OGGO Committee Report

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO 6^TH REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS AND ESTIMATES

Introduction

 

The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has made valuable recommendations to improve the review of government spending by House committees.  Accountability is one of the three pillars of the government’s Action Plan for Democratic Reform, which was tabled in the House of Commons on February 4, 2004.  A key principle of the Action Plan is that Parliament should have the tools to hold the government to account for the good stewardship of public resources. 

·        The President of the Treasury Board will work with the Government Operations Committee on how to improve reporting to Parliament.

 

On December 13, 2003, the Prime Minister distributed to Cabinet a new Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State which provides the Prime Minister’s personal directions to Ministers on governance and democratic reform.  The Guide requires that Ministers, supported by their Parliamentary Secretaries, political staff and officials, engage parliamentary committees in an ongoing dialogue on departmental policy priorities and legislative and spending issues.  The Guide states that:

 

“Appearances before House and Senate committees by Ministers and their officials are an essential part of informing Parliament, enabling parliamentarians to represent the views of their constituents in the development of policy and legislation, and to hold the government to account for its management and policies. Ministers should promote an ongoing dialogue with parliamentary committees on their department’s policy priorities, legislative and spending issues, and management challenges. Ministers, supported by the public service, should appear regularly before their respective parliamentary committee to seek the committee’s input into policy and spending priorities, and to discuss departmental performance and results.  Ministers are expected to provide, consistent with Treasury Board guidelines, informative and balanced reports to Parliament, most importantly the Estimates, the Report on Plans and Priorities, and Departmental Performance Reports.  Ministers and their officials must cooperate with the committees in their work and seek the views of parliamentarians and committees on future plans and priorities.”

 

The government looks forward to working with Parliamentarians and parliamentary committees on these important issues.

 

Recommendation 1:

 

That the document entitled Parliamentary Committee Review of the Estimates Documents be provided by the Auditor General to all parliamentarians, after each election, as a reference tool.

 

This recommendation falls within the purview of the House of Commons to implement; however, the Government does not disagree with this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 2:

 

That the House of Commons and Library of Parliament collaborate with Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) to include a session on the estimates process in the orientation provided to newly-elected Members of Parliament, and that follow-up training focused on practical approaches to maximizing Parliament’s effectiveness in holding Governments accountable through the estimates process be provided at regular intervals each year, funded by a reallocation from the budget of the Canadian Centre for Management Development (or its successor).

 

This recommendation is consistent with the government’s Action Plan for Democratic Reform, which supports increased training for Members on the Estimates and related matters.

 

TBS is pleased to be involved with the HoC and the Library of Parliament in providing appropriate briefings to both researchers and parliamentary assistants on the estimates process and will continue to do so.  Although TBS has not previously provided such sessions to newly elected MPs, we would be most willing to support such efforts by working with the HoC and the Library of Parliament in developing an appropriate briefing package on the Estimates process.

 

TBS is however of the view that any follow-up training that focuses on practical approaches to maximizing Parliament’s effectiveness in holding Government accountable, would blur the Executive and Legislative roles of the Government and MPs respectively, and that a more independent organization such as the Library of Parliament is better situated to provide this training.

 

With respect to the involvement of the Canadian Centre for Management Development (CCMD) in this endeavour, it has begun working on plans for a comprehensive learning program for Ministers, Members of Parliament and exempt staff in Ministers’ Offices.  CCMD plans to collaborate with the House of Commons, central agencies and other organizations as required in the design and delivery of this program. Funding arrangements are to be determined.

 

Recommendation 3:

 

That the parliamentary committees reviewing the Estimates of large departments consider limiting their study to one program or one agency in particular (selected in compliance with the principles of alternation and sampling), in light of the timeframe and resources available.

 

This recommendation falls within the purview of the House of Commons to implement; however, the Government does not disagree with this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 4:

 

That parliamentary committees reviewing the estimates of programs or organizations that have been studied by the Auditor General consider using the reports, and requesting the advice, of the Office of the Auditor General in the early stages of their work.

 

This recommendation falls within the purview of the House of Commons to implement; however, the Government does not disagree with this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 5:

 

That parliamentary committees consider holding a planning meeting before the hearing with public servants that would enable them to learn more about the program or agency to be reviewed.  Such planning meetings could use documents obtained beforehand from the officials in answer to specific questions.

 

This recommendation falls within the purview of the House of Commons to implement; however, the Government does not disagree with this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 6:

 

That the members of parliamentary committees consider the possibility of dividing up the tasks involved in the budget review and that they do the same with the additional documents provided by the departments or agencies.

 

This recommendation falls within the purview of the House of Commons to implement; however, the Government does not disagree with this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 7:

 

That parliamentary committees consider the possibility of inviting clients or groups with special interest in the activities of the program or agency under review in order to obtain a critical view of its performance, activities and orientations.

 

This recommendation falls within the purview of the House of Commons to implement; however, the Government does not disagree with this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 8:

 

That parliamentary committees consider the possibility of asking researchers to collect information on the program or agency under review and to draft technical and administrative questions to be forwarded by the committee chair to departmental officials before they appear before the committee.

 

This recommendation falls within the purview of the House of Commons to implement; however, the Government does not disagree with this recommendation.

Recommendation 9:

 

That parliamentary committees consider preparing a precise meeting schedule for the Estimates review in their work plan and that the public servants and experts called to appear be informed as far in advance as possible.

 

This recommendation falls within the purview of the House of Commons to implement; however, the Government does not disagree with this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 10:

 

That parliamentary committees consider tabling short reports on departmental plans and priorities and performance reports as a routine practice, in order to provide departments with clear feedback on their central accountability documents.

 

This recommendation falls within the purview of the House of Commons to implement; however, the Government does not disagree with this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 11:

 

That parliamentary committees consider planning a meeting with TBS in their Estimates review schedule. This meeting, following the meeting with departmental officials, would allow TBS to have feedback from the parliamentary committee concerning the quality of the reports of the program or agency under review and to conduct follow-up activities in order to improve them.

 

Agreed. TBS would be interested in obtaining feedback from various Parliamentary committees as to their views on the quality of reporting in estimates documents.

 

Subject to considerations of both timing and resource availability, TBS will conduct follow-up activities in order to improve these reports.  The feedback provided by the parliamentary committees will be considered when providing feedback to departments on their individual Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPPs) and Departmental Performance Reports (DPRs).  This information will also be useful for determining changes needed to annual guidance provided by TBS to departments and agencies.

 

Recommendation 12:

 

That the Library of Parliament develop, for consideration by the Board of Internal Economy, a proposal detailing key enhancements to the support of estimates-related work of House of Commons committees and implementation time-frames, and be given the additional resources required to deliver enhanced support reflecting the requirements outlined in this report.

 

This recommendation falls within the purview of the House of Commons to implement and is consistent with the Action Plan for Democratic Reform commitment that the government will work with Parliamentarians to support increased resources for research for parliamentary committees and Parliamentarians.

 

Recommendation 13:

 

That TBS undertake an annual systematic review of all RPPs after they have been tabled in the House of Commons, and that the necessary means be made available, either through a reallocation of internal resources or, if necessary, in the form of new resources.

 

The Government agrees that RPPs should be reviewed on a periodic basis, as should DPRs.  It would therefore suggest that such reviews be performed in an integrated fashion, taking into consideration both RPPs and DPRs of departments and agencies.

 

However, there are some 87 departments and agencies currently producing RPPs and DPRs and a majority of these are characterized by steady state, on-going operations with little fundamental change in their primary plans and priorities on a year over year basis.  A comprehensive yearly review of all these documents would not only be very resource intensive, but would not be cost-effective in terms of identifying significant opportunities for change or improvement. 

 

Instead, TBS proposes a more strategic approach in which a representative sample of departments every year is targeted for a review of both their DPRs and RPPs, thus allowing for an integrated review throughout the reporting cycle.  This would be done on a risk-basis over a four-year period to ensure complete coverage.  TBS would work closely with the departments selected to ensure improvements to their reports, more informed feedback to departments and agencies, and better performance reports that influence planning.  Such an integrated approach could be managed within existing TBS resource and capacity levels. 

 

Recommendation 14:

 

That, once the annual review of all RPPs has been completed, TBS select a sample of departments and agencies to work with intensively during the preparation of such reports for the following year, and that the necessary means be made available, either through a reallocation of internal resources or, if necessary, in the form of new resources.

 

TBS agrees to work closely with a sampling of departments and agencies during the preparation of their RPPs and DPRs.  

 

Recommendation 15:

 

That TBS initiate a major review of the form and content of reports submitted to Parliament, the objective being to move toward more concise, more synoptic documents, giving a clearer picture of a department’s performance and directions, using tables and graphs to present key trends and variations and employing numeric performance targets and measures.

 

The Government agrees that improvements to the form and content of Estimates documents can be achieved and agrees to review these documents to that effect.  It should however be noted that TBS continually implements improvements to the DPRs and the RPPs based on experience, the emergence of new reporting requirements, and feedback from various users, including parliamentarians. For example, this year’s guidance requested that departments and agencies provide TBS with information regarding horizontal initiatives and requested that electronic links to more detailed information be used.

 

The Government agrees that the judicious use of tabular and graphical information can result in more concise and synoptic presentations and TBS recommends such approaches in its RPP/DPR guidelines to departments and agencies.

 

The President’s annual report to Parliament, Canada’s Performance, offers a good example of recent efforts to improve reports to Parliament. It makes use of societal indicators to give a picture of the country’s performance over time and compared to other countries, and makes significant use of tables and graphs to present key trends and variations. Its electronic version contains several links to relevant departmental planning and performance information, as well as to relevant audits and evaluations.

 

TBS encourages departments to make use of electronic links to facilitate the production of more concise, synoptic documents while ensuring the availability of additional information. Also, TBS is exploring the potential of electronic reporting to provide parliamentarians with more timely and continuously updated information.

 

TBS is also actively examining additional changes to the form and content of Main and Supplementary Estimates. These documents have been in their current form for at least a decade and it is recognized that improvements are needed to ensure their continuing relevance and utility in support of the Supply Process. We also note the need for a consistent method of presentation in order that information can easily be transferred from one document to another, including electronically.

Recommendation 16:

 

That the Government of Canada give TBS a mandate to develop, in collaboration with each department and agency, precise and quantifiable performance indicators for their activities.

 

Departments have the primary responsibility for developing and implementing performance measurement strategies, including appropriate indicators, to ensure effective management.  TBS works with departments on a wide variety of initiatives aimed at improving the tools used by departmental management to plan, control, measure and deliver their programs in an efficient and cost-effective manner.  These tools include performance indicators.

 

The importance of quality reports to Parliament and performance measurement has been underlined in TBS’ recently released Management Accountability Framework. This framework is integral to departmental Modern Comptrollership responsibilities and reaffirms deputy heads’ responsibilities for balanced, transparent, and easy to understand public reporting.

 

In its guidance on the preparation of RPPs and DPRs, TBS has emphasized the usefulness and value of performance indicators.  The guidance will be amended to encourage departments, when appearing in front of parliamentary committees to discuss their reports, to seek members’ views on the choice of indicators.

 

TBS has also been assuming a stronger leadership role in the development of performance indicators for horizontal initiatives.

 

TBS is currently engaging with departments and agencies to help them better define their strategic outcomes, determine how their programs contribute to the achievement of these strategic outcomes, and provide advice on the development of corresponding performance measurement strategies.

 

Recommendation 17:

 

That all federal departments and agencies include hyperlinks to Internet sites and appendices in their Estimates documents, in order to give readers access to detailed information regarding programs.

 

TBS currently encourages departments and agencies to include hyperlinks to Internet sites to provide additional program information as well as links to related audit and evaluation reports in its guidance for the preparation of RPPs and DPRs.  In the future, TBS will provide greater specificity in its guidelines to departments and agencies regarding the provision of linkages to other information such as Auditor General reports and client surveys.

 

Recommendation 18:

 

That, in the course of its work on continuing improvements to the format and content of Plans and Priorities Reports, TBS consider the inclusion (ideally near the beginning of these reports) of a short section setting out the department’s understanding of previous committee recommendations and their rationales, and detailing the ways in which recent program changes, existing resource allocations and future spending plans respond to these recommendations.

 

There currently is a section in the guidelines governing the form and content of RPPs that requires departments to identify those factors and pressures that influence or guide their planning decisions. Specifically, these can touch on items such as critical issues, trends, recent developments, risks and challenges, stakeholders and strategic relationships. TBS will amend future RPP/DPR guidelines to integrate this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 19:

 

That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs consider a review of Standing Order 81(4), with a view to exploring its possible amendment, initially for a two year trial period. The amendment could require that the Chair of a committee whose estimates are deemed to have been reported back to the House table before the House a letter providing an explanation of the failure of the committee to have selected one or more of the programs funded through estimates referred to the committee, substantively considered the program or programs selected, and reported these estimates to the House.

The Action Plan for Democratic Reform includes a commitment to support a review of this recommendation by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

 

Recommendation 20:

 

That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs consider changes to the Standing Orders, initially for a 2-year trial period, that would establish a specific procedure to govern committee reports on departmental RPPs and Performance Reports. Such a procedure could create two options for committees, enabling them to select one or both of:

 

(a)         a “one hour debate in the House or deemed adoption” option modeled on the existing procedure for reports from the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, and

(b)         a 90-day mandatory written response option, modeled on that currently provided by Standing Order 109.

 

With respect to recommendation 20 (a), the government notes the

Committee’s cautionary comments about the potential negative implications

of this option. Given the importance and sensitivity of the Estimates process,

the government believes the option in recommendation 20 (b) could be a

more effective means of implementing the committee’s objective of improving

the government’s work with Parliament on Estimates issues.

 

In this context, the Action Plan for Democratic Reform includes a commitment to support a review of this recommendation by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. 

 

Recommendation 21:

 

That standing committees consider scheduling hearings (extended, if required) twice each year, for the purpose of examining organizations within their terms of reference on Supplementary Estimates and, as a matter of routine practice in order to signify that this examination has been undertaken, report Supplementary Estimates (either amended or unamended) to the House.

 

This recommendation falls within the purview of the House of Commons to implement; however, the Government does not disagree with this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 22:

 

That TBS review the format and content of the Supplementary Estimates documents with a view to incorporating a short justification of each supplementary spending requirement (perhaps consisting of a one-line statement under a “Justification of Requirement” heading, that would provide a location for references to unanticipated security costs following 9/11, the rationale for vote transfers, and the like).

 

TBS agrees with the need to improve the format and content of Supplementary Estimates.  As noted in the response to Recommendation 15, TBS is actively considering implementing additional changes to the form and content of Supplementary Estimates and will incorporate this recommendation into its work plan.  Some of these additional, potential changes could include: closer linkage to Main Estimates; expanded explanations of requirement; as well as additional summary tables.

 

Recommendation 23:

 

That the President of Treasury Board review the format of the Records of Decision issued by the Board, and consider including a provision that would (except in exceptional circumstances and at the decision of the Board) authorize officials to disclose and discuss before parliamentary committees the detail of Decisions that are reflected in the estimates, both main and supplementary, once these documents are tabled in the House of Commons.

 

The current legal provisions of the Canada Evidence Act and the Access to Information Act provide a significant level of protection to Treasury Board decisions that preclude officials from disclosing or discussing these decisions with Parliamentary Committees. Nevertheless, it should be noted that under current rules, officials are free to explain to parliamentary committees the purpose of the spending proposals outlined in Estimates. Although the Committee is not requesting the Government to do so, it should be noted that the Government cannot release the actual Treasury Board minutes or records of decisions.