Evidence of meeting #12 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was committees.
11:55 a.m.
Prof. C.E.S. (Ned) Franks
Let me make a general comment about the Treasury Board and the committee.
In my view, the committee and the Treasury Board have a common interest, and that is ensuring good financial management.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Prof. C.E.S. (Ned) Franks
There are many theories about parliamentary government that are confounded by the reality, but we still believe the theories--such as ministerial responsibility, rule of law, or the two of them.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Prof. C.E.S. (Ned) Franks
That's an ideal, isn't it?
What I was going to say on this--I'll get back to the responsibilities thing in a minute because these tie in--is that the Lambert commission in 1979 found that the role of the Treasury Board was the weak one in financial control. The Auditor General was fine. They weren't terribly impressed with deputy ministers, but really the Treasury Board did not do its job. The Gomery commission repeated this in both reports, that it felt the Treasury Board did not consider oversight of departmental financial administration as a major activity and didn't do it very well.
My suggestion is that the Treasury Board should do better and that the public accounts committee should ensure that the Treasury Board does better. And this doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship, because in theory, Mr. Williams, the interest is the same, and that is that good financial management and government--or it should be. Again, I'm getting to the conditional there.
But getting on to the responsibilities and accountabilities for which deputy ministers are accountable, the list in the Federal Accountability Act isn't a bad one. It includes measures to take to organize the resources of the department to deliver departmental programs in compliance with government policies and regulations--and that's compliance in the broad sense of following the statutes, the laws, the regulations, other documents.
It includes measures taken to maintain effective systems of internal control in the department. That's a key one.
It includes signing of the accounts. They're required to be kept for the preparation of the public accounts. In signing the accounts, the accounting officer is expressing a personal responsibility for the actions recorded in the accounts, and as I said earlier, non-recorded as well, which gets back to the problem we've had with the firearms thing.
And there's the performance of other specific duties, etc.
Putting those in a nutshell, they boil down to two things, really. One is what I call regularity. That's following the rules, the regulations, and the statutes. That's the compliance side. The other one is propriety, which is doing things in a proper way. Rather than propose rules and regulations, the Gomery commission--and I'm fully in support of what Justice Gomery recommended here--said that ultimately propriety boils down to an accounting officer asking herself or himself two questions when faced with a difficult decision. One is, could I satisfactorily defend this decision before the public accounts committee? And the second one is, since the public accounts committee is there on behalf of Parliament and the people of Canada, could I satisfactorily defend this decision in a public forum?
I should add that Justice Gomery, in putting those in his report, was borrowing from a British treasury document that instructs accounting officers that this is what “propriety” means.
Ultimately, what the committee and the Treasury Board should work together on is building a sense of responsibility and accountability in deputy ministers and their accounting officers, and then having that permeate the department from the top down in a way that I think--in a very distressing way--we've found hasn't happened lately; the administration too often has not met standards.
Noon
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
There's just one other point I want to follow up, and then I'll let other people go at it.
It's the tenure of deputy ministers. We had the last deputy minister from Indian Affairs in and we put this to him. It's not really within his power how long he can stay in the department. Other people control his future, but I think everybody who's had anything to do with that department agrees that we should have some continuity in the management of that department.
Do any of you gentlemen have any suggestions about how, in a systematic way, we can get something like this in place so that the executive branch cannot just switch them into another department and move them around?
Noon
Prof. C.E.S. (Ned) Franks
I could make a suggestion on that.
I think Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has a problem, but the secretary of the Treasury Board has been in for about two and a half years on average over the last 30 years, and the same is true for the Clerk of the Privy Council. We have real problems, I think, at that level, and that's why I used that not very complimentary expression of a seagull-mission deputy minister.
It's different in other Commonwealth countries. In Australia, there's a standard five-year expectation of service. My memory is there's some restriction on how they can be removed in that period. Even if they're shifting to another department, it has to be done through some approval of the legislature, but I'd have to check on that. In Britain, deputy ministerial equivalent positions are usually the last ones civil servants hold. They're usually for five to six years.
I would think that if Parliament could insist--and you could do this through a motion and then just follow up on it in Parliament--on a formal requirement that deputy ministers serve for five years, and that Parliament be notified and formal reasons given for anything shorter than that, then you'd be on the right track.
I think you're absolutely right: I don't believe we can have responsibility and accountability in a serious way until the very senior people--the accounting officers, as they're listed--stay there long enough to live with the consequences of their decisions. I share your concerns.
Noon
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, As an Individual
One of the greatest problems of our accountability system generally is the short tenure of people in various positions--deputy ministers, ministers themselves, and frankly, members of committees, including this one. I've spoken particularly on that point.
I agree with Professor Franks. The obvious solution is to have established expectations of tenure of four- and five-year terms, and so on--with the provision, of course, that there be flexibility and a chance to move things; these are not necessarily fixed terms.
Right now there's no expectation of how long a deputy is going to serve. There's almost an assumption that he or she will be moved in two or three years. If we went to an expectation of normal four- or five-year terms, it would give much more predictability. Of course, that can be applied to other positions as well.
June 22nd, 2006 / noon
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you.
I have three items I'd like to touch on. They all flow out of the special role we have as the public accounts committee. I'll be repeating things that we're aware of.
Public accounts is quite different from the other committees in the sense that we do not develop policy; we're here to hold the government to account. I think we've somewhat reflected that in the position of the chair being from the opposition. But I've always felt that because their currency is ideas and thought, standing committees that deal with policy should have resources that are adequate enough to travel the country and do the research, etc.
Quite rightfully, the electorate makes a decision and the committees should proportionately reflect what the electorate has decided. Being quite different in intent, I've always thought that public accounts should be a mirror reflection of the proportion of seats won in the elections. So if there is a majority government, it's the opposition parties that should actually hold the majority of seats. The greater the majority, the greater the number of opposition members who would sit on the committee. This is because the greater the majority you have in government and the longer the time, the greater the potential for a lack of accountability. In terms of the actual structure of the committee, besides the chairmanship, I've always thought that might be an interesting idea to discuss.
In terms of resources, one thing that's always worried me is when the Auditor General says they use a reference point of $1 billion, and when there are issues that are $1 billion or greater, they take an interest. They may or may not do reports on other issues that are raised through whatever means. That's always unnerved me. Let's say there's a $100 million issue. Well, if it's not dealt with in 10 years, it becomes a $1 billion issue. We're not doing our job unless we can address these sorts of issues in an expeditious way.
Once again, flowing out of the thought that this is a very different committee, our resource base should be significantly different and allow us to have researchers who would potentially do initial--
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
This point came from the Liberal Party when they were in opposition.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I believe we're the ones; we're the vehicle that is used to report to Parliament. We don't want to make these sorts of assumptions, but should there be a case, theoretically, of malfeasance or breaking of rules within the Auditor General's offices, obviously we don't have the resources to go after that.
Who would we turn to? I would assume it would be the RCMP that would have the resources. The RCMP seems to be of a thought that if there is that sort of problem, the Auditor General herself would have to call them. That seems to be a conflict of interest.
So there are those three items.
12:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, As an Individual
There are a variety of things to respond to.
On the first issue of PAC membership, many people make the point that for better or worse, this is not a very sexy committee. I think that's the phrase people tend to use. When I was talking earlier about the different roles of members and so on, it's very difficult for members to go back to their constituents—and you would know this—and talk about some of the more abstract accomplishments, as opposed to talking about the policy that one has introduced, or perhaps about some incredible scandal of small waste that they uncovered. Those are the sorts of things one could communicate to constituents, and I think it's easier to do that on some other committees.
Your suggestion about the reversal of the seat proportions is quite interesting. Of course, the underlying assumption is that accountability is always a partisan matter, and the bigger the government majority in the House the more opposition members there should be on the committee tends to assume that accountability must always be a partisan matter. It's quite correct, as we've been saying here, that members are members of different political parties, and of course there will always be partisan disagreement.
That sort of arrangement would further encourage the idea that it is the job of the opposition to scrutinize the government, and the job of the government members to then defend the government, which I don't think is always appropriate. Naturally they will feel inclined to do so, but I think this system would encourage government members to dig in their heels, simply defend all, and not really play their own role of scrutiny and accountability.
On the issue of so-called smaller issues, below $1 billion, or whatever, I think it's important to emphasize that it's not necessarily the job of this committee to chase the money on individual scandals and issues, or so-called scandals, or problems that may not be problems in other people's view. It's more about looking at the bigger picture, about looking at the procedures, the methods of accounting, and other broader principles, rather than necessarily chasing down individual cases. That's obviously part of the job, but I think the real focus for this committee must be looking at the bigger, broader picture and issues.
Individual issues may be a role for the Auditor General, a role for the RCMP, or for other appropriate individuals; it can depend, in each case. This committee can't do all things either. Again, I would think its main contribution is more in the area of the bigger picture of issues, procedures, and structures of that sort.
Professor Franks.
12:10 p.m.
Prof. C.E.S. (Ned) Franks
I'll make a couple of comments.
Looking back over the history of the committee from the beginning in 1867, the lure, the trap, in which the committee can fall, is scandal hunting at the expense of worrying about the system and improving it.
I like the balance of an opposition chair and the committee membership in proportion to the representation in the House, because it gives the chair an incentive, as an opposition member, to go after things, and that's balanced by government members.
That's why I emphasized the need for unanimity in reports on the committee. Not everybody gets what they want, but there's an awful lot more power in a report in which every member of a committee from all parties has agreed than there is to a report that's rammed through by a majority. That's where I find that report on ministerial and deputy ministerial responsibility and accountability in Canada was such a tremendous achievement by the committee. As I say, you've gotten extraordinary results out of that. It was really a very good one.
I want to make one other point. In terms of the Auditor General's audit, the sponsorship program was—and I think I'm quoting here—“below the level of materiality”, which means that the amounts involved were not big enough to be a major issue in terms of finance.
On the other hand, in terms of political importance and what it indicated about government finances, it was big enough.
The same is true for the Firearms Act issues, which the committee has been looking at, in terms of the amounts the Auditor General looks at—$25 million, or whatever it was in supplementary estimates. It was below the level of materiality, but in terms of its importance in parliamentary control of the public purse, it's much bigger than that.
It seems to me this is something the committee can wrestle with and on which it might want to offer suggestions to the Auditor General and/or the government, regarding what the important issues are. Sometimes very small ones are very important, and they are symptoms of the larger problem, or they symbolize something that needs addressing.
I'll leave it at that.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few points regarding what was raised earlier, primarily for the Treasury Board.
I go back to the time prior to the millennium when we all thought that all the computers were going to fail. This committee told the Treasury Board to become hands-on, take direction, and hold departments accountable for their progress or lack thereof because of the impending meltdown.
Fortunately, it didn't happen, thank goodness, because the Treasury Board said it was not their job to police their own rules. They would float them out there, say do this and do that and take the appropriate action, but they had no discipline to enforce what they were saying. The DMs in the departments were little fiefdoms that had too much power on their own. And the Treasury Board ended up slapping them around with a wet noodle and not getting very much done.
On that basis, when you talk about the Treasury Board responding to reports and not the Auditor General, I'm a little concerned that Treasury Board would be more inclined to say that all is well. We saw from their complicit involvement in the firearms situation--Jim Judd was the secretary of the Treasury Board at the time--that they are not there to uphold the central, core values of administration; they are there to get the job done, Mr. Chair.
I like the idea that the Treasury Board perhaps enunciate and elaborate on the accountability of DMs before this committee. But I'd like to see that decision in a recommendation approved by this particular committee, because the new Federal Accountability Act says that the DMs are accountable before Parliament, and surely that's up to us to determine, not up to the Treasury Board. I recall Professor Franks' comments about the Treasury Board publications tabled at this committee last fall, and they were none to kind, if you may recall, Mr. Chair. That was on the doctrine of accountability and ministerial accountability and so on. Therefore, I wouldn't want to delegate this to the Treasury Board.
I think, Mr. Chair, that out of this discussion we are having today, we should think about a report on things like that.
The other point I want to bring up is this. I don't want Mr. Sauvageau to think I was dismissing his concern, because it's a valid concern, and I really didn't have an answer for him, because Parliament is not an institution of management. Parliament is an institution of accountability. And we have to get that clear in our minds. We are not part of the management structure of government. Therefore, if we see something going off the rails, we jump in and make it right.
Because timeliness is important to ensure credibility if the issue becomes public--the issue he was talking about, which was the aquatic centre in Montreal--I thought the Auditor General should write to the Comptroller General and seek his assurance that all is well. This puts the Comptroller General, the chief accountant for the Government of Canada, on the hook for assuring the Auditor General that he has the tools and mechanisms to just jump right in and ask if this is being managed appropriately. And his report can be tabled here.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Could this committee write the Comptroller General and ask if all is well?