Parliamentary oversight was on the agenda at CCAF's 25^th Anniversary Conference in Ottawa last October. In this Update, we asked several of the panelists to reprise their comments on trends in Parliamentary oversight committees.

• Rob Fleming is a Member of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly and Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
• Leon Benoit is a Member of the Parliament of Canada who chaired the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in the last Parliament.
• Elwin Hermanson is a Member of the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly and Chair of the Committee on Public Accounts.
• Jim McCarter is the Auditor General of Ontario.
• Rick Stapenhurst is a senior public management specialist with the Public Sector Management Program, World Bank.

PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES ARE EVOLVING TO MEET
DEMANDS FOR GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY

Rob Fleming

Our democracy is more dynamic than many Canadians realize. The evolution of Parliamentary oversight committees across the country is a good demonstration of how our institutions are able to evolve to respond to demands for greater accountability.

We are seeing stronger oversight committees, improved cooperation with such parliamentary officers as the Auditor General, and increased transparency through performance auditing.

The oversight role of Opposition members is very important, and oversight committees, usually led by Opposition members, are key focal points for holding governments to account.

The Government Operations and Estimates Committee that I chaired at the federal level is an example of institutional change, in that it has existed for only about three years.

Its mandate is extremely broad. It reviews the government's management of physical and human resources, contracted services, and financial resources. It studies the effectiveness of government operations and government expenditure plans. It also plays a role in the review of planned legislation affecting government operations, such as the Whistleblowers' Act.

The committee has taken steps recently to strengthen its effectiveness. In particular, we introduced a more efficient way of looking at Estimates documents to allow for continuity and follow-up over time. We placed greater emphasis on the role of staff: the Clerk and committee researchers are now tasked to ensure the committee follows up on government commitments, even if there are changes in committee membership or even changes of government.

There is much the committee plans to do going forward. More work is needed to put in place our system for dealing with the cycle of Estimates, Performance Reports and Supplementary Estimates. The committee intends to complete our study of Service Canada and ensure proper indicators are in place to measure the effectiveness of this new organization. It also plans to look at the new Department of Shared Services, and follow up on the work we did concerning the operations of the Royal Canadian Mint.

The committee also plans to do some background research on public service real estate management to prepare it for more work on this topic later. And finally, we wanted to put in place a process to look at appointments of heads of Crown agencies.

Elwin Hermanson

As chair of Saskatchewan's Public Accounts Committee, I see that governments and public services are trying to become more accountable to citizens. Governments are stating their goals more clearly and publicly, and putting in place such useful tools as rolling three-year plans and mission statements. Access to government is more user-friendly, and citizens can increasingly see their parliamentarians in action on television beyond Question Period.

In Saskatchewan, we have seen improvements in our legislative committee structure. We used to have a number of standing committees that hadn't met for decades. Now we have struck four standing policy committees that meet regularly.

Our Public Accounts Committee plays a particularly important role. The constant and consistent involvement of the Provincial Auditor with our work provides corporate memory and a measure of neutrality. The relationship with the Provincial Auditor, and even with senior government officials, has grown to the point where we now know each other personally and we believe we can trust their reports. We have also developed a kind of “constructive partisanship” that allows committee members to play their partisan roles and still be constructive.

Nevertheless, our committee still has its weaknesses. Although our mandate is broad, the gateway is narrow: we only look at the published work of the Provincial Auditor. The committee's Government members, who are in the majority, decide what will be on the agenda. This pretty much squelches the whole idea of scrutiny. I would like to see more oversight committees replicate the structure of those in Nova Scotia and at the federal level, which are dominated by Opposition members.

Another weakness is that we have very limited research capability. We have no research staff, and are therefore dependent on the work of the Provincial Auditor and the research efforts of individual members.

Based on my experience, I would make three recommendations to strengthen parliamentary oversight committees:

• Opposition members should be in the majority.
• Government members should participate more in committee debates.
• Either the Auditor should have the mandate to assess government performance against other jurisdictions, or the committee should have an adequate research capability.

Jim McCarter

Ontario's Public Accounts Committee plays a key role in the accountability process. One success factor is the experience and respect commanded by the chair. The committee is chaired by Norm Sterling, an Opposition MLA who has served in the Legislature for 29 years is one of the two longest-serving members of the Ontario Legislature. His experience helps ensure the committee operates in a non-partisan way.

The committee is very active, meeting up to 30 times a year. The work of my office drives the committee's agenda - between two-thirds and three-quarters of my office's work is value-for-money auditing. The committee rarely discusses financial statement audits, but instead focuses on operational problems in government - the kinds of day-to-day issues that the members hear about from their constituents. It brings in deputy and assistant deputy ministers for hearings that last three to four hours. A research officer provides background information.

At the end of every hearing, the committee issues a formal report, to which the responsible Deputy Minister must formally respond. The Auditor General closes the accountability loop by following up the next time the organization is audited.

We've noticed some interesting trends in other jurisdictions:

• The Public Accounts Committee in the United Kingdom deals with about 60 value-for-money audits a year, and issues 40-50 reports annually. It is also more vocal about its work, something Ontario is considering.
• New Zealand's Parliament has abolished its Public Accounts Committee. Instead, various select committees call the Auditor General before them. One issue there is whether the legislature should direct the work of the Auditor General - although this might seem like a good idea at first glance, there could be dangers if a strong majority government attempts to direct the Auditor General's attention to less important issues.
• In the United States, 90 percent of the General Accountability Office's work is initiated by Members of Congress or Committees, unlike in Canada where an Auditor General's work is self-initiated.
• Florida's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Accountability has almost taken over the function of the State Auditor. It does value-for-money audits and performance reviews, at the direction of a bipartisan committee.
• Washington State's joint legislative Audit and Review Committee conducts about a dozen performance audits a year, with heavy reliance on outside consultants. In July 2005, the State Auditor said his office, not a government committee, should have that mandate.

I believe that legislative auditors in Canada are getting more clout these days. In 2005, for example, our mandate in Ontario was expanded to include responsibility for auditing schools, universities and hospitals.

Rick Stapenhurst

The World Bank and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association have researched trends in Public Accounts Committees in Commonwealth countries. We found that the average size of Public Accounts Committees is 11 members. Their prime focus is reports of the Auditor General; many are also able to conduct special investigations. Fifty-five percent are open to the public.

We noted that although some committees have narrow mandates focusing on financial probity, an increasing number have a wider focus on value-for-money, performance auditing, or program efficiency.

Two-thirds of Commonwealth Public Accounts Committees are chaired by an Opposition member. Policy neutrality and non-partisanship are traditions of most committees, and as a result committee interaction is most often with officials and Auditors General rather than politicians. Inter-party cooperation is imperative, and there is usually a strong desire for unanimity; in fact, minority reports are usually an indicator that a Public Accounts Committee is not working well.

We identified these key issues with Public Accounts Committees:

• Their status within Parliament
• Relations with the Auditor General
• Membership
• Resources
• Training and capacity building
• The establishment of good working practices
• Reporting
• Follow-up.

Also coming is an interview with Norm Sterling, the Chair of Ontario's Public Accounts Committee.

Copyright © 2006 CCAF-FCVI
Privacy Policy