AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DES COMPTES PUBLICS
CONTENTS
Thursday 20 November 1997
Subcommittee report
Audit Amendment Act, Bill 74, Mr Grandmaître / Loi de 1996 modifiant la Loi sur la vérification des comptes publics, projet de loi 74, M. Grandmaître
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Chair / Président
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East /-Est L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre /-Centre L)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton PC)
Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings / Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East / -Est L)
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Erik Peters, Provincial Auditor
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel
Ms Elaine Campbell, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Mr Chris Wernham, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1010 in room 228.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Vice-Chair (Mr Richard Patten): Good morning, everyone. A representative from the NDP will be a little late, so we'll proceed; we have six members. Everyone has an agenda before them. What's not listed on there is the brief report of the subcommittee. Do all members have a copy of that? That was the subcommittee which met October 7 and at that time agreed to proceed with the consideration of private member's Bill 74, which is of course An Act to amend the Audit Act as follows:
"That public hearings and clause-by-clause review be conducted on November 20, 1997" -- which is today.
"That a press release be issued" -- which was done -- "as well as notice that consideration be placed on the Ontario parliamentary channel. Individuals or organizations interested in commenting on the bill were invited to provide their names to the clerk. Written submissions will also be requested.
"The clerk will invite the Provincial Auditor and the Speaker to appear before the committee to provide comments, as necessary.
"The sponsor of the bill, Bernard Grandmaître, will make an opening statement on the bill."
I need a mover to adopt this report.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): So moved.
The Vice-Chair: It's moved. Any debate? All in favour? It's passed.
AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DES COMPTES PUBLICS
Consideration of Bill 74, An Act to amend the Audit Act / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la vérification des comptes publics.
The Vice-Chair: We're here then to consider Bill 74, which is An Act to amend the Audit Act. I'd ask the sponsor of the bill, Bernard Grandmaître, if he would like to make any opening comments.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I'm not as well organized as the Provincial Auditor. I don't have printed comments, but I will be brief and to the point.
Mr Chair and members of the committee, as you will recall, I first introduced my bill on June 12, 1996, and it received unanimous support in the House. My amendment to the Audit Act is a very simple one, and I think will certainly help the government of Ontario to be more transparent, more open, with the public and bring about a better understanding of what this government is trying to do.
My bill was first introduced, as I said, on June 12, and the reason: People are asking our governments at all levels -- municipal, provincial, federal -- to be more accountable.
Every day, every minister who stands in this House promoting his or her business plan also uses the word "accountability," which is very important to all of us. They want people to better understand what this government is doing. This government, since taking power in 1995, has brought about some major changes, such as Bill 26 and right now Bill 160, which give the government more powers and also create partnerships. I agree with partnerships. I think these partnerships should be open. In other words, is the government really responding to the needs of the people of Ontario when they create these partnerships? As far as I'm concerned, a partnership is 50-50.
My bill will give the Provincial Auditor the possibility to look at these new programs, look at these partnerships and make sure that these services promised by the government are good services, good-quality services. Major changes have been brought about: fewer school boards, the transfer of responsibilities and sharing of these responsibilities.
What my bill does is amend the present Audit Act, or subsection 12(1) of the Audit Act, which reads as follows:
"The auditor shall report annually to the Speaker of the assembly after each fiscal year is closed and the public accounts are laid before the assembly, but not later than the 31st day of December in each year unless the public accounts are not laid before the assembly by that day, and may make a special report to the Speaker at any time on any matter that in the opinion of the auditor should not be deferred until the annual report, and the Speaker shall lay each such report before the assembly forthwith if it is in session or, if not, not later than the tenth day of the next session."
My amendment simply says that subsection 12.1(1) will now read as follows:
"The auditor may, in addition to any special report made under section 12.2, make a maximum of three additional reports in any year to the Speaker."
The auditor wants more clarity on whether the people of Ontario are getting a fair return for their tax dollars.
I think with what's happening in Ontario, especially in health care, education, people want to know more of the intentions of the government. I can recall that the Ministry of Health had a difficult time answering some of the questions, but as usual the ministries, the deputy ministers want to cooperate, not only with this committee but with the government, with the auditor, to bring about a better understanding of the delivery of quality services.
As I previously said, I received unanimous approval of the introduction of my bill by Elizabeth Bassett, Marilyn Churley, Lyn McLeod, Mr Bradley, Wayne Wettlaufer from Kitchener, John Gerretsen, Al McLean. I think this amendment is a fair one and I'm open for questions.
The Vice-Chair: Did you mean Isabel Bassett? You said Elizabeth Bassett.
Mr Grandmaître: I'm sorry.
The Vice-Chair: She may have a sister. I don't know.
Mr Grandmaître: It's another Liz.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you. In response to the advertising and request to appear, we have an important witness with us this morning, our Provincial Auditor, Mr Peters. Would you like to make some comments? Oh, you have some questions at this point?
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): Mr Grandmaître asked if there were any questions. I have a question.
Honourable member, looking at this particular statute, have you determined what the cost will be of the three additional reports that are set out in subsection 12.1(1)?
Mr Grandmaître: To be very honest with you, I had a meeting with the Provincial Auditor advising him of my intention to introduce this amendment, but no additional costs were discussed. I think the auditor would be in a better position to answer that question.
Mr Tascona: Would you ask the auditor to respond to that for me?
Mr Grandmaître: Please, Mr Peters.
Mr Erik Peters: I'd be happy to. You will see in my presentation that we estimate the additional costs may go as high -- but most likely that would be a total cap -- as about $60,000 a year, provided we go to three reports. Under the current circumstances, which I'll go into, it's probably not likely that we'll go up to as many as three.
Mr Tascona: In response to my question, I don't know if the honourable member has read Mr Peters's statement for today, but he's indicating an additional estimated cost of up to $60,000 per year.
Mr Grandmaître: If three reports were tabled.
Mr Tascona: I think the question I'd like to ask, because it's not addressed -- I think cost is an important issue -- is what we're actually considering here, if you could tell me. You may not have discussed costs, but did you discuss staffing complement, whether the auditor would need additional staff, or could he do these functions, which are reporting functions he's charged to do anyway under the statute, with the existing staff complement?
Mr Grandmaître: It's very difficult to put a price on accountability.
Mr Tascona: I'm not talking about price; I'm talking about staffing.
Mr Grandmaître: That's included in the cost, the $60,000 --
Mr Tascona: That's true, but that's a separate issue. Did you discuss the number of employees he would need to do the job? Did he say he could do it with his existing staff complement or did he need additional staffing?
Mr Grandmaître: In his presentation I think the auditor will answer your question. As I said previously, I didn't get --
Mr Tascona: You never discussed manpower either?
Mr Grandmaître: No. I didn't get into the fine detail.
1020
Mr Tascona: Could you ask, honourable member, if Mr Peters anticipates increasing his staffing complement or could he perform the functions with the existing staffing complement?
Mr Grandmaître: I'm sure in the presentation of the auditor, your question --
Mr Tascona: I'd rather deal with it through you.
The Vice-Chair: Let me suggest something here. All the questions, I believe Mr Peters --
Mr Tascona: I know, but I may not have the time at that juncture. I have an opportunity now, and if Mr Grandmaître doesn't know that, then perhaps he can ask the auditor. He's right there and he can answer my question.
Mr Grandmaître: Again, do you have a copy of --
Mr Tascona: No, but I may not have an opportunity when he does his presentation. I have an opportunity now to get an answer. I'd like to have an answer.
Mr Grandmaître: I don't understand your question.
Mr Tascona: The question is very simple: Do you anticipate increasing your staffing complement, Mr Peters, or can you do the work with your existing staffing complement?
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me. Mr Peters is here today as a witness to address the bill. We've had preliminary comments from the member. The questions you're asking, it seems to me, are addressing --
Mr Tascona: My question is to Mr Grandmaître and he hasn't got the answer. Mr Peters is there to respond.
Mr Grandmaître: No, I think I was very honest with you. I told you that I had not asked the auditor --
Mr Tascona: Why can't Mr Peters answer the question?
Mr Grandmaître: I think he'll do this in his presentation.
Mr Tascona: I don't want to wait for his presentation. I'd like to know now. Then I can ask you another question, sir. Can I have an answer?
The Vice-Chair: No, I'm sorry. I'm going to ask you to please show a little bit of courtesy. You're asking a question through a member. We have someone here for a presentation. We haven't begun to deal with the bill yet.
Mr Tascona: Mr Patten, I'm a Chairman also. I find it highly irregular. I'm here, and I have an opportunity to ask questions of the member. If he doesn't know the answer, he's got a person who can answer the question. Then I can continue my questioning of the member. I'm not going to short-circuit myself on that point. I'm being very courteous. I'm just asking for an answer -- yes or no?
The Vice-Chair: Who are you asking the question of?
Mr Tascona: The question is to Mr Grandmaître and if he needs to refer it to Mr Peters --
Mr Grandmaître: The answer is no.
Mr Tascona: And that's on your understanding from Mr Peters that the existing staffing complement will not be increased by the addition of these reports?
Mr Grandmaître: That's not what I said. I haven't discussed the cost with the auditor. I think I'm being very honest with you.
Mr Tascona: Can you refer the question to Mr Peters so I can have an answer?
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Peters will provide you with an answer in his presentation.
Mr Tascona: I'd like to have the answer through you, so I can ask another question, which will lead from that.
The Vice-Chair: Address the Chair, please. Would you please work through the Chair.
Mr Tascona: Vice-Chair.
The Vice-Chair: Yes. I'm the Chair today.
Mr Tascona: Okay, Mr Chairman. Can you let Mr Peters answer that question, so I can continue to ask questions of Mr Grandmaître?
The question is very simple: Do you anticipate increasing your staffing complement as a result of this bill?
The Vice-Chair: Would you like to answer that?
Mr Peters: I'd be happy to answer that. As of this morning, I can answer no, I will not have to increase my staff complement.
Mr Tascona: Did you have any other discussions, Mr Grandmaître, with respect to what the Provincial Auditor anticipated in terms of what else he would have to do with his office to deal with this type of reporting function?
Mr Grandmaître: I think that's really the responsibility of the Provincial Auditor, because I have never worked in his office. I've been around for 12 years, and very few members really know how the auditor goes about in reporting. I think this would be better answered by the Provincial Auditor. Do you know how he operates in his office?
Mr Tascona: It's not my bill, sir. It's your bill. I just asked you the question: Have you discussed any other additional matters related to the operation of his office, how it would be impacted by the bill? I guess your answer is no.
Mr Grandmaître: My answer is a simple no. I don't know how he does his reporting. I did talk to him about extra staff and extra cost, but at that time the auditor didn't have a precise figure and I'm just learning today that he wouldn't need any additional staff. I'm learning this, as you are.
Mr Tascona: Thanks very much, sir.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Peters, would you like to make your presentation now?
Mr Peters: Thank you very much. I am very pleased to be here today to offer my comments on your proposed amendments to the Audit Act -- that of allowing the Provincial Auditor to report to the Legislative Assembly more frequently than annually. As you have indicated, your proposal would give the Provincial Auditor the discretionary authority to make up to three reports per year, in addition to our mandatory annual report. I also note that the bill retains the current special report provision for matters of pressing importance or urgency.
I would like to indicate at the outset that I am in full support of the principle of more frequent reporting. I believe this proposal to be a progressive step to modernizing the reporting process of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario. I say this in the belief that the proposal will allow my office to be of better service to legislators; in particular, to our chief client, you, the standing committee on public accounts, and through you to the taxpayers of the province.
The bill that is before you has been modelled after the federal Bill C-207, 1994, that amended the federal Auditor General Act. As well, the legislative auditors of Saskatchewan and Quebec are now reporting on a more frequent basis, and for several years, the Auditor General of British Columbia has been using a section of his Audit Act that is similar to our current special report provision to report on a more frequent basis than only once a year. With Mr Grandmaître's bill and what has recently transpired federally and provincially in British Columbia, Quebec and Saskatchewan, legislators across Canada are beginning to realize the benefits that come with more frequent reporting by their legislative auditors.
As a matter of interest, I recently had the opportunity to meet with Denis Desautels, the Auditor General of Canada, together with his senior management team. It was indeed a privilege. I was grateful that he let me meet with him. They discussed at length the impact on their office of what their experience was. They have almost three years' experience with more frequent reporting. Although they have had to deal with some adjustment pains, overall they consider their experience with the new reporting frequency as very positive.
According to the federal Auditor General, federal parliamentarians like him to report more frequently. As well, he told me that parliamentary committees, other than the standing committee on public accounts -- and this is a very important point to me -- make use of the now more frequent auditor's reports. This federal practice of other committees using the auditor's report is similar to a suggestion by the Ontario Financial Review Commission for the various committees of Ontario's Legislature when they deal with ministries' business plans.
I would now like to focus my remarks on the obvious benefits of the proposals that are before us.
Under the current annual reporting structure, matters reported could be up to two years old by the time they are before this committee for review. Moving to more frequent reporting, the public accounts committee would be able to review issues on a more current basis and thereby be allowed to make recommendations for improvement in a more timely fashion. Possible savings identified by the auditor or the committee could then be effected sooner than under the annual reporting structure. As well, from the committee's perspective, having more frequent, shorter reports to deal with rather than the one lengthy annual report will help you to prioritize your work and foster more regular reporting to the House.
From my office's operational perspective, reporting more frequently would enable us to spread our report-driven workload more evenly throughout the year. Our current report clearance procedure would remain the same under more frequent reporting. In other words, sharing and discussing our audit findings and recommendations with auditees would continue under the proposed audit reporting regime.
With respect to our current draft report clearance procedure, I should mention that we share the final drafts of our individual audit reports on which the annual report is based, not only with each responsible deputy minister, but we also send copies of all final draft audit reports to the secretary of Management Board. As a result, the government is fully informed several weeks before the tabling of my report of the subject matters, the draft observations, recommendations and the ministry responses to our recommendations on which the report to be tabled will be based. The authority for this reporting process is provided in section 18 of the current Audit Act, which provides as follows:
"The auditor may advise appropriate persons employed in the public service of Ontario as to any matter that comes or that may come to the attention of the auditor in the course of exercising the powers or performing the duties of auditor."
1030
In connection with our reporting process, the bill that is before us also includes a proposal in subsection 12.1(2) that would require the auditor to provide the Speaker with written notice of the subject matter of the proposed report. My interpretation of this proposal is that, since the government would already be aware of the potential subject matter of our reports to the assembly through our current reporting process described to you, the proposed notice to the Speaker would serve the following purposes:
It would provide sufficient advance notice of the subject matter of the proposed report for the benefit of all members of the assembly and also establish the actual tabling date.
If the above is the intention of the proposal in subsection. 12.1(2), then it might be useful for the committee to discuss how the Speaker would advise the members of the assembly as soon as he receives the notice of the proposed report.
I should also touch upon the issue of cost. Based on the experiences of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, there will be some unavoidable cost increases to my office for printing and translation, but in light of the question I was asked, not for staffing. In our case, these additional costs should not exceed about $60,000 per annum. In any event, whatever the additional costs, funding required by my office for more frequent reporting would be included in future estimates requests to be submitted to the Board of Internal Economy. This may be necessary in light of the fact that my office is by far the leanest audit office in Canada in terms of audit office cost per $1,000 of government expenditure. My office's expenditures amount to 13 cents per $1,000 of government expenditure. In comparative terms, audit office costs for each of the other Canadian legislative audit offices exceed 30 cents per $1,000 of government expenditure.
I hope my comments have been useful and helpful to your consideration of Mr Grandmaître's proposal to extend the practice of more frequent reporting to my office. That concludes my formal and supportive presentation.
I would now be pleased to answer any questions the members may have.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Mr Peters, in your opening paragraph you mention that the Provincial Auditor has the discretionary authority to make up to three reports per year under this proposed bill, which I support, by the way. I agree with Mr Grandmaître when he says that we have to be accountable. I certainly do not disagree with that statement.
At the present time, under the current legislation, you also have the authority to do a special audit, provisions "for matters of pressing importance or urgency," as you state in your statement.
Then on page 2, in the second paragraph, it says, "Under the current annual reporting structure, matters reported could be up to two years old by the time they are before the committee for review."
I have difficulty rationalizing how one or two or three extra reports per year would eliminate the problem you're putting in front of us on page 2. I would imagine today, with computers and updated accounting practices, we have year-to-date expenditures and revenues and we should be able to pull out figures by pushing a couple of buttons. You seem to be concerned that some of the figures at times may be as much as two years old. Could you rationalize this for me? How are we going to resolve this particular problem by having more audits?
Mr Peters: I can answer this on a number of fronts. It is not a matter of more audits. All this act is really proposing is spreading the load.
I would just like to remind you that this committee has agreed to proposed amendments to the Audit Act that I brought forward. Those would have involved additional audits. But this particular bill, Bill 74, does not speak to proposed audits, it merely speaks to reporting frequency.
As you know, as far as the pure numbers are concerned, I report separately anyway. I report with an audit opinion on the public accounts of the province and of about 70 boards, agencies and commissions of the government. So it's not a matter of numbers. This largely pertains to issues that we want to bring to attention under section 12, the reporting provision of the act.
Currently, under the act, we are able to table our annual report only after the public accounts have been tabled by the Minister of Finance, before December 31. Value-for-money audits particularly require quite a bit of lead time. Ours is a lot shorter than that of many other audit offices, but it does require about six months' lead time as a minimum. That is in addition to having done a risk assessment of the area. By the time issues come before you, we may very well have conducted the audit work, say, in October of year one, and concluded on the work and reported and cleared it with the ministry by about February or March of the following year, but we cannot report to you under the current reporting regime until November or thereabouts. Then the schedule of this committee kicks in as well, and you may not get around to an issue like that until about the spring of the following year after that. That is under the current annual reporting regime.
We have not yet availed ourselves frequently of the provision for special reports that you referred to. We have not run into special conditions that warranted that kind of reporting. I'm not sure; I'm asking my colleagues. Since this act was brought in, in about 1977, there is no recollection of ever availing ourselves of that provision.
As well, I would think that currently practical considerations would probably allow us to report -- I would envisage at the moment one additional report per year, in the springtime, as opposed to a series of tiny little pieces coming out all along, largely because of the reporting process. For example, we are one of the few provinces that still reports in French, and we are pleased to do so. That adds about a month to our production time, to have everything translated and properly vetted in the other official language of the province. So, in a practical way, it does not add to the audit, just to the frequency of reporting.
If I may add one other comment, for any professional auditor, the ideal situation for an auditor is actually to be able to report when ready. Any auditor would like to report when he's ready to report. But we are very pleased with this proposal, which formulates a practical approach, a practical compromise to report more than once a year.
Mr Beaubien: I thank you for your comments. It might be ideal for the Provincial Auditor to be able to report when he or she feels like it, but the act has been in place since 1970. There has been no urgency or matters of importance dealt with in the Provincial Auditor's report in the past 27 years.
Like I said, I support the accountability, but I fail to see where the taxpayers or the constituents of Ontario are going to benefit by reporting more often, especially when we have not called upon the act in 27 years because of urgency or matters of importance. That's the difficulty I have.
Mr Peters: Let me answer that very specifically in a dollars-and-cents way, if I may. Unfortunately I'm tabling my 1997 report on Tuesday, so I can only speak to 1996, which I tabled a year ago. In that report, as a minimum, we identified $100 million of savings to the taxpayer. There is certainly a lot of urgency added to these findings by the work of this committee, but you won't get around to dealing with those until I'm finally annually able to report. That's not saying that the ministries are not starting to take action on these areas as we do them, but the work of this committee is very important to the ministries in providing that additional incentive to go ahead and achieve those savings.
Why should the taxpayer have to wait, because of this provision as it currently exists in the act, for two years or at least for half a year, as a minimum, to see the Legislature start to work on those savings? That's what I would consider a real, tangible benefit from this approach.
1040
Mr Grimmett: Many of the points I was going to raise were discussed by Mr Beaubien in his questions. I want to say I have a lot of respect for Mr Beaubien, who has quite a business background. But from my experience on the committee, the issue of timeliness is a very significant one, and I want to congratulate Mr Grandmaître for bringing the bill forward in his private member's time, because I think this is a very practical step.
I'm interested in supporting legislation that would deal with the timeliness issue. We've certainly seen in the past year, in putting together our report, the problems that can arise when the auditor discovers a problem and doesn't really report it publicly until he puts his report out. Then we go through this process of reviewing it, going back to the ministry, reviewing it and reviewing it and reviewing it.
I have some frustration that the problem sometimes doesn't even get dealt with, because it takes so long to finally get around to endorsing the auditor's report. Sometimes the government changes or the ministry changes and you don't really get an opportunity to get at the problem. So I think the more timely reporting should have a significant impact. I think I'm perhaps being a little naïve as well, because you have to have the political will there to deal with the issues the auditor raises. Again, I congratulate the member for bringing the bill forward, and I'll be supporting it.
Mr Tascona: I'm certainly in full support of this proposed legislation. I think Mr Grandmaître is doing an admirable job in bringing this forth.
I have some questions for Mr Peters, though. Perhaps he can just provide me with his understanding of the language which is used in drafting this report to this committee. I refer you to the last page, if you can refer to that. It would be the third full paragraph, which starts with, "I should also touch upon the issue of cost." The reference in there to audit office cost is made on more than one occasion. What are your audit office costs? Do they include such things as printing and translation, or are those separate matters? Can you just tell me what you would consider your audit office costs?
Mr Peters: Our total cost is just below $8 million a year, $7.8 million. That is a somewhat unusual amount because it includes a fair bit of rent, unfortunately, with a lease signed way back when, which runs well into the year 2000. That is the amount of money I'm spending, which, as I pointed out, is in relation to being the largest province. There are certainly a number of provinces which are spending a lot more.
Mr Tascona: What percentage of your total audit office costs is your rent?
Mr Peters: Off the cuff, without having looked at the records, it's over 10%.
Mr Tascona: The printing and translation are included in your audit office costs?
Mr Peters: Yes. Currently, I think we're paying -- I don't know what the exact cost is -- about 29 cents a word, or something like that.
Mr Tascona: Is that done internally or is it done externally?
Mr Peters: No, it's done externally. The federal office, for example, can afford to have a translator on staff, but their reports -- the last report issued by the federal office, which was two additional reports combined, was well over 800 pages, and we are trying to stick around 300 pages.
Mr Tascona: What's your existing staff complement now?
Mr Peters: The existing staff complement is around 80.
Mr Tascona: That's 80 full-time employees, or is it made up of part-timers?
Mr Peters: Yes, that's 80 full-time.
Mr Tascona: Do you have part-time employees?
Mr Peters: No. We have some advisers from time to time, but I wouldn't rate that as part-time employment.
Mr Tascona: So advisers would be on contract?
Mr Peters: That's right.
Mr Tascona: Would they be considered consultants, or is there a difference?
Mr Peters: Yes, they fall under the consulting rates, or whatever Management Board is publishing. We are paying in accordance with those rates.
Mr Tascona: How many contract employees do you have now?
Mr Peters: Really only one, from time to time, and I have an advisory committee that is paid about $200 a meeting whenever they meet, but they haven't met for two years.
Mr Tascona: Do you anticipate hiring a consultant to help you with this particular statute?
Mr Peters: No, it's the same consultant. We get help in editing.
Mr Tascona: You don't anticipate needing a consulting service or specialty advice on this?
Mr Peters: No, because it really has no impact on the direct audit work. It just deals with the frequency of reporting. The impact it will have on my office is largely that we will now have to change the planning procedures. Normally, we plan one report a year, and it's clearly different if we plan more than one report a year. So it is the same staff. Right now, we're working on the basis that we have one peak a year, towards the report, and then we go through it. Now we'll have a number of small peaks and valleys.
Mr Tascona: In terms of real dollars spent, you say your total cost is just under $8 million. Where do you stand against the other provincial offices and the federal office in terms of the total money spent?
Mr Peters: I'll show you a little chart. We're way at the bottom.
Mr Tascona: In terms of total money spent?
Mr Peters: Also in terms of total money spent.
Mr Tascona: My only question to you is, where do you stand with respect to the other provinces, including the federal government -- one out of 11 -- in terms of total money spent?
Mr Peters: On total money spent I don't have the exact number. In relation to government expenditure audit domain, I'm at the bottom.
Mr Tascona: No, just total dollars.
Mr Peters: I think right now I'm in fourth or fifth of the legislative audit offices in Canada, as the largest province. Ahead of me are such provinces as Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec.
Mr Tascona: They spend more money than you on their offices.
Mr Peters: In absolute dollars, they spend more money.
Mr Tascona: In other words, they spend more than $8 million per year.
Mr Peters: Absolutely.
Mr Tascona: So we're ranked fourth or fifth in total expenditure.
Mr Peters: That's right.
Mr Tascona: When you say the Canadian legislative audit offices exceed 30 cents, is that an average, or how do you come up with 30 cents?
Mr Peters: No, that's per office. I would say we are dragging the average down, but I would think the average is closer to 40 cents.
Mr Tascona: How did you come up with 30 cents?
Mr Peters: Well, over 30 -- for example, that's the nearest to the 13 --
Mr Tascona: Is that a median?
Mr Peters: The next office is around 30 cents.
Mr Tascona: Yes, but you say 30 cents. Is that a median figure?
Mr Peters: No. It's actual.
Mr Tascona: It's actual but it's not an average, so what is it?
Mr Peters: I have a visual. I don't particularly want to table it. I've tabled this with the Board of Internal Economy and I'm reminded very much by Mr Grimmett's point that this committee is not to discuss my budget, so I don't want to do that.
Mr Tascona: I'm not interested in your budget. I'm just asking for -- you put it out there, 30 cents. How did you determine that?
Mr Peters: Just to give you a little bit of a visual, and I don't know whether you can see it from here, but on this chart the highest -- and that's unfair; one should take off Prince Edward Island, because they have a relatively small budget. This is audit cost per office per 1,000. We are down here. We are that little blip down here.
Mr Tascona: I understand that. I don't want to be difficult, but how did you come up with 30 cents? Because that's not your budget. You're talking about the rest of the country.
Mr Peters: There are various ways of calculating this amount.
Mr Tascona: Just tell me one. I'm only interested in the way you did it.
Mr Peters: The way I did it is we spent $56 billion; I just divided $8 million into it, and you come to a number. If the federal government spends --
Mr Tascona: No, the 30 cents; your statement there, 30 cents per 1,000. "Other Canadian legislative audit offices exceed 30 cents per 1,000 government expenditure." How did you come up with that figure? What is it based on?
Mr Peters: That is prepared by doing the same thing; it's just taking, for example, the federal government expenditures, dividing the audit office --
1050
Mr Tascona: You put them all together, divided them by 11, or 10 --
Mr Peters: No, no, we didn't divide. This is just the individual. All I'm saying is that the nearest blip is over 30 cents, and then they go up to $1.27 for PEI.
Mr Tascona: Okay, so who is at 30 cents?
Mr Peters: Canada and Quebec are relatively close to 30 cents.
Mr Tascona: Oh, I see.
Mr Peters: New Brunswick is higher than that; Alberta is close to 70 cents.
Mr Tascona: In terms of staffing, how do you compare across the country? You have 80 full-time staff. Where do you stand as one out of 11?
Mr Peters: I have a little chart on that one too. I come prepared to the Board of Internal Economy when I ask for money. The way we measure that is, how many dollars do I expect a staff member to audit in a year.
Mr Tascona: I'm just looking at raw data.
Mr Peters: That's raw data.
Mr Tascona: You say you've got 80 full-time. I expect all the other provinces have staff, so where do you stand as one out of 11? Are you number one or are there provinces with more that you?
Mr Peters: No, we are again at the fourth or fifth position. We are now approaching Saskatchewan.
Mr Tascona: So you're fourth or fifth with respect to staffing in the country and fourth or fifth in terms of total expenditure in the country also?
Mr Peters: Yes. We are down -- since we are on that questioning, there's one other chart that may be of interest. I want to show you this, if I may. This is starting with 1990. This is my staff complement and these are government --
Mr Tascona: Is that an eye test? I think you beat me.
Mr Peters: All I'm saying to you is that in 1991 my office had a staff of 115; we're now at 81.
Mr Tascona: Sorry, 115 what?
Mr Peters: We had 115 in 1990-91. We are now at 81. In other words, we have reduced staff in that period by 34. That is a whopping percentage, as you can appreciate. At the same time, government expenditures have gone from $46 billion to $57 billion.
Mr Tascona: Okay. Thanks very much.
Mr Grandmaître: You can go on with that.
Mr Peters: I can go on at length, but let me leave it there.
The Vice-Chair: Any further comments or questions for Mr Peters? No? Are we ready to proceed with clause-by-clause on Bill 74?
Legislative counsel, Mr Wernham, is joining us this morning.
Bill 74 is An Act to amend the Audit Act, presented by Mr Grandmaître. It's a private member's bill. Any questions, comments, or amendments to the bill, and if so, to which sections?
Shall sections 1 through 4 carry? Carried.
Shall the long title of the bill carry? Carried.
Shall Bill 74 carry? Carried.
Shall I report Bill 74 to the House? Agreed.
That is the quickest clause-by-clause I have ever participated in. Thank you kindly. Is there any further business?
We have just one final item. The auditor has tabled with us a report.
Mr Peters: I just wanted to let the members know that I am pleased to transmit today my report on the audit requested by a motion of your committee on January 30, 1997, pursuant to section 17 of the Audit Act, on the Ministry of Community and Social Services Report on Comparative Costs of Facility-Based Care and Community Living for people with Developmental Disabilities. I have a copy for everybody here.
The Vice-Chair: The subcommittee will review that report. There being no further business, the committee is adjourned.