Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Order.

I want to point out that we're now in a public session of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

At the last meeting, Mr. Williams tabled a motion. I will read the motion, for the record:

That in the interest of accountability, the Auditor General of Canada be requested to select two departmental performance reports at random each year and audit them in accordance with the criteria set out in chapter 1 of the May 2003 report of the Auditor General and report same to Parliament.

That motion has been properly received by the committee, and it's in order.

Mr. Williams, do you have anything to say to the motion?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity not only to speak to this motion, but to say that I have believed for a long time that accountability is the thing that drives good performance. I have been concerned over the last many years, in fact since we started with departmental performance reports in the mid-1990s, that they tell the good story but they sometimes ignore telling us the whole story. On that basis, I thought it would be appropriate that we put in some kind of motivator for them to feel obligated to tell the whole story.

I had informal discussions some time ago with the Auditor General and her staff, and they resulted in chapter 1 of the May 2003 report being tabled in the House setting up the criteria by which the Auditor General could make a standard evaluation audit of the departmental performance reports—not so that she go all the way to the very back and audit every number that's in there, but to ensure that the whole story is being given to Parliament, because without that whole story we're not able to do our job effectively.

Mr. Chairman, that's why I said “two...at random each year”. You never know whether your name is coming up, and therefore you're motivated to say, “I'd better do a good performance report, because I really would prefer to avoid having to come to explain my fluffy, self-serving report to the public accounts committee.”

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I feel that in the interests of accountability, as the motion states, this would enhance the effectiveness of the departmental performance reports and the capacity of Parliament to oversee departments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'd like to speak in support of this particular motion. Perhaps I'll begin where Mr. Williams began. Too often we're given a good story here, but not the whole story.

It's quite unfortunate. What this motion speaks to is a lack of confidence in this committee among parliamentarians that even when reports are compelled because of concerns, those reports perhaps don't accurately reflect everything that's transpired. On a number of occasions, what has been tremendously worrisome is how the resources in departments are utilized when they're called to account before this committee. Too often, instead of people having been briefed so that they can provide us with the information, it's actually departmental communications people with whom they sit to discuss these issues, and strategies are laid out not on how to provide us with accurate information, but on how in fact they can spin us.

It's unfortunate that we have to proceed in this manner, but it's quite clear that it's absolutely necessary. So I'll be supporting this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I would be a reluctant supporter of this motion, but when we have to hire more auditors to start checking up on other auditors, this to me could be a real growth area for number crunchers. I personally wouldn't want to work in an organization where I was looking over my shoulder at auditors all the time to get my job done. It's not the way to get things done.

I'm really disappointed that we're actually talking about having to audit performance reports. I'll refer to a person I've got a high regard for, Warren Buffett, who makes a differentiation between snow jobs and sale jobs and reports. A report, to him, is a frank assessment of the negatives and the positives for the organization. If there were real professionalism within the organization, the performance reports should clearly set out the negatives and the positives in that story. You shouldn't have to read the fine print to decipher what's going on in here.

I find it really unfortunate, if that's really the state of affairs with these performance reports, that we have to hire more auditors to check up on their reports. It's really a disappointing state of affairs that we have in the public service. I'm not sure that ultimately would be the cure. If that's a real problem we have here, I'm not sure hauling in more auditors, with all due respect to Mr. Williams, is the cure for that problem. It's a leadership problem in those departments.

That's my frustration with having to reluctantly support this thing. I don't see it being the answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'm also very supportive of this. This issue really is important, and I really appreciate the motion and the attention to this, because I remember the first time I read one of those reports. I was infuriated. I thought it was a public relations piece. Eventually the chair at that time, Mr. Williams, explained that, no, this was their report. I was just blown away. It was all glossy with nice pictures.

There was also a public service body. Maybe Mr. Murphy or Mr. Williams can help me. I think the three of us were there, and maybe Mr. Sauvageau or Mr. Laforest. I can't recall. I remember we went on a panel and the whole thing. They were asking us about these reports, the bureaucrats who do them. We were pretty blunt about how we felt about them and what we wanted and didn't want. I think this is a way to really nail that down.

I think it's also an opportunity for us to mention that the legacy Mr. Williams leaves, because he's not running again, is phenomenal. His impact on this work is that the impression of it within Parliament has been changed forever for the positive. I think we'll be referring to Mr. Williams' legacy and the things we've all learned from him for many, many years. I hope that's the case beyond, for those of us who are here, because I think he's got us going on the right track. Accountability is everything.

The only other thing I would add is that I hope even now this motion, before the Auditor General even responds, is circulated to all the key people who generate these reports, to let them know what's coming. Start now, folks, because the world's changing, and these reports are not going to be what they have been before. We're going to drag them into what they should be.

So I'm pleased to support this. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Sweet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly would like to agree with everything Mr. Christopherson said about Mr. Williams' legacy, the great investment he's made in this committee, and the way he's been very generous with his accumulated wisdom as well. I'm certain he's going to make a big investment for the entire world with GOPAC in the days ahead.

Particularly on the content of this motion, I think it's very timely and very important. Mr. Christopherson's words actually drove it home a bit more. I had no idea about this previous panel where very succinct statements were made to people in departments about what was expected. It's obviously not getting through. Because we were in camera before, of course, I cannot go into detail, but we have had hours and weeks of work by the Library of Parliament on follow-ups regarding this issue and voluminous pages during the process. I think this is one more step to showing the public service that we are very serious about having accurate reports and that we want them to address specifically the recommendations, whether they've moved ahead on them or not, and where they may need additional resources.

So I want to wholeheartedly and vociferously support this motion by Mr. Williams.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Sweet.

Mr. Hubbard, then Mr. Poilievre, and then I'll call the question.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Well, it sounds very good, but at some point in time we have to look at what something like this is going to cost. Maybe members know; I haven't looked recently at what we spend in terms of the Auditor General.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

It's $75 million.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

I think it's more than that, John, the last figure I saw.

In any case, then we have each department having reports written up, agencies having reports written up, and those are costing departments a significant amount of money. Do we want another layer, an increased bureaucracy here, to have eyes on the eyes that report? If we can't accept what departments are saying, it's a very serious situation.

With that, in terms of our research, take the Department of National Defence or any other department—Human Resources—how much are they spending to do this? Does it cost them another $20 million?

I believe we had witnesses before the committee who talked about a lot of money being spent to develop those reports. Some have asked to do it once every three years, and once every five years.

John, is that not right?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Not that I'm aware of.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

And the reports to Parliament aren't as frequent as they were at one time. What information do we have?

John, can you tell us more? I thought a lot of departments didn't report each year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

No, every department reports every year.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

If I can just fill in, Mr. Chairman, I think it was around 1995 that there was a committee struck to review the estimates and the reporting to Parliament. The way the estimates were reported was changed and they became the plans and priorities. At the same time, we introduced this retrospective reporting to Parliament of the departmental performance reports.

Prior to about 1995, there was no annual report by departments to Parliament. That was instituted then. It has been a good exercise. It is the only document that's actually made public that encompasses a report of the whole department on what they're doing for the whole year. There were bits and pieces coming out here and there and reports to Parliament and they'd come to committees to make their statements, but this was the first time that a department sent out an annual report to its shareholders—the people, via Parliament.

On the issue of accounts, we're only asking for two. There are about 75 annual departmental reports published every year, including all the agencies, and so on—only two, at random, because you never know if your name is going to be pulled. So it's a motivating factor.

When it comes to the cost of accountability, I just happened to notice that the supplementary estimates were tabled this morning. For Parliament, being an institution of oversight, our cost is $480 million just for ourselves, and our job is oversight. So this additional cost is minuscule, and I think it can provide great benefit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Poilievre, and then I'm going to call the question.

Mr. Poilievre, do you have a comment?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes. I do have some sympathy for what Mr. Fitzpatrick said, but I think this business of writing meaningless reports, empty words, is a colossal waste of resources, words, and time. This could potentially be a method of connecting words to actions, and any time you can do that, you enhance accountability. So I'll be supporting the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We've had a fulsome discussion on the matter. I'm prepared to call the question. The question has been read.

(Motion agreed to)

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to thank everybody for their kind words, and this little debate that we've had is very much appreciated. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams, I concur with the remarks.

Also, would it be in order for the committee to report this motion to the House? My own view is it would be.

Do you have any thoughts, Mr. Williams? Right now, it would just be sent to the Auditor General, but—

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

There's nothing wrong with reporting to the House that we've passed the following motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Just for housekeeping, you could make a motion to that effect, Mr. Williams. It would count as a motion. We don't have to go through the whole thing.