AGRI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 1, 2003

Á

1110

The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.))

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

The Chair

Á

1115

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. John Mayne (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Barry Leighton (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Barry Leighton

Á

1130

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Barry Leighton

The Chair

Mr. John Mayne

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Barry Leighton

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Á

1145

Mr. John Mayne

The Chair

Mr. Barry Leighton

The Chair

Mr. Barry Leighton

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. Barry Leighton

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. John Mayne

Á

1150

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. John Mayne

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Â

1200

Mr. Barry Leighton

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Barry Leighton

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Barry Leighton

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. John Mayne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. John Mayne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. John Mayne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Barry Leighton

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Barry Leighton

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. John Mayne

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Barry Leighton

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. John Mayne

Â

1205

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Barry Leighton

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. David Anderson

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Â

1210

Mr. John Mayne

The Chair

Mr. Barry Leighton

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Â

1215

Mr. John Mayne

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mr. David Anderson

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. John Mayne

Â

1220

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Barry Leighton

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Barry Leighton

Mr. John Maloney

Mr. Barry Leighton

Mr. John Maloney

The Chair

Mr. Howard Hilstrom

The Chair

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

Mr. Barry Leighton

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur

The Chair

Mr. John Mayne

The Chair

Â

1225

Mr. Barry Leighton

The Chair

Mr. Barry Leighton

The Chair

Mr. John Mayne

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food

---

NUMBER 027

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 1, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, we would like to start our meeting.

    We apologize. As members will have noticed, we did have a departure from our scheduled meeting with the minister and the department. Given the fact that we are compelled under the statutes to deal with the estimates, we felt it appropriate. So we've taken the appropriate measures to see that people from the Auditor General's department are here this morning to perhaps give us some insight as to how we might best deal with estimates. This has been an onerous process in the past. But we've been reminded a number of times by the Auditor General's department that we play a very important role. Perhaps this morning we can get a better understanding of how we can best deal with the estimates and develop a process that gives better direction to the various departments and ministers.

    We welcome the two witnesses, Mr. John Mayne and Mr. Barry Leighton. We thank you very much for appearing this morning. I understand that you have a presentation as well as a short statement you want to make.

    Do you have a comment, Mr. Duplain?

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Before the meeting begins, I want to make a special request; there is a group I would like us to meet with. Should we talk about this now or at the end of the meeting? This is a group I would like us to meet with when we prepare our report.

[English]

    The Chair: How do you people feel about this? Are you people in a timeframe where you would have to rush?

    Can we do it in about three or four minutes?

Á  (1115)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: No problem at all.

[English]

    The Chair: Put your issue on the table, Mr. Duplain. Do you want to speak to it?

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: This week, the independent report the minister requested on the Agricultural Policy Framework was tabled, and I would like the committee to request a meeting with the group that prepared that independent study on the APF. I want to consult the members of the committee to see whether they are interested in having this group come to meet with us, in the near future, so that its members can tell us how they carried out that study.

[English]

    The Chair: We've had the request from the parliamentary secretary. He's asking whether there is some interest on the part of the committee in meeting with the third party that prepared the APF report. Would there be some interest in this committee meeting with that group?

    Mr. Hilstrom.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian Alliance): I think that Mr. Duplain should tell us what value that would have. This George Morris Centre report was commissioned by the minister. The people from the George Morris Centre cannot go beyond the bounds of the direction they were given by the minister as to what they were to look at and report on. Their report is self-explanatory. I think we have other issues to deal with that are more pressing and on which we need to submit reports to the minister with our recommendations than to review a George Morris Centre report that was really bought and paid for by the minister.

    The Chair: Let me just say that the terms of reference were approved by a number of bodies, not just the minister's office. I think we should be fair about that, that the terms of reference that were given were agreed to by other bodies. I might also say that we're going to be having further meetings on APF, and perhaps at that time we could deal with this if we felt it was necessary to do so.

    Mrs. Ur.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): I don't mind having them come before us. I've already heard the comment, as my honourable colleague has indicated, that it was bought and paid for. I understand that these people were sanctioned by the CFA and other individuals to do the audit on the post-APF, and there have been complaints. So I think it would be good to have them before us and say, what more did you need to give a more accurate detailed analysis of the program? It is my understanding there's some indication that provincially they are going to do their own audit. I don't care who does an audit, as long as it gets done and we can move forward on this one way or the other. Are we going to keep going on this until we hear what we want to hear? We could bring these people before us and see if they felt that their hands were tied in some aspects. I have no problem going back to those individuals and saying, as government, why didn't we provide adequate information for this process to have a fruitful end?

    The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): The very suggestion that it was bought and paid for by the minister and therefore is self-serving is all the more reason I'd like to have these people before us to either substantiate that or challenge it. I think that's important.

    The Chair: Mr. Anderson.

    Mr. David Anderson (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Canadian Alliance): If the government members are going to insist that we go ahead and meet with these people, I would suggest that we bring in both sides at the same time. You said that a number of bodies agreed to the terms of reference. If you're going to do that, you need to bring in the farm organizations and some of the provinces as well to give their interpretation of the report.

    The Chair: I think we're going to be limited in time in terms of how many we can have, but, certainly, I think all parties need to be listened to.

    I'd like to hear from Mr. Duplain. Perhaps he would be the last speaker on this issue. Then I'm going to give you my thoughts on it. This is a new one to me. This was not premeditated.

    I'll go to Mr. Hilstrom for a quick remark.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Maybe Claude Duplain, the parliamentary secretary, could give us the cost of having these people appear again. They're not going to appear for nothing. I'd also be interested in knowing the cost of the study they did and the report they compiled. I'd be agreeable to having that type of information included, which I think could be quite easily done.

    The Chair: Mr. Duplain, go ahead.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: As the APF raises a number of questions, at the request of the minister, and also at the request of Bob Friesen, an independent study was carried out. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture contributed to the choice of those who performed the independent study, and the criteria were selected by the minister and by the CFA. Today, the report was tabled, but there are still some people who are dissatisfied. I think it would be important that the members and the committee be given an opportunity to ask questions on issues related to this independent study. This could cast some new light on this study and on the APF.

Á  (1120)  

[English]

    The Chair: At this point I'm going to close off the discussion.

    I'm just going to say that at this point in time we have only one day left, and that's June 12. The rest of the dates are full. There may be some reason to change our agenda, because things do change, as we already know. This week we had one day when we didn't have a meeting because of cancellations. I would suggest that we keep this under advisement and try to slot it in before we recess. We will accommodate as many of the bodies as we can in the time we have available to us. But we do have an agenda, which the steering committee agreed to a few weeks ago, and I think we would be remiss if we went back on our word to these people on having them come to the table at the appropriate time. So leave it with the chair and the executive, and we will try to accommodate it.

    I apologize for the interruption, but I think it's important business.

    We'll have you folks move forward with your comments. Then I think you have a presentation. I think you've also indicated that if people had matters of clarity that they wanted explored further at the time the presentation is done, you would entertain a question. But we don't want to get into a debate at that point. If there's something you don't clearly understand, you may want to make note of that and include it in your own comments and questions to the witnesses as we proceed through the meeting. I think it's probably a more orderly way of doing the business. But if there's something of that type and you feel that way, I will entertain a question.

    Mr. Mayne and then Mr. Leighton.

    Mr. John Mayne (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you for the opportunity to discuss with your committee the review of the estimates documents. We're very pleased that the committee will be taking the time to review the estimates documents of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Such a review is important in holding the government to account for its plans and the results it has achieved.

    With me today is Barry Leighton, the principal in the office responsible for examining reporting to Parliament.

    We have reported a number of times on the estimates documents, most recently in our December 2000 report, chapter 19, and our April 2002 report, chapter 6. Many of our audit chapters also comment on how well departments report on the performance of audited programs.

    Overall we have been disappointed by the slow progress of the government in improving its reporting of plans and performance to Parliament. We found statements of intended results that were often not clear and concrete, too much reporting of activities rather than results, poor linking of activities to the reported outcomes, little discussion of the reliability of the information reported, few instances of reporting on weak performance, and weak links between financial information and the results of programs.

[Translation]

    In March of this year, we tabled a document with the committee entitled “Parliamentary Committees Review of the Estimates Documents”. We sent copies to all parliamentarians. In this way we wanted to help committees undertake the review of estimates documents through a description of the budget process and with the help of suggestions they might find useful. We are convinced that the review by the committee of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's budget documents will encourage the department to improve the information it gives to Parliament.

    With your permission, Mr. Chairman, my colleague and I would like to review our report with the members of the committee, describe the context of the review of the estimates documents and highlight certain key suggestions.

    We have a presentation which may help to guide the discussion. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, as you said, we encourage the members of the committee to ask questions for purposes of clarification during the course of the presentation.

[English]

    Mr. Chairman, thank you again for this opportunity with your committee.

    I ask my colleague Mr. Leighton to take us through the presentation, which I believe members have copies of.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Mr. Leighton.

    Mr. Barry Leighton (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would like to preface my remarks with a clarification of what we feel comfortable talking about. First, we're not the auditors of the department, so we do not know the details of the department. We reviewed the department's report on plans and priorities, but we did not audit it in the way we have done others. We did do an informal assessment of the performance report to Parliament, a rating. The ratings of the performance reports of nine other departments and agencies will appear in our chapter at the end of May. We feel comfortable speaking generally about what we consider to be reasonable standards for estimates documents. We hope this will help you prepare for your upcoming review of the department's report on plans and priorities.

    As you know, the main estimates are divided into three parts. Part I provides an overview of the government's spending for the new fiscal year and describes the relationship of the estimates to the government's expenditure plan as set out in the budget. Part II directly supports the appropriation act by identifying the spending authorities, or votes, and providing a detailed listing of the budgetary and statutory expenditures for all departments and agencies. Part III, which is what we're interested in here, is split into two documents: departmental reports on plans and priorities, the RPP, and performance reports, which we persist in calling DPRs.

    Reports on plans and priorities provide information on the plans and priorities of the departments and agencies and how resources entrusted to them will contribute to the achievement of their strategic outcomes. Departmental performance reports, the DPRs, provide information on the results that programs have delivered over several years and where the progress has been made in attaining performance targets, including the strategic outcomes.

    While we understand that your main interest today is in scrutinizing the department's planned business as outlined in the recent report on plans and priorities, we also encourage reviews of this kind to be done with links to the departmental performance report. On page 6 of the report we tabled with you, if you would kindly turn to that, there is a graphic that shows an easier way to understand that it's a cycle. There's a link between what the department has announced it's going to do.... It's in the other document. It's in this one.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Barry Leighton: All we wish to illustrate in this document is that it's all very well to look at the report on plans and priorities, but it should be done in the context of what you expect to be reported on the results of this work in the subsequent performance report. We have looked at the department's most recent performance report in light of their previous plan and what they said they would do.

    We understand that there are three broad reasons for committees to review the estimates. As noted on your copy of the slide, these are: first, to support parliamentary approval of the government's appropriation bill, the business of supply; second, to hold the government to account for its spending of tax dollars, its use of authorities, and the results it achieves for Canadians; and, third, to influence future government priorities and spending.

    We also understand that there are a number of significant powers available to standing committees when examining the estimates but that these are often not fully used. We list a number of them on the slide. For example, you can call department officials to appear before you so that you can question them on technical administrative issues related to the estimates. We believe that rigorous questioning of officials in a public forum such as standing committees can make a difference. You can issue reports on the estimates and matters related to the management and operation of the department. While these may not be substantive reports on the estimates themselves, committee reports can include substantive comments on the report on plans and priorities and the performance report. You can suggest the reduction or rejection of a vote. However, I understand that this is a rarely used power. But this can still have quite a symbolic impact. Standing committees can use the planning and performance information in the RPP and the DPR, the planning and performance reports, to examine the overall direction of public policy with regard to the department's business, to assess the use of resources to achieve the results they have announced in their plans, and to suggest where priorities should be adjusted or resources reallocated.

    We presume in our report to suggest some ways that you could have more effective meetings with officials and make best use of your time. We suggest that you could hold pre-hearing meetings to plan your approach. In fact, the subcommittee on estimates of the government operations and estimates committee did do that. You may even seek their advice on this to see what their experience was. You can closely review the department's planning report, the RPP, and the performance report beforehand to identify areas that interest the committee and areas of high priority or high risk. You can ask committee staff to prepare questions for you that focus on these areas. One option you may wish to consider is to focus on selected programs, such as within the agricultural policy framework. So don't try to take on the whole framework, but pick some areas that interest you in particular. You can target areas where your scrutiny can have the greatest impact. As well you can bring in additional experts to help you.

     The kinds of questions we auditors ask when reviewing these kinds of estimates documents include, for the report on plans and priorities, are the strategic outcomes the right ones? Are they clearly described? Are the costs of achieving them reasonable? Whether they're the right ones is a policy issue that is not within the mandate of our office, but we still look at those to see if they're clear and if they reflect the government direction.

    When we reviewed informally the agriculture department's report on plans and priorities, we found that they did very well on this, better than most of the reports on plans and priorities that we have reviewed. Again, this is just an impression. They have some really good phrases in there. One that really got my attention was where they say “If land is agriculture's primary physical asset, then water is its lifeblood.” I think the writing doesn't get much better than that.

    We also ask if the planned results are clear. Are they designed to achieve the strategic outcomes they have identified? We could not find much in the way of specifics. We couldn't find how they're actually going to do their work. We didn't find any targets with timeframes. We found lots of generalities. One of them was to be a world leader. I think that's a good aspiration, but perhaps they could find better ways of articulating how they wish to advance those strategic objectives.

Á  (1130)  

    We also ask whether the programs are linked to the work of other departments, because most government departments aren't solely responsible for the work on a strategic outcome. They usually need partners in the federal government or at other levels of government, in the private sector, and in the community.

    You may wish to consider preparing some questions about how specific the department plans to be in doing its work in areas that interest you and ask how they will know when they've achieved their strategic outcomes. We often do this in terms of targets with timeframes, increase something by a certain amount within a certain time.

    When we turn to reviewing the departmental performance reports, the kinds of questions we ask are, to what extent have the programs delivered the planned results, the specific results against clear and concrete expectations? In other words, did they do what they said they would do in their plans and priorities report? If they didn't or couldn't do it, perhaps it was for a reason that was not within their control, such as a drought, as was indicated in their report. Is the financial information clear about what the program cost? Were the results worth it in your view? What were the benefits for Canadians? What concrete value was given for taxpayers' money? Was the program's contribution to the results achieved explained clearly enough? What did their partners do to contribute to the same strategic outcome? We often ask some other standard questions, such as, could the program have been managed more efficiently; that is, with lower costs or perhaps with better results for the same costs? Could the program have been managed more effectively; that is, the right balance between delivery instruments and use of partners?

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Just a moment, I think there's a question.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I thought I had better ask a question so that we can get into some give and take here. What we find is that a given department isn't necessarily solely responsible. As you've pointed out, there are partners. There's the issue of correcting a deficiency in the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the PMRA. The Department of Agriculture puts money into trying to make that work better as to the minor use of chemicals and all these different things, but then the health department is over there. How are we supposed to hold Agriculture accountable when they can easily say, we were doing a great job, but this other department has been holding us up? Is there any way around that? How do we deal with that?

    The Chair: Mr. Leighton.

    Mr. Barry Leighton: That's something we are exploring with Treasury Board. I think you've put your finger on that challenge quite well. How you actually report on what we call horizontal initiatives, where there are a number of partners contributing to the same objective, has not been a strong feature of government reporting. We are encouraging departments to identify who the lead department is and where Canadians and parliamentarians can find a report that pulls it all together or parts of different reports that pull it all together. In our chapter that's coming out at the end of May, where we rate nine departments' performance reports, at the end we have a section looking at one example of a horizontal initiative. We are trying to encourage departments to do that. How it would actually work in the example you give, I'm not sure.

    The Chair: Mr. Mayne.

    Mr. John Mayne: I think we would expect to see that issue outlined in both the planning document and the performance report. It should be made clear in the plan what Agriculture is going to do vis-à-vis Health Canada. When the reporting is done later, there should be a report against what they said they were going to do. If it's set up at the beginning in terms of the plan, the RPP, they should be able to provide the answer, and the answer that it was somebody else ought to be less convincing. That's the kind of thing you should expect to come up in a discussion of how they're going to deliver on what they say they're going to do. If this is an important issue and Health Canada is a significant player, for example, you'd expect some mention of that and a clear statement as to what Agriculture is going to do vis-à-vis Health Canada.

    The Chair: Mr. Anderson, a short clarification.

    Mr. David Anderson: Do you have a way of measuring the fact that in some of these partnerships the objectives are not the same in both departments even though they're supposed to be working toward similar goals? That makes your job that much more difficult.

    Mr. Barry Leighton: We would hope that they would talk to each other and eventually come out with the same outcome described in the same way. But that would be an indicator that departments could work more closely together. I think you're right.

    Some questions when looking at the usefulness of the documents for committees are, do the report on plans and priorities and the performance report have the right kind of information for your objective in your committee work to review the estimates? Are these documents designed so that you can easily scrutinize the work of the department, or are they more like public relations documents by providing just good news? One of the things we look for when we're assessing performance reports is whether there is a good balance between the successes of a department and the challenges or shortcomings. Has the department responded to any previous committee recommendations and suggestions? In other words, have you made any difference in your hearings on the work of the department?

    To summarize, we understand that the purpose of estimates documents is to allow you to examine the overall direction of public policy in the agriculture and agrifood sector, to assess the use of tax dollars to achieve results on behalf of Canadians, and to suggest where priorities should be adjusted or resources reallocated.

    What can the Office of the Auditor General do to assist you in the review of estimates documents? We provided you with information and background in the report called “Parliamentary Committee Review of the Estimates Documents”. As John mentioned earlier, in April of last year we had a chapter where we set out reasonable expectations for performance reporting, and some of those apply as well to the report on plans and priorities. We have the chapter coming out at the end of the month, which I mentioned, where we rate the performance reports of nine departments against these criteria. As you are aware, we assess the annual report of CFIA every year.

    That concludes my remarks, and we'll invite you to ask questions.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayne and Mr. Leighton. I do want to compliment you on this document. I think that's a very helpful document, something I haven't seen in my 10 years here. Perhaps it's a new adventure and a new experiment, but I think it's a good one. I've perused it only briefly, but I'm sure that all of us will find it useful as we do the estimates and priorities.

    We want to move to questions. Mr. Hilstrom, you're on first.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: In the case of the agricultural policy framework, the overall direction seems to be laid out, but the details on how that's going to be accomplished seem to be still being worked on. When departments come out with a five-year plan, such as this agricultural policy framework, why would the Auditor General in reviewing those broad plans not report that the government should provide more of the details before they ask provinces and farmers to sign on? There's just this big ambiguity. Do you ever report on that kind of thing, that people are being asked to buy a pig in a poke?

    Mr. John Mayne: I don't think our office has looked at the APF in particular. But I think your point is legitimate. I think you do find departments that have five-year plans, and perhaps because of their nature they have a certain vagueness to them. For at least the first year or two of this five-year period there is an opportunity for the department to get more specific. In the reports on plans and priorities, which are tabled in Parliament every year, you'd be able to find the kinds of details you're looking for with regard to the activities and accomplishments they are intending to achieve over the next year or two. We have been critical of departments that stick with vague statements of what they're intending.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I know that you're not here to talk about specifics. I don't know if you can even answer this, or there may be no need for you to answer. But I'll say what I mean here. There's the green cover program where they intend to seed down a whole bunch of marginal land and turn it into grasslands. They're talking about three million acres. I've yet to hear them say, in year one we're going to have 500,000 acres seeded, and then in year two we're going to do this and that.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. John Mayne: I would suggest that those would be the kinds of good questions this committee could ask officials on that. The committee could get information and documentation as a result of those very legitimate questions.

    The Chair: Do you want to carry on, Mr. Anderson?

    Sorry, Mr. Leighton, carry on.

    Mr. Barry Leighton: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chair. I'm new at committee.

    The Chair: That's all right.

    Mr. Barry Leighton: I just want to suggest that it's quite permissible to have stretch targets; for example, as you said, to have one as to how many acres will be seeded in a year. It's quite fine to have a stretch target, which will challenge them, and then in the performance report to explain why they weren't able to achieve that target or in fact why they were able to exceed the target. It's always a good thing to have a target, as you suggest.

    Mr. David Anderson: This ties into that. I've had some concern, and I think you have as well, over these ever-shifting line items and the changing of the accounting procedures from year to year. Is there a way that can be dealt with, or do we just have to live with the fact that when we come to the next year's estimates, we have to crawl our way through them to try to find comparisons to last year and the year before?

    Mr. John Mayne: I think year-over-year consistency is a good reporting practice. Again, I think those are the kinds of questions that one ought to ask. You should not have to struggle through making that link. There should be some consistency year over year and clear links with the programs that are being funded.

    Mr. David Anderson: The frustration comes from the fact that it's being done deliberately in order to keep people from having a clear understanding of what's going on out there.

    In your presentation you mentioned the rejection of votes, something along those lines. It just went by me as one of the things we have an opportunity to do. Could you talk about that a bit.

    Mr. John Mayne: In principle committees are allowed to decrease a vote as part of the estimates. I think it's a rarely used phenomenon. They're not allowed to increase the amount because it leads to confidence issues. I think the committee is allowed to recommend a reduction in a vote.

    Mr. David Anderson: Mr. Leighton, did you have anything else to say on that?

    Mr. Barry Leighton: No.

    The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney: Do you have a policy or a procedure whereby you sit down with the deputy minister and/or the minister's staff to review the standards you would expect a department to follow in order to keep their records in proper order? Do you brief them on what you might expect, similar to the way you've briefed us on how we should be questioning them?

    Mr. John Mayne: Not in a sit down situation. They are following Treasury Board guidelines on the preparing of estimates. Treasury Board is the government entity that describes what should be in all three parts of the estimates. We have our criteria that we use to look at them, and they're quite consistent with what Treasury Board does. If we have done a particular audit of an area in Agriculture, part of that process would involve discussions with officials and deputies and possibly the minister. The reports that we've issued over the last several years have laid out quite clearly, in our view, what our expectations are vis-à-vis good reporting, and those are the criteria we continue to use to review estimates documents.

    Mr. John Maloney: You say that your criteria are similar to those of the Treasury Board. Do you meet with Treasury Board from time to time? When you come down with the reports, sometimes the results are most interesting. I'm asking, how do we get to that spot?

    Mr. John Mayne: We discuss frequently with the Treasury Board, and there's a process underway at the moment, ways to ensure even greater consistency between our criteria and Treasury Board guidelines. A number of initiatives are going on across the country on the reporting of performance, some coming out of the Canadian Comprehensive Audit Foundation, which recently issued a big document on good reporting principles. So there's a fair bit of effort to move toward generally accepted reporting principles. It's still a little way off. At the federal level we're working to ensure that there are not any differences between ourselves and Treasury Board. As you might imagine, that often gives the department an excuse to point to discrepancies between the two. So we go to some length to try to avoid that.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. John Maloney: It's interesting that you mentioned across-the-country standards. A lot of federal money devolves to the provinces. I'm always concerned about accountability and transparency. Is there any movement to have a...?

    Mr. John Mayne: There is indeed. Our office has been working with the other legislative audit offices across the country for quite a few years. I'm on a committee that meets every six months to discuss issues related to performance reporting and auditing of performance reporting. This is being coordinated with the view, as I said, of coming to similar standards across the country. Several provinces have instituted legislative requirements on reporting. Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia have moved quite aggressively in setting out requirements for reporting to their legislatures on estimates-related material. So there is a lot of effort going on in that area to ensure consistency. From the federal perspective there would be the expectation of seeing in provincial legislatures the same kind of reporting we're hoping to have here.

    Mr. John Maloney: We haven't legislated as they have.

    Mr. John Mayne: No.

    Mr. John Maloney: Is that an area you might recommend?

    Mr. John Mayne: In a report in 2000 we suggested that the government consider that sort of legislation. They have not done so. The reforms they've been making on the estimates since 1995 in breaking out part III into the spring planning report and the fall performance report are all good moves, and at the time they got agreement from Parliament to do that. You'd have to ask the Treasury Board officials, but I think they feel that's adequate for moving ahead. A number of jurisdictions in Canada have put in legislative requirements on reporting from departments through ministers to their legislatures.

    Mr. John Maloney: I suppose we should get our own house in order before we suggest that those provinces that don't have legislative reporting requirements--

    Mr. John Mayne: It would be a little difficult to make such recommendations.

    Mr. John Maloney: I think we should be moving that way.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Hilstrom.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: These supplementary estimates come out in the last couple of weeks of March or so. My understanding is that they pay for all the unanticipated things. It seems to me that sometimes those items are fairly large. Do they ever get analyzed with the idea that the department should have been reporting and planning better for expenditures, or do you feel that the supplementary spending, which has to be authorized by Parliament, is within normal bounds and is something that's unforeseeable for the most part? Can you make some comments as to whether or not we should be worried about questioning them heavily on those kinds of things?

    Mr. John Mayne: I don't think our office has done too much analysis along the lines you suggested. I would again suggest that those are legitimate questions for standing committees to ask. I think you're right in suggesting that the question is, should some of this extra spending that's being requested have been foreseen? Some of it is clearly going to be due to exceptional circumstances. I think that getting explanations for the significant supplementary estimates is a quite legitimate line of questioning that a committee could take. Whether it's the result of significantly changing circumstances, which happens, of course, or of weak planning is the kind of line one could imagine taking.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: Mr. Anderson, do you have any questions?

    Mr. David Anderson: I have one. It seems that this ends up being a cat-and-mouse game where departments are basically trying to hide from us and we and you are trying to catch them, as opposed to a study of the goals and results that departments have tried to put in place. Do you have any suggestions on how we might move on this?

    Mr. John Mayne: As my colleague suggested, prior to meeting with officials you might consider having a planning meeting as to the lines of questioning you want to take. You can take a cursory look at the documents you have in front of you, the RPPs and DPRs. What kind of information is not there that you think you'd want to get? Ask for it before you have officials appear so that you can have a more grounded discussion.

    I think that committees could make much more use of their power to report. There have not been very many reports on estimates reviews done by committees. Governments have to respond in 60 or 90 days to reports by committees. I think that's a vehicle that committees could make more use of.

    Hearings now tend to focus on the numbers in the estimates. I think the reform of the process that Mr. Leighton discussed was in large part intended to allow committees to have hearings on the reports on plans and priorities and later on the performance reports and to make reports that would influence next year's budget. I understand that the development of the budget begins in June and occurs all during the fall until the government decides on it in February. What committees can do through their assessment of the plans that are tabled in Parliament and the reports against previous plans is recommend to government shifting priorities and present their view on the directions and initiatives that departments are taking. The reports need to be responded to by the government. I think that perspective, which is a longer term perspective than trying to get estimates changed right now, which is not likely just because of our system, would, nevertheless, be a good role and something that we're hoping committees will more aggressively take on board.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We do put in reports from the committee as a whole where we've recommended to the government action they should take on safety nets, disaster components, and all that. So I think that committees generally are doing that.

    Mr. John Mayne: You're right, committees do make reports. But on estimates reviews they haven't. In terms of the kind of information they're getting to help them in those broader discussions, I think that's something the committee may wish to consider.

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: I stole from David.

    The Chair: We'll come back to you.

    Mr. David Anderson: That's fine.

    The Chair: Mrs. Ur.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I certainly appreciate your presentation this morning because everyone's time is so limited. I think we have been negligent in the past in not spending sufficient time looking at estimates. It's Greek to me. I wasn't an accountant in my previous life. I do get the yellow tags going when I go through some of the books. I think we need to be more diligent in what we've been through in the last little while. We need to have your input, such as is happening this morning, so that we can do our job better. We need to look at more than just numbers. When I saw the finances as well as the policy issue, programs, and outcomes, I really welcomed that information.

    You stated that at the end of May there's going to be a report on nine different departments. Is Agriculture going to be one of them?

  (1200)  

    Mr. Barry Leighton: No.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Darn it.

    That being said, you had indicated--

    Mr. David Anderson: They don't care.

    The Chair: Is this not a priority?

    Mr. Barry Leighton: We selected nine departments on the basis of a shared outcome in the security area. We found it hard to make a link between agriculture and security, although it is in the plans--

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: What about food security?

    Mr. Barry Leighton: Food security and bioterrorism is in there.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Okay.

    My ears perked up when you indicated a reduced vote for a particular area in the department. Has any committee ever made a report to that effect that you can recall? What were the ramifications once that happened? Are they still in committee? Not that it frightens me, but....

    Mr. John Mayne: I don't know. I think--

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: So you want us to be leaders, do you?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. John Mayne: The research staff might be able to get you the information on that. I'm sorry, I don't know.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: If you could find that out through your resources and report back to the committee as a whole, I'd appreciate it.

    Mr. John Mayne: We can do that.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I understood--and I could be wrong--that anything dealing with finances is considered a confidence matter. I don't want the committee to go the wrong way and not be productive.

    When you're reviewing, say, the agriculture department, are there people in your department who have an agricultural base?

    Mr. Barry Leighton: The teams that audit each entity have many years of experience in auditing the same department or agency, and they value keeping that expertise.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: I respect that. You are the auditors, so obviously it's counting. But I'm saying that sometimes it's good to have a base of agriculture as well as the auditing expertise to go with it. Yes, you have the accounting expertise. Do you also have expertise that brings it to the level of a grassroots agricultural aspect? Is there a balance?

    Mr. Barry Leighton: I'm not aware of any--

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Do you think it would be a positive aspect to have?

    Mr. John Mayne: I think that our audit process very much brings in the expertise we need. Experts from outside of our organization will be brought in to advise the team as they're doing an audit of whatever the particular area is. That aspect is one of the stronger parts of our audit approach. That kind of expertise is brought to bear on all our work, including the work we do in Agriculture.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: In your review of the various departments, is there a department that seems to do fairly well across the board or is there one that you have to go back to all the time because they're not doing their job well? Do you have an analysis as to who is functioning fairly well and who needs to really pull up their socks?

    Mr. Barry Leighton: We have noticed that since we've been looking at the performance reports, some years you get departments and agencies that have very promising practices, and then a couple of years later they seem to have rested on their laurels. We can't point to any one particular planning document or performance report as the best example that we would suggest other departments and agencies follow.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: Does the agriculture department have the most cost-recovery aspects to it compared to other departments?

    Mr. John Mayne: Neither my colleague nor I has done work on the agriculture department. We're looking at estimates. We would have to see what the team has done in that area.

    In response to one of your earlier questions, I'm reminded that in addition to those outside experts that we involve, typically the team members in our organization have experience. In the area of agriculture, one of the directors has 15 years experience working in the Department of Agriculture.

  (1205)  

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: That doesn't give me a lot of hope, because some of the deputy ministers there don't have a base in agriculture. They're academics. That's important, too. We need those as well.

    What can we do to improve the system? As members of Parliament and as a committee, what could you tell us today so that we could do a better job?

    Mr. Barry Leighton: Ask those difficult questions of department officials about the specifics of how they're going to accomplish the strategic outcomes they identify in their plans and priorities report.

    The Chair: We will now go to the other side.

    I should say for the record that on May 18, 1995, they did exactly that. It may have happened before that, but that is the most recent case where the estimates were reduced in the vote. I don't know by how much.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: What committee was it?

    The Chair: Immigration.

    Mr. Anderson, now you can finish your questioning.

    Mr. David Anderson: Just to follow up on that, do you have the specific procedure needed to decrease the vote, or is that something we should ask the clerk about?

    Mr. John Mayne: I think you should speak to the clerk, who would be more familiar with those procedures.

    Mr. David Anderson: Do you know if the government has to respond to that, or can they ignore it?

    Mr. John Mayne: My understanding is that a report from the committee requires a government response.

    Mr. David Anderson: You mentioned that in your opinion the agriculture department had well-defined plans and priorities, but you had some concerns about the results. Having gone through the material, do you feel that the department has recognizable targets? If not, what do they need to do to get those?

    Mr. John Mayne: They don't have targets at all in the report on plans and priorities.They may have elsewhere in their department. What they tabled in Parliament is quite general, and while it does describe the big vision they have, that's it. I think it's quite inadequate. I think that if you went back and looked at the reports on plans and priorities of two or three years ago, you would find that they were actually a little more concrete in terms of describing what they were trying to accomplish. I don't know whether they've chosen to write it this way. I suspect that in the department they have quite a few more concrete expectations and statements of results they're intending to accomplish, which have not found their way into this document.

    Mr. David Anderson: I think we would all expect that they do, but I'm not so sure they exist. The way the whole policy framework was implemented would indicate that there may be some planning and priorities and a dream of what might be, but the details of that are not well-defined and don't seem to be well-planned. We're struggling through the first pillar. We have four more to go. Even the first pillar does not have those well-defined targets that anyone, including the farm organizations, can look at and say, this is where we felt you were going. You can see that with the new farm program and the trouble it has caused. There may have been plans and priorities, but there were no specific targets that anyone could define. It's a major issue. I think it exists as well in the other pillars, not just in this one area.

    Others may have something to say about that.

    The Chair: Mr. Hilstrom, anything else right now?

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No.

    The Chair: Mr. Duplain.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: I'm going to ask you a somewhat strange question. We had a meeting this morning with the Auditor General, one of those meetings where there are the fewest number of people; some members came, and then left. If there is one issue that interests members, it is often the financial one. However, I wonder about one thing and I want to ask you about it; Ms. Ur in fact referred to this briefly, earlier. The members may not be all that familiar with the reports and more importantly, they may not know how to interpret them.

    You referred to the possibilities that are open to committees. Are you under the impression that the members have a good grasp of the interpretation of these reports and of the operations of committees? When you prepare your reports, you make recommendations, and I would like to know your opinion on this. I feel that the members are very poorly informed on the way in which these reports should be interpreted. I'm not sure that the members understand this and I'm not even sure that they know where to go to get the information they need to understand. What do you think of all that as a representative of the Office of the Auditor General? Is it your duty to inform us? Do you have any recommendations to make to us on this matter?

  (1210)  

[English]

    Mr. John Mayne: It is the case that committees have not spent too much time reviewing the estimates documents, perhaps because they felt there was nothing they could do about the estimates. If it goes into the financial area, it becomes a confidence issue, and you can't touch that. I think that one of the messages we're trying to bring is that if committees took a longer term view of what they do in terms of reviewing and holding the government to account, reviewing the documents could have an impact on future budgets. The documents are readable. The question is whether there's enough information there to do your job. It seems to me that it's a matter of priorities for committees, which have a lot on their plate, and the interest in spending time going through them. Our reports have recommendations. Sometimes those reports have helped a committee in its deliberations.

    It seems to me that this committee has an interest in and knowledge of agriculture and would be quite capable of looking at these documents and asking officials the kinds of questions we're suggesting, such as, beyond the big vision, what are you actually trying to accomplish over the next year or two years?

    The Chair: Mr. Leighton.

    Mr. Barry Leighton: When we have worked with Treasury Board to try to identify reasonable expectations for these kinds of documents, we have in our minds what you would need to do your work. So we're trying to imagine how these documents would be useful to you, in the absence of a great deal of attention being paid by standing committees to these documents. As Mr. Mayne said, now that there appears to be greater interest in these documents by standing committees, I think what we will find is that departments and agencies will now try to tailor them more directly to your needs. If you ask those difficult questions, they will try to respond with the answers in these reports.

    The Chair: Mr. Duplain, do you have any more questions?

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: I agree that you prepare the reports with that in mind, but let me phrase my question even more directly. Do you check to see whether the elected members understand and are able to interpret what you prepare? Do you think that the majority of members understand the financial reports and can interpret them?

    Earlier, we were talking about supplementary estimates that are submitted and we were asking how we can check whether these are excessive amounts and whether they were already part of forecast estimates. If there are questions, it is because people did not understand. Generally speaking, do you have the impression that the members can work with the documents you submit to them? Do you think they are able to study them, interpret them, and ask the right questions at the right time? Does this concern you in any way?

  (1215)  

[English]

    Mr. John Mayne: Just to clarify, the supplementary estimates and these RPPs and DPRs are prepared by the government. They are not Auditor General reports. So we have no role in preparing these documents. As I mentioned earlier, we have criteria that we use to assess how good they are, but they're prepared based on Treasury Board requirements, which are well-documented.

    It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg issue. If these documents are not being used by parliamentarians, there is not much incentive for departments to improve them and make them more clear if they're not clear. One of the reasons we sent members this report was to try to generate more interest in challenging the documents you're receiving, with the expectation that the challenge would lead to getting reports that are better and clearer and that you could make better use of.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mayne.

    Mr. Hilstrom, do you have more questions?

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: No.

    The Chair: Mr. Anderson, do you have more questions?

    Mr. David Anderson: No.

    The Chair: Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney: We've heard reference this morning to a cat-and-mouse game. Do you feel that the departments deliberately hide things or misrepresent material, or is it simply lack of direction or sloppy practices? How do you assess positions? Do the departments cooperate with you when you walk in?

    Mr. John Mayne: The departments generally do cooperate with us. We have a legal mandate that they have to cooperate.

    I don't know, either for this department or other departments, to what extent they're not being forthright. As Mr. Leighton said, one of the things we look for is whether there are any bad news stories in these documents. It's hard to imagine that a big department like Agriculture, or any of the other ones, hasn't had some problems during the year. If there isn't any bad news in the report, it suggests that there may be something more there. I think that balanced reporting, which is a tough criterion, would get at your issue.

    I'm speculating a bit, but I think committees underestimate the effect they can have on departments in challenging them and requesting information. I think departments generally do respond to committee requests. If committees are showing an interest in the kinds of documents they are preparing, they will make more of an effort to prepare better documents. If they see that committees are not paying much attention to these documents, then they're.... Maybe we'll pick them up, and they'll be unlucky and we'll make a bad comment about them. But they can live with that, I think.

    It's hard to say which comes first. There's a natural tendency on the part of organizations not to tell all the disaster stories they have. Again, that's not good reporting. I think that if the stories have any substance to them, they'll come out in the press, anyway. Therefore, they should be in these documents.

    Mr. John Maloney: How do you pick what department you're going to target and what you're going to target within that department? Is it hit and miss on your aspect of it, or is there a real reason that you choose department A, B, or C?

    Mr. John Mayne: The report coming out at the end of this month looked at a selection of the departments based on the fact that they were involved in the security area. So there was a choice to look at that as a priority.

    In terms of our regular audit work, which you read about in our reports, there's quite an elaborate planning process, which tries to determine what are the priority issues. Again, very much from a public and parliamentarian perspective, what are the kinds of things we think parliamentarians would be concerned about that we can address? There's a fairly extensive consultation process to decide on what we look at and when. There's a multi-year plan. Plans are developed and reviewed continually. A fairly extensive effort is made to try to identify those issues that are of interest to parliamentarians. The other side of that is the resourcing issue as to what we actually can cover.

  (1220)  

    Mr. John Maloney: Go ahead, Mr. Leighton.

    Mr. Barry Leighton: In the report that's coming out at the end of the month we tried to be much more positive than we often are in our reports. Rather than focus on things they didn't do well, we identified some promising practices so that other departments and agencies could look at those practices and see if they're ones they could adopt to their advantage. As we indicated earlier, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada does do its big picture very well. Had we included it in that report, we may very well have presented it as a promising practice. But we would have pointed to other departments' reports for the specifics about how they intend to accomplish their work, with targets and so on.

    Mr. John Maloney: Do you have a practice of re-auditing? If you go into a department and see a problem and make your report, do you go back in a year or two to see if they've cleaned up their act?

    Mr. Barry Leighton: Yes, we do. Not in the particular case of rating these performance reports, which we may do down the road, but in terms of our regular auditing, we do look at the recommendations one year after the report has been tabled in the House and consider what progress has been made by the department in implementing those recommendations. Then we decide whether we will do a re-audit in about a year's time. So two years after they were tabled we would expect to table another report, if necessary, to indicate the progress made by the department in implementing the original recommendations.

    Mr. John Maloney: If it is positive, do you report that as well? If it's negative, I'm sure you would.

    Mr. Barry Leighton: Given the work pressure we have, if the department has made substantial progress, we tend to look at other areas that are more in need of our attention.

    Mr. John Maloney: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Does someone on the Alliance side wish to ask some questions?

    Mr. Howard Hilstrom: We don't know everything about this, but we're out of questions.

    The Chair: Mrs. Ur.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: If I heard you correctly, Mr. Leighton, you were indicating that Agriculture and Agri-Food appeared to be on the right track on food security and whatever. Is that what you stated? Maybe I just wanted to hear that.

    Mr. Barry Leighton: I hope I was conveying the message that the strategic direction of the overall department is very well explained and very clear in their planning and priorities report. But I hope I didn't make any specific reference to the security issue.

    Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur: It's nice to hear something positive, that things are going fairly well there. That should perhaps raise the spirits.

    The Chair: Mr. Duplain, do you have any questions?

    If not, I'm going to take the liberty as chair to ask a question. How do you measure best quality of life for all Canadians?

    Mr. John Mayne: That's an issue that has not received attention by our office. But a number of organizations do publish information on the quality of life. I think there have been some recent publications on that, trying to look at a set of indicators that would get at that question. It's a complex one, and there are lots of debates on what should be included. There are approaches to that. I don't think the government per se has been reporting that, but I know there are a number of organizations in Canada that have--

    The Chair: We might say that it's a great vision statement for any government, or any department, for that matter. It's not only Agriculture. It could be a visionary statement for all departments, for all Canadians.

    We know that's already in the estimates blue book on plans and priorities. But we have to measure against something. You mentioned that you make a practice of reporting....

  (1225)  

    Mr. Barry Leighton: Any promising practices, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Yes. Is that something you make as a common statement to all departments? If you see something that is working well and where someone has made an improvement in terms of reporting practices, how would we know about that? How do you convey that message?

    Mr. Barry Leighton: That's not something we have done as a practice in the past, but the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, in this particular report for the end of May was very keen to identify promising practices. So perhaps we will wait and see what the impact of that report has been to see if this approach is a productive one.

    The Chair: Mr. Mayne.

    Mr. John Mayne: We would do that in one of our reports that are tabled in Parliament. I think there's something coming up in May. I recall a report I was responsible for, which was tabled in 2000. It included examples of both good and bad practices. We speak on these issues at a lot of functions in Ottawa and around the country, and we also try to be balanced in pointing to not only what goes wrong but also some of the good practices.

    The Chair: Unfortunately, certain members weren't here today. They have a dual responsibility and from time to time find it impossible to be here.

    They have given us many good questions to ask when we do the estimates. I would encourage all of us to look at the blues and take their suggestions and perhaps for the first time study the estimates and some of the lines of questioning we may want to put forward a little more diligently than we have in the past. I commit to do that myself.

    I think you've given us much fodder this morning. If we can digest that and find a useful outcome from it, I think this would have been a very useful exercise.

    I thank you, Mr. Mayne and Mr. Leighton, for appearing this morning, on rather short notice, I might say, and the members for coming. This has been an exercise that most of us have not found to be particularly exciting in the past. But I think you've added a new dimension of excitement this morning, if I may use that word. I trust that it will become fruitful not only for this committee but for others as well. I would encourage other committees to have you people appear before them. This has been a most useful exercise. Thank you very much.

    The next meeting is on Tuesday, May 6. We'll have with us Agriculture Canada and DFAIT with regard to the WTO.

    That's our meeting for this morning. Thank you again.

    The meeting stands adjourned.