I gather from the explanation of the Minister of Finance that the duty of the Auditor General is to examine the accounts after the money is spent. Clause 30 provides that the expenditure Shall be subject to examination and audit by the Auditor General in the same manner as is provided by the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, with respect to the accounts mentioned in section 50 of that Act. That section says :
Besides the appropriation accounts of the grants of .parliament, the Auditor General shall examine and audit, if required so to do by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, the accounts of all receipts of revenue, &c.
If he audits the accounts of this railway on the same principle, he must see that the expenditure of money is in compliance with the Act, because that is one of the elements of the audit. Therefore the audit must be made before the money is paid. It would be of little value otherwise. We might have the same result as in the bridge case, when the auditor did the work after the money was spent and the over expenditure of money could not be got back. Is this to be another case of that kind ? Will the rsame lax business methods be allowed to prevail, and the commissioners be given the opportunity of spending the money, perhaps improperly, and then have the auditor go over the accounts when it will be too late to record anything ?