Who Audits the Office of the Auditor General?
They're heroes in the struggle for good government, but are they enough?
Even if you had nothing to go on beyond the title of my publication, you could probably guess that I have warm feelings for the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (OAG). Their job, after all, is to oversee federal government spending to ensure that it's effective and not wasteful. Considering the size of the federal government and the scope of its operations, that's a daunting task.
Cynical as I am, I'm not convinced that government waste can be beaten: there are simply too many perverse incentives in place. A case in point can be found in the OAG’s own recent “Commentary on the 2022-2023 Financial Audits” document. Among other things, the the OAG reports the sad, sad fact that, more than a decade after introduction, the Phoenix employee payroll system is still not working. Incredibly:
“30% of employees we sampled had an error in their basic or acting pay during the 2022–23 fiscal year, compared with 28% in the prior year
“21% of employees we sampled still required corrections to their pay as of 31 March 2023, an increase from the 17% reported in the prior year”
But not to withhold credit where it’s due, even I'm encouraged by what appear to be serious efforts within the OAG to address serious problems. And their website does a good job representing their ongoing work, including findings, recommendations and, perhaps most important, follow-up tracking to show whether recommendations are being implemented:
But there's a lot more I'd like to know about the OAG. For instance, who watches the watchers? As we've all just seen with their scathing report on ArriveCAN mismanagement, OAG recommendations can deeply embarrass sitting governments. Given that sitting governments really don’t appreciate being embarrassed, I’d imagine audit teams face both overt and covert pressure when doing their work.
ArriveCAN isn’t the first case where the OAG has shown admirable backbone. In fact, my appreciation for their independence goes all the way back to Sheila Fraser’s early years. Nevertheless, the forces pushing back against censure must be relentless, and last year’s success won’t count for much in the face of this year’s struggles.
The thing that I’d most like to understand is how the OAG chooses their targets. Sure, they address new issues with each report. But the federal government employs 300,000 people across more than 200 departments and agencies and 60 or so crown corporations. I’m sure there are many important stories that never get told.
So what - and who - sets the OAG agenda? Regular readers of The Audit will no doubt recall at least a few potential candidates for inclusion. Like the three billion dollars (and counting) Global Affairs Canada (GAC) gave to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, despite the fact that the fund has consistently failed to achieve the department’s stated expectations. Or the quarter billion dollars GAC sent UNRWA with the solemn assurance that their “work includes ongoing oversight, regular site visits, a systematic screening process and strong anti-terrorism provisions in funding agreements”. We all know how well that worked out.
I found those apparent abuses of public spending with nothing more than an internet connection. I’d be curious to hear thoughts from the OAG.
Sir, you write, "I’d most like to understand is how the OAG chooses their targets." The corollary to that is how the OAG chooses to not target a department, program, etc. Inquiring minds would certainly like to know.
Please allow a bit of cynicism here.
If one assumes that there are, oh, say, ten horror stories to be discovered and someone suggests, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, that horror story A (which is just "bit" of a story and is already newsworthy) should be examined but horror story Z (which is MUCH more blatant and far more costly but is nowhere near the public right now) "need not" be dealt with.
I know, I am cynical. I am also a retired (private sector) auditor and I know that when one gets going on a file, one is told to keep one's eyes open for anything that is "really odd" (typically not defined) but finding and recognizing "really odd" is unlikely when one is looking for "normal odd" and one is currently looking at program "A" or crown corporation "A" which has no dealings with program "Z" or crown corporation "Z."