they can\u2019t have \u201copen-ended budgets and spend as much as they think they need.\u201d But he said finding a solution invariably breaks down over the basics of the Westminster system.<\/p>\n Agents are created to be independent and impartial and help hold the government to account. They aren\u2019t employees of Parliament or the public service and they report directly to Parliament, not to ministers.<\/p>\n \u201cThe foundational principle of Canada\u2019s democracy is responsible ministers determine spending \u2026 and you don’t get free tickets even though you serve Parliament,\u201d said Thomas.<\/p>\n The argument is, why should agents get special consideration and not be treated like any other department using taxpayers\u2019 money?\u00a0 Also, Treasury Board\u2019s job is to provide oversight and the stewardship of public funds \u2013 and has the staff and expertise to do it.<\/p>\n The government did try a new mechanism in 2005 with the creation of the parliamentary advisory panel on funding and oversight of officers of Parliament.<\/p>\n It was a pilot project to oversee the work of agents and included MPs from all parties and chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Treasury Board still approved funding, but the all-party panel reviewed all agents\u2019 budget requests and advised Treasury Board on how much money they needed.<\/p>\n In 2011, seven agents of Parliament \u2013 led by then auditor general Sheila Fraser \u2013 all but begged MPs and senators to do a better job of scrutinizing their work. At the time, memories were fresh of the disgrace of two former agents \u2013 privacy commissioner George Radwanski and integrity commissioner Christiane Ouimet.<\/p>\n This unprecedented appeal included a call for their own committee where they could go with\u00a0problems\u00a0that could compromise their independence. They urged that the advisory panel on funding and oversight be made permanent.<\/p>\n By then, the panel was dead. Some argue<\/a> that once the Harper government won a majority it was no longer keen on a parliamentary committee that could act independently of the party in power.<\/p>\n The pandemic upended the federal workplace. What comes next?<\/a><\/p>\n Never tweet. Social media complicates neutrality of the public service<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The issue hit the political agenda in 2015 when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ordered the government house leader in his mandate letter<\/a> to ensure \u201cagents of Parliament are properly funded and accountable only to Parliament, not the government of the day.\u201d<\/p>\n Hogan\u2019s predecessor, Michael Ferguson, took up the cause before he died in 2019. He pitched a new funding mechanism to former finance minister Bill Morneau. Ferguson and five other agents of Parliament sent the same proposal to the clerk of the Privy Council.<\/p>\n All this came against the backdrop of Ferguson\u2019s repeated appeals for additional funding. The auditor general\u2019s cash crunch went back to the Harper government\u2019s deficit-driven spending cuts imposed on all departments. The office voluntarily agreed to cut eight per cent of its budget, which came home to roost as the government expanded the auditor general\u2019s mandate and piled on more work.<\/p>\n Ferguson assembled a detailed business plan for a $21.5-million increase in permanent funding but ended up with a fraction of it.<\/p>\n By the time Hogan took the job in June 2020, she inherited a significant funding shortfall and a backlog of work to audit the billions of dollars the government spent on pandemic relief.<\/p>\n With new funding, she has hired 150 additional staff and will now focus on modernizing office operations and increasing the number performance audits, the value-for-money examination of government programs. The office has scaled back those audits to 14 per year compared to 27 per year pre-pandemic.<\/p>\n