:
I now declare this 84th meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in order.
Colleagues, you will recall that we had decided we would hold a public hearing today on chapter 2, “Grant and Contribution Program Reforms”, which flows from the fall 2012 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
Before I go any further on what's in front of us right this minute, I would just like to leave with colleagues something to consider. Should we conclude our rounds of discussion and questions and have time remaining—that would mean if we don't have an extension of the regular question rotation—then I would ask the committee to deal with some committee business. If we don't have time, it can hold until Thursday, but I think it would be in everyone's interest if we could take a stab at some of that work this afternoon if we have the time. I would just ask members to keep that in mind as we get towards the end of the rotation and make a determination on whether they wish to continue or move in camera to deal with a couple of outstanding business matters, one of which is significantly important.
With that, I would like to welcome all our guests today.
We have with us representatives from the Office of the Auditor General, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Public Health Agency, the Canadian International Development Agency, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, and Western Economic Diversification Canada.
I will start with the Auditor General and ask Mr. Ferguson to introduce his delegation, if he has anyone with him, and to also commence with his opening remarks.
Mr. Auditor General, you have the floor, sir.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to discuss our office's work related to Chapter 2 of our fall 2012 report—Grant and Contribution Program Reforms.
With me today is Frank Barrett, the principal responsible for this audit.
[English]
The federal government transfers money to individuals and to organizations of various types, including businesses and other governments. In 2010-11 transfer payments totalled $158 billion. The majority of those payments, $121 billion, were transferred to other levels of government and individuals through programs with ongoing spending authority.
However, a significant portion, $37 billion, was transferred through grant and contribution agreements. Our audit focused on grant and contribution programs.
In our 2006 audit on grant and contribution programs, we found that recipients had expressed concern about the heavy administrative burden associated with applying for programs and with meeting the various requirements of those programs. Later that year an independent blue ribbon panel concluded that the government needed to make fundamental changes in the way it designed and managed its grant and contribution programs.
In May 2008 the government announced an action plan to respond to the panel's recommendations. This plan committed the government to reducing the administrative and reporting burden on recipients of grant and contribution agreements.
[Translation]
In this audit, we looked at the implementation of the government action plan to streamline grant and contribution programs and reduce the reporting burden on recipients.
We assessed the actions of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to meet the commitments made in the government action plan. We also examined specific actions taken by the Treasury Board Secretariat and five federal organizations to meet their respective obligations under the new Policy on Transfer Payments, which was developed by the government in 2008. Our audit work was completed in July 2012.
[English]
We found that to date the government has fulfilled most of the commitments it made in its 2008 action plan, which was aimed at increasing efficiencies and reducing the administrative burden on recipients. The Treasury Board Secretariat actively led efforts to develop a new policy on transfer payments. It provided leadership and guidance to federal organizations to make the necessary changes, including coordinating activities across the government.
The other federal organizations we examined have also taken actions on most of their obligations under the new policy on transfer payments. They have consulted with applicant and recipient communities in redesigning their grant and contribution programs, and they have begun to establish service standards. They have also conducted risk assessments of their programs and their recipient communities and have assigned a risk rating to each recipient based on the assessments.
[Translation]
However, Mr. Chair, we also found that neither the Treasury Board Secretariat nor the other federal organizations we audited had assessed the impact of their actions on recipient organizations. Therefore, they were not able to determine the extent to which their actions had helped streamline administrative processes within federal organizations or reduce the administrative burden on recipients.
We also noted that the Treasury Board Secretariat had not provided organizations with adequate guidance to ensure that risk ratings are accurate and remain current, despite the importance of these ratings in determining the controls that should be applied in each case.
Therefore, we found that processes used by federal organizations we examined varied in rigour and depth.
[English]
We made two recommendations, both addressed to the Treasury Board Secretariat. The secretariat agreed with both of them. The public accounts committee may wish to ask the secretariat for an update on its efforts to assess the impact to date on the administrative burden of recipients of grant and contribution agreements.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer the committee's questions.
:
Very good. Thank you, Mr. Ferguson.
I have a listing of the witnesses, and for no other reason than the fact that this is the list that's in front of me, we'll hear our witnesses in this order. Following the presentation we've just had, we'll hear from the Treasury Board Secretariat.
I would also ask each of the representatives to introduce their delegation.
So it will be the Treasury Board Secretariat, followed by the Public Health Agency, CIDA, Human Resources and Skills Development, and last, but still important, Western Economic Diversification.
Therefore, Treasury Board Secretariat, Assistant Comptroller General, you have the floor, sir.
If you would permit a suggestion, we were going to make opening remarks on behalf of all departments, and I will do this in a few moments. I would be pleased to introduce the delegation of the departments, and perhaps that will save us a few moments. Then we can move from there.
Assisting me today, Mr. Chair, is Sue Stimpson, the chief financial officer of the Canadian International Development Agency. From Human Resources and Skills Development Canada is Ms. Nancy Gardiner, director general of program operations management and accountability. From the Public Health Agency of Canada is Carlo Beaudoin, acting chief financial officer. And from Western Economic Diversification Canada is Donald MacDonald, director general of operations.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak about Chapter 2 of the fall 2012 report regarding the federal government's grant and contribution program reforms.
In addition to considering the role played by the Treasury Board Secretariat in the reforms, the Auditor General of Canada also examined selected activities undertaken by the five federal organizations I just mentioned. I would like to start by thanking the Auditor General for his work in this file.
As the report notes, the Auditor General last looked at how the federal government managed grant and contribution programs in 2006. At that time, concern was expressed about the heavy financial and administrative burden associated with applying for funding programs and with meeting the various requirements of these programs.
[English]
In June 2006, the President of the Treasury Board commissioned an independent blue ribbon panel on grant and contribution programs to recommend measures to make the delivery of grant and contribution programs more efficient while ensuring greater accountability.
In its report “From Red Tape to Clear Results”, published in December 2006, the panel provided recommendations aimed at simplifying the administration of grants and contributions, while at the same time strengthening accountability and risk-based approaches for managing programs.
The Government of Canada' s action plan to reform the administration of grant and contribution programs, announced by the President of the Treasury Board in 2008, outlined how the government would improve the management of grants and contributions as well as the expected results.
The plan consisted of three elements.
First, to build the right foundation, the new policy on transfer payments was introduced. This new policy and its supporting directive and guidelines have clarified accountabilities and simplified administration. The policy reform also established a new regime that is more sensitive to risks and is citizen and recipient focused.
Second, departments developed their individual plans to fundamentally improve their delivery of grants and contributions.
Third was sustained leadership to help guide reform across government. New approaches were developed, shared, and implemented throughout government, such as risk-based management and oversight, simplified approval and claims processing, service delivery standards for recipients, consolidated multi-year agreements, and coordinated recipient audit approaches.
[Translation]
The Auditor General's report has recognized the progress made in implementing the action plan. The Treasury Board Secretariat actively led the policy reform, supported the implementation of departmental action plans and fostered coordinated activities across federal organizations.
Federal organizations are increasingly using recipient monitoring and reporting requirements focused on risks. They are also consulting applicants and recipients on program changes and establishing service standards.
However, the report has also highlighted the need for additional work in two areas.
[English]
First we need to better assess the impact of efforts on departmental and recipients' administrative burden. In response, we are undertaking an assessment of the impact of our collective reform efforts, as measured against the expected results in this regard, which were outlined in the action plan.
In collaboration with federal organizations, an assessment will be completed by fall 2013, with a final report made publicly available thereafter. The timing of this assessment aligns with the five-year administrative review of the policy on transfer payments to commence in spring 2013. The results of the assessment will be used to inform this policy review and to identify opportunities to further strengthen the policy.
Secondly, we need to provide additional guidance to federal organizations to ensure that the risk ratings they apply in the ongoing management of their programs and agreements are appropriate and current. We are now working with departments to strengthen the policy guidance related to risk management. The new guidance will provide clearer direction on the need to review and validate risk assessments throughout the life cycle of grants and contributions. We are looking to implement this in spring 2013.
In closing, I would like to acknowledge the ongoing efforts of my colleagues in departments in implementing the action plan.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to answering your questions, as well as those of the committee members.
:
I can add to what the Auditor General has already provided.
In our report we do have a brief table, exhibit. 2.1, that speaks to the three main chunks of the government action plan, if I can put it that way. The Treasury Board had to provide leadership, to enter into policy reform, and there had to be things happening in departments in terms of departmental action plans being implemented.
In conducting the audit, we looked to see what happened with respect to policy reform, what happened with respect to what the Treasury Board Secretariat did vis-à-vis providing leadership, and what we saw happening within departments. Did we see things actually changing?
While I believe we were clear in the report, there is still more work to do. I think that's acknowledged around the table. We did recognize that there had been significant progress since the 2006 report and that they were taking actions consistent with their government action plan.
:
Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to address that question.
I think there were a few key things we saw that were very different from what had been observed in previous years. One of them was with respect to a very strong level of interdepartmental committees. At the deputy minister level, the assistant deputy minister level, and then again at the level of directors and directors general, you had departments come together. Why does that matter? When they're talking about their different programs, that gives them an opportunity to actually foster innovative change.
One of the points we make in the chapter is in paragraph 2.19, where we speak of pilot projects. In fact, they realized they had multiple departments—in this example we raise seven different departments—that all had high contribution agreements with the same organization. By putting all of their agreements together and saying, “Why don't we have one name and address, one common template?” and “Let's see how we can streamline this”, that was an example where they did manage to reduce the number of reports substantially. They went from 126 down to 26, and it's simply because there was now one agreement instead of seven different ones.
:
That leads me to the next question.
On page 7 of the English version of your report, at paragraph 2.13, the last two lines read:
We note that the process does not specify how the Secretariat plans to assess the impacts of the policy reforms.
The process you're talking about is actually based on the blue ribbon panel of 2008, which was actually in chapter 2, at 2.1, in the English version. That's the exhibit.
That's really in line with the blue ribbon panel and then the secretariat's action plan. If the secretariat came out with an action plan in response to your recommendation, which it did, in your view is this still correct in the sense that the action plan really won't assess the impacts of the policy reforms?
We're now looking at a piece and then looking at another piece, and we still don't really know the outcomes for the folks who are asking: What is it? Are you helping me or not helping me? Do we know?
:
Yes. It wasn't the grocery list.
We agree that there was not, as is needed, a consistent way to build a pan-government view of the results of the work of the many departments and agencies. I believe the departments and agencies themselves can certainly tell many result stories and result outcomes of the work they have done, but we did not have a systematic, evidenced-based way of gathering that information. It is one of the things following the Auditor General's work that we have been working at feverishly.
In the upcoming weeks we will be implementing a performance reporting tool with the 28 departments and agencies that represent around 99% of the grants and contributions spending in the Government of Canada. They will be going through an information-gathering stage over the next few months and will bring this back into the centre in the fall, as I mentioned in my opening comments, which will do a number of things for us.
The first thing it will do is give us a benchmark in 2013. We are also asking departments in their work to contrast where they are today and where they were in 2006, 2007, and 2008, so we can get a sense of that movement. That may be difficult in some cases. It may be relatively straightforward in others. But with the work done, and in the extensive way it will be done, it gives us that baseline that on a going-forward basis we can manage.
Welcome, witnesses, here again today.
I think as a committee we have felt it's extremely important that we continue to develop and share best practices. That seems to be an ongoing process of government. Obviously, we can learn from many, but of course we can share a lot of our best practices.
I speak with two hats here. On public accounts we like to hold the feet to the fire in order to identify best practices, and yet I also wear another hat as chair of GOPAC, the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption. My responsibility is to share those best practices with either the developing countries that need our assistance or perhaps other countries that we can even mentor with.
That short preamble leads to a question for the Auditor General. With that in mind, sir, can you please speak to positive steps or best practices that the secretariat has taken and continues to take with respect to providing leadership, ongoing support, and consistent implementation of new and more streamlined approaches to managing and administering all of these things—in other words, the best practices of doing their job? We need to be able to build upon that, sell that, and critique that.
I'd like your observations on that, please.
:
I think the report overall is quite positive on the steps taken by the secretariat. We refer to things like coordinating activities among departments, encouraging departments to improve their practices, supporting interdepartmental committees, supporting pilot projects, and some other things the secretariat did that were steps forward in how grants and contributions were managed.
We saw lots of good activities happening at the organizational level as they were implementing this.
Overall, the one thing that we noted in particular was that there were lots of good activities, both at the secretariat and at the departmental level, but part of the original objective was to reduce the administrative burden on recipients. Up to the point when we did the audit, that part hadn't been done, and that's a very important part.
I guess when you speak of best practices, it's one thing to sort of put changes in place and make changes, but there has to be a way of making sure those changes are going to have the impact they were intended to have at the beginning.
:
I'll allow my colleagues to answer in their own case.
I can tell you that in 2011, with the management accountability framework exercise, 17 of the 21 departments that were to develop service standards had begun that work and had implemented some forms of service standards already. That is almost two years old. My expectation would be that when we review the status of things this summer and in the early fall, that number and the number of departments that have implemented or increased the number of service standards they're dealing with will also increase.
Earlier this year Treasury Board Secretariat itself introduced a tool kit dealing with the development of standards. Our chief information officer, who is responsible for service standards, has issued guidance in the last number of months to departments and agencies about the creation and the life cycle attached to those service standards. I think we're seeing the inculcation of this concept and this culture of service standards.
Moving forward, I will not sit here and say they're at the mature level that everyone would look for across town, but I would say that departments and agencies are consciously moving forward with implementation in their own domains.
I don't have the time, Chair, obviously, to go through each and every department here, unfortunately, but what I might do is just throw a question out to all of the respective departments here.
If any of the department officials feels they have a significant problem or challenge with not meeting reasonable timelines to move forward, I'd like them to declare that to this committee now. If we're looking at this issue a year or two years down the road and you still have not been able to complete the original “ask”, then we have a problem. If you feel it's well under way and is under control and you're moving forward with the recommendations, and you feel a level of comfort with the grants and the risk assessments and all that, then so be it.
I'm just giving you an opportunity. I don't need a response, but if someone feels they have a real challenge ahead of them that might pose some unknown risks, please identify that now.
I want to thank our guests for joining us.
Mr. Scrimger, I congratulate you because, generally, the Auditor General's report indicates that the government action plan is well managed.
I would still like to come back to what my colleague was saying earlier about assessing that action plan's impact.
The fundamental objective was to make the administrative process less cumbersome for recipient organizations. However, no measures have been implemented to effectively assess the impact of that action plan. You said that you didn't know why no attempt has been made to assess the impact of the plan. Who could tell me why that has not been done? Were you there when the action plan was developed? If not, who do you think is responsible for that oversight?
:
I believe the advantage of hindsight in this matter is tremendous. If in 2006 we had understood the scope of the effort required to achieve the change we were looking for, we would have been somewhat surprised.
I can only come back to the fact that the requirement to be able to demonstrate impact and success was not forgotten. The Auditor General has brought us up on the fact that we did not have a consistent way of presenting a pan-government picture. I suspect the departments and agencies can certainly provide a much richer viewpoint of what's happened inside their own organizations. But it is important that we can build that pan-government picture.
That is the same story that's coming to us—any number of enterprises. There's a greater interest as the Government of Canada in being able to talk about the entity and the impact of things on the entity. Moving forward, I cannot see the same oversight, if you wish, being made.
I can't speak to what happened seven years ago, but I would repeat there was a clear desire and interest on the part of the government to understand the impact. We may not have had the right tool in place to do so.
:
Thank you, Chair, and my thanks to the Auditor General and all the witnesses.
First of all, I just want to say thank you to the Treasury Board Secretariat. That office has taken the initiative. I find it interesting in your last remarks, Mr. Scrimger, that you didn't understand the full context of what it would take for the scope of this project.
I liken that, in my mind, to those who have had the opportunity to renovate an old house as compared with building a new house. There are always, in a renovation or with upgrades to modernize an old house, those unknowns—we see it here in these buildings—that never show up until you actually get into it. In building a new house, though, you have the plans, everything is laid out, and you start from scratch.
So we have to identify the need. I want to thank you for striking that independent blue ribbon panel in 2006. For those who may not have understood that, maybe you could help me. The independent panel, how many were on it and who was it? That may go to the Auditor General or to the Secretariat.
In paragraph 9 of your notes, Mr. Auditor General, you talked about
...adequate guidance to ensure that risk ratings are accurate and remain current.... ... As such, we found that processes used by federal organizations we examined varied in rigor and depth.
To the Auditor General, is it that each department will use the same template?
Then to Mr. Scrimger, in your presentation, the second paragraph under “The Action Plan”, you say that “departments developed their individual plans to fundamentally improve their delivery of grants and contributions”. I still don't understand how that's going to work between those two comments. You said this was going to be a template of each for depth and rigour, but as I think I understand it, each department is individual but all have now come together. You mentioned that in terms of their working together rather than in their own silos. Maybe you could help me understand that a little bit better.
:
Perhaps I'll take a crack at trying to provide an answer to your question.
When it comes to risk rankings, I will speak to my experience at the time in a grants and contributions department. Most departments and agencies, at least at a beginning point, develop their own risk-ranking criteria. They were the individuals who were most familiar with the business lines they were dealing with. The guidance is, of course, meant to provide some consistency in approach and methodology without tying the hands of a department to a single risk-rating approach across town.
Experiences change over a seven-year or eight-year period. One of the areas we're entering into now in the management or administration of grants and contributions is the concept of standardized business processes, to increase efficiency in deliveries, and this can apply to a number of areas. Although I don't think we will ever have a single template for risk rating across town, there is probably an opportunity for ensuring greater consistency in the risk-rating methodologies that are used by departments to ensure their completeness and their utility.
With that, I hope I've answered part of your question, and the Auditor General can certainly chip in if I've got it wrong.
:
Very briefly, there are a number of projects, but there are three that we are focusing on now in one form or another. There is a great deal of work occurring between Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and Health Canada in working on integrating processes for the delivery of contributions for first nations health. Quite frankly, from our viewpoint as administrators and bureaucrats, there are some very exciting things that are moving forward there.
We had a project at the time between DFAIT and CIDA to bring together and look at the economies that could be done on the international front. The most recent machinery decision has probably forced that one to a final conclusion, or will in a sense, with the merging of the two organizations.
Last, and not least, Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada are working with the work that's focused on significant transfers to provinces and territories to see if there is a more efficient way of structuring those agreements.
So those are three noteworthy pieces of work that are advancing at different paces and speeds, but that we hope will bring more efficiency into the overall process.
I want to thank our guests for being here today.
My first question is for the Auditor General.
In paragraph 2.23, on page 9 of your report, you state the following:
We found that none of the organizations we audited had assessed the administrative impacts of reforms comprehensively [...]
That's a fairly straightforward remark.
Does that statement have to do with the fact that, very often, the main priority of those audited organizations was to cut their budget to ensure a sound administrative process? In other words, is it more important to respect the imposed fiscal frameworks or the administrative process?
I just want to refer to number 9 in the Auditor General's statement, and this question is for the Auditor General. It says:
...that the Treasury Board Secretariat had not provided organizations with adequate guidance to ensure that risk ratings are accurate and remain current.... ... As such, we found that processes used by federal organizations we examined varied in rigor and depth.
As a result of that, you made your recommendation 2.46.
My question to you, sir, is this. Do you have any advice that you can provide to government officials to ensure that risk ratings are accurate? I think I'm going somewhere with this. What I'm finding on this committee is that we get recommendations from the Auditor General.... When I was on city council we'd have audited financial statements, we'd get recommendations from the auditors, and then city staff would have to go and source out the resources to figure out how to actually implement the recommendation of the auditors.
You have a lot of professional staff at your disposal. I guess my question is, are we as a committee or a government getting the best value for your professional services? You have given us the recommendation, but I don't often see advice in terms of how to do it. I think you and your group of people are probably the most qualified people, to not only make the recommendation, but to also provide assistance in terms of implementing that recommendation.
I'm just interested in your general comments on what I'm saying.
Actually, what you've raised is something that we try to do internally when we make recommendations, that is, to challenge ourselves by asking, if you were on the receiving end of this recommendation, how would it be implemented? That is something we try to think about when we are making recommendations.
We don't go much further than the recommendation in terms of saying that you could implement it this way or you could implement it that way, because really it's up to the departments or organizations to determine the best way to actually make the implementation. But certainly when we are making that recommendation we do try to put that lens on it, to make sure we are making a recommendation that is reasonable and can be implemented.
In this particular case, when we're dealing with something like risk, for example, I think we are looking at things like the question of updating the risk assessment. So if a risk assessment was made originally and there was one level of risk assessed, if it's a longer-term project, then maybe the risk needs to be assessed later on as well throughout that same project. It's making sure that type of thing is done.
I don't think here we are looking at major changes in the approaches to risk. We are looking at some improvements that can be made to augment the practices that were already in place.
Thanks for coming today, everyone.
I'm hesitant to drill a little too deeply, just because of the vast sums we're dealing with. One concern I have with an approach that tries to access the risk is that over time they become dull, or people just assume all is well, when in fact based on past practices things could be changing. I'm curious to ask the departments how the risk assessment process has affected monitoring and reporting requirements. What is being done to stay on top of this reporting requirement, to not rest on our laurels and assume things are well going forward?
We can start at that end or this end.
Mr. Chair, you can decide where we start.
:
I'll try to give that a start.
At CIDA we have a strong mix of processing tools in our risk management tool box. We assess risks at the program level, the country level, the recipient level, the individual assessment level. We have a risk framework that helps us determine the level of administration a recipient would be bound to provide—depending on the situation in the country, the amount of the contribution, whether it's a grant, whether there is local capacity, whether there are known quantities, and depending on their financial capacity.
That would drive whether and how we do a recipient audit—for example, whether we do that at the desktop by seeking information from the recipient on details of their payments and the cost they've incurred, or whether we actually go and do an audit of the individual project.
We can't audit everyone around the world, but in terms of our audit plans, they are risk-based audit plans that are renewed every year.
Mr. John Williamson: Thank you.
Mr. MacDonald.
:
We actually do a risk assessment a minimum of twice on the life of an actual project. When the project and recipient proposal first comes in, the initial risk assessment is done. It's driven by a number of factors that are built into our systems to ensure consistency of risk assessment, project to project, and across all recipients. It will then determine whether or not there's low, medium, or high risk associated with the individual project, and then the level of intervention and working with the monitoring and reporting requirements that are then projected onto the recipient to act accordingly.
At a minimum, we also review it prior to the actual processing of any claims. So before any money actually flows, we reassess. Because our average project is approximately two and half to three years in life, that risk assessment needs to be revalidated before we actually flow any funds.
The risk assessment is re-evaluated at that time, using the exact same process, to see if anything new has happened in the interim over that time period that would then require additional either beefing up or easing of the actual reporting or monitoring burden that we would then put on the recipient. In addition, if any information became available to the department in the interim that obviously required a reassessment of the risk, or that we became aware of, that would also....
So it doesn't prevent us from also reassessing during the life cycle of the project, in addition to those two steps.
I would like to go back to Mr. Ferguson and then perhaps Mr. Scrimger, and take us back to page 4 in the English version. In chapter 2, at exhibit 2.1, there's the 2006 report from the blue ribbon panel and then there's the “Government Action Plan—2008”. It's a very lovely block flowchart, if you will, with Treasury Board at the top, TBS leadership and ongoing support at the bottom, and in the middle, it says “implement changes” across organizations. The arrows flow to that, and then they flow out to the recipients. Then, in the box, it says: “Reduced administrative burden”.
Can you help me here? Shouldn't there be another arrow on this thing? It seems to me that I heard Mr. Scrimger say earlier to me something about getting something back from recipients that told the departments whether all of this did indeed help them. Did they do better? Did they save money? Did they feel the burden was reduced? Somehow we sent it out to them but we never bothered to have an arrow coming back in the other way that just simply said, “Tell us how you're making out.”
Am I oversimplifying that or am I headed down a wrong path with this? I'm certainly not an auditor, by any stretch of the imagination, but is it not quite simple to have an arrow coming back the other way that says “let us know” or “report”, whatever term you want?
:
That's fair enough, but maybe Mr. Scrimger would have liked the chart. If it had been theirs, we might have had an arrow going back the other way.
Since it's actually not your chart, Mr. Scrimger, there's no point in asking you to tell us, this unless you have a chart somewhere that's close to this and you want to send it to the chair.
I've been looking at your action plan that you provided, which was not in the report. I think it's dated April 13 of this year. It talks about performance reporting.
Recommendation 2.26 says that you intend to have that piece completed by late 2013. Can you give me an update as to where you think you are? Are you on track with that? Is it delayed slightly? Are you ahead of schedule? I'm not going to hold you to it, sir, if you say you think it will be November and it turns out to be December or September. I would just like a general sense of where you are.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses today.
One of the things we're talking about is risk assessment. We also have impact assessment and the administrative burden, so as we go through the report there are a couple of things...and some of the things that I've heard earlier.... For example, Mr. Barrett, you indicated that sometimes these departments come together to foster innovative change. You also said sometimes...from seven agreements down to one agreement, from 126 reports down to 26 reports, yet there's no measurement. I submit that there's a measurement right there, as we take a look at what is happening.
One of the other statements in the report was on Western Economic Diversification Canada, its tracking of its costs in conducting recipient audits, the reduction from $738,000 in 2008-09 to $34,000 in 2011-12. Again, the rationale was the focus on the high-risk recipients.
I saw another file here, at paragraph 2.51. We're talking about Human Resources and Skills Development Canada having begun tracking service standards. They started that in 2010. As well, Western Economic Diversification has done its tracking of service standards since January 2007. What I'm suggesting here is that maybe no one said “Let's take a look at this and say that we are assessing the risk assessments and the opportunities for people not to worry so much about the dollars.”
Actually, some amazing things happened when this money was being presented to the public. You were finding smaller organizations that needed help that were able to go to other larger municipalities and they would say “This is how you make out these kinds of application forms. These are the things you need to have in order to work within the system.”
Especially here, when we have the four different departments and five different entities, I think we saw that people were looking at this as an opportunity to move forward, and they didn't get caught up in the burdens. I understand the rationale where you say you'd like to see the step-by-step and how it is you do it in the future. Fortunately, we've kind of got together, so now we have some opportunity to breathe a little bit and we're going to be able to put it down more for everyone else's discussion.
That's part of it, especially if there are very small organizations.
Volunteer week is coming up next week, and in a lot of cases you're asking people who are volunteers to get in there and try to come up with all of the grants they have to cover, whereas if you go to a municipality, they have departments that are lined up to make that occur. I'm just hoping that when we get into the assessment side of things we don't say, “Well, this is 'the plan' that we have to have, and it has to go this way”, because I think it is important that we get those types of things put together.
The other thing I would like to comment on is the consultation process, because I believe this is another item...and again, Western Economic Diversification has gone through this. I read again in the report that there were something like 80 different consultations, meetings, that were held in all four of the provinces, where you were explaining the rationale for the revised focus and how future budget allocations would work.
So after going through all those different items, could I have, from the AG's office and perhaps from Western Diversification, just how you see this working in the future, and how we can make sure that smaller entities are able to work their way into these kinds of projects without that extra burden?
:
I think first of all, certainly, throughout this audit we acknowledged that many good things had occurred. There were pilot projects that were trying to streamline things and there was a lot of good progress made.
In paragraph 23 we specifically said, though, that the assessment of the administrative impact of the reforms hadn't been done comprehensively. We did acknowledge that there were specific areas where the streamlining of the activities were in fact measured.
The issue for us was that the overall impact hadn't been measured comprehensively. Again, there were many good things that we noted, and they are noted in the report.
To give an example, you could have a possibility where a program is changed. This isn't a real life example. This is just to try to understand some of this. You could have a situation where organizations are no longer required to submit as many reports, applications, and that type of thing, which on the surface would look like you have reduced the administrative impact on the organization. But in fact if the organization still has to prepare all of that information and keep it on hand in case they are audited, the only thing that is changed for them is whether they have to send it in or not. The actual impact on that organization in that case is that the reduction may in fact be very small.
So there were lots of good things, but it's still important to go back and make sure, because it was one of the intended objectives to try to reduce the administrative burden on recipients in order to assess the degree to which that happened.
I think a number of the initiatives we have taken to really respect the fact that all not recipients are created equally.... For instance, some of the latest initiatives under Budget 2012 and the economic action plan involve going from large municipalities to very small, not-for-profit organizations that may be relying on more volunteers.
We've taken a number of initiatives to streamline the application process to actually move toward the use of technology for online application processes to try to assist organizations to get the information in without increasing the administrative burden.
We also monitor our service standards and client consultations. When we're going out, for instance, with that initiative and talking at 80 different meetings to look at proposed changes to our programming, we're listening very much to some of the concerns that are coming back. By speaking to recipients we're familiar with, but also new recipients, we are seeing what their expectations are of our programming going forward.
It's very much a continuous improvement through the feedback we receive in administering and managing these programs.
:
I don't think that's a problem. Alex has heard the request, so we'll not only get the answer, but we'll ask Alex to provide a little historical context for it. Okay?
Mr. Gerry Byrne: That's fine.
The Chair: If the committee is fine with that....
I'm not seeing anybody racing to get the floor, so I'm assuming that's fine.
I bring to the attention of members that this Thursday we will be report writing, and next Tuesday we have another public hearing, and that one is from the fall 2012 report of the Auditor General, “Chapter 3—Protecting Canadian Critical Infrastructure Against Cyber Threats”. That will be next Tuesday at the same time as this hearing was held.
With that, I will thank our guests.
I'm seeing a hand. Mr. Saxton.
In terms of consistency, in the past this has been controversial as to whether or not we're going to go in camera to do other business, adjourn, or create a new rotation. We can do it. It just takes a majority of the committee.
But I do want to mention to the government that they're initiating this. Normally, when we do extensions, it's because there have been a lot of difficult, complex questions, the answers weren't able to come out in the five minutes we have, so people are anxious, and it's clear to the public that a lot more issues are there to be raised. It makes all the sense in the world. I'm just pointing out that this wasn't this kind of rotational discussion, and therefore the government is setting a bit of a precedent that the opposition will be entitled to in the future without necessarily having to make the case that there's justification, just a desire.
I say that as a precautionary note, but the motion is in order.
We have a motion that we do one more round, one from each caucus.
Is there any debate?
Mr. Allen.
Mr. Chair, one of the things I would like to explore with my few minutes is that the Auditor General said, in his opening comments:
...we also found that neither the Treasury Board Secretariat nor the other federal organizations we examined had assessed the impact of their actions on recipient organizations.
Mr. Scrimger, one of the things I wanted to focus in on wasn't necessarily recipient organizations; it was non-recipient organizations.
Would you consider, in terms of any follow-up review of the consequences of some of your decisions, an impact on whether or not there was a consequence on non-recipient organizations? In other words, those organizations may have actually experienced a barrier to accessing grants and contributions because of the changes, and in part for the reasons that I described as a potential? Would you consider that, and would you commit to doing so?