SBUD Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on the Estimates Process of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, April 2, 2003

»

1740

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.))

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

Mr. Ronald Campbell (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo)

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. John Mayne

»

1745

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Ronald Campbell

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Ronald Campbell

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.))

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Mr. John Mayne

»

1750

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. John Mayne

M. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. John Mayne

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

»

1755

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Ronald Campbell

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Ronald Campbell

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

Mr. Ronald Campbell

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

¼

1800

Mr. Ronald Campbell

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Ronald Campbell

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Ronald Campbell

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Ronald Campbell

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Ronald Campbell

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

¼

1805

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Paul Szabo

¼

1810

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

¼

1815

Mr. John Mayne

The Chair

Mr. John Mayne

The Chair

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Ronald Campbell

¼

1820

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Ronald Campbell

¼

1825

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. John Mayne

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

¼

1830

The Chair

¼

1835

Mr. John Mayne

The Chair

Mr. Ronald Campbell

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

¼

1840

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. John Mayne

Mr. Ronald Campbell

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

---

CANADA

Subcommittee on the Estimates Process of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 007

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 2, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

»  (1740)  

[English]

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)): Order, please.

    Welcome, colleagues, pursuant to the motion of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates adopted November 26, 2002, we are doing a study to inquire into matters relating to the review of the process for considering the estimates and supply.

    Today we have witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Ronald Campbell, principal, and Mr. John Mayne, principal.

    Welcome, gentlemen. We look forward to receiving your remarks. Following those, we'll have a period of questions by the members. Please proceed.

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

    Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our audits of estimates documents and related observations from our recent audit chapter on the acquisition of office space in the federal government.

    With me today is Ronnie Campbell, the principal responsible for carrying out that audit work in Public Works and Government Services.

    At this committee's February 26 hearing, we said we would be issuing a revised version of a document we had provided to parliamentarians in 1998, called Parliamentary Committee Review of Revised Estimates Documents. With the chair's permission, I can provide the committee with copies of the revised publication today. All members of Parliament will soon receive a copy of the document.

    At the February meeting, we suggested a list of questions we thought members might want to ask departments in reviewing their estimates documents. This list can be found in the back of the publication I have brought today. The publication also describes the estimates documents and identifies a number of ways for committees to enhance their review of the documents.

    We have reported a number of times on the estimates documents, most recently in our 2000 report, chapter 19, and in our April 2002 report, chapter 6. Many of our audit chapters also comment on how well departments report to Parliament on the performance of the audited programs. One such chapter was in our December 2002 report, chapter 8, on acquisition of office space.

[Translation]

    Overall, we have been disappointed by the slow progress of the government in improving its performance reporting 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 incomes; little discussion of the reliability of the information; and few reports of objectives not met.

    We are pleased that this committee has decided on an in-depth review of the Estimates information on a specific program. We are confident that the review and the committee's recommendations will encourage departments to improve their reporting to Parliament.

    My colleague, Ronald Campbell, will comment briefly on the audit of office space acquisition.

    Mr. Ronald Campbell (Principal, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Mr. Chairman, our audit focused on the activities of Public Works and Government Services Canada in the acquisition of office space. The department's Real Property Services Branch provides office accommodation for over 100 departments and agencies. We examined the branch's planning, acquisition, and management practices.

    Before commenting on the department's performance reporting, I will briefly highlight the other main observations in this chapter.

[English]

    Mr. Chairman, we found weaknesses in the way the department manages information on the supply of available office space, also on how it develops long-term accommodation plans, which is an important part of identifying the accommodation needs of departments and agencies. We found weaknesses in the way the department analyzes available options for accommodation and obtains and uses financial and management information.

    It should be noted we did not audit the department's entire performance report for 2002-2001, but looked only at the information reported in the branch's performance in acquiring office space. We looked for a clear description of the organizational context and strategic outcomes, clear and concrete expectations for performance, reporting of key results against expectations, support for the reliability of performance information, and demonstrated use of performance information--the five criteria for a credible performance audit. We found it met the five criteria.

    The Real Property Services Branch needs to improve its reporting to Parliament. In particular, it should articulate clearly what it expects to achieve, report on its performance, and make clear to Parliament how the achievements they report are linked to stated objectives.

    The department has agreed with our findings, Mr. Chairman. It has undertaken to develop an improved framework for reporting on performance, one with clear statements of expected achievements and clear linking of achievements to strategic objectives.

    Mr. Chairman, I'd be pleased to answer the committee's questions on our audit of real property services.

    The Acting Chair (Mr. Paul Szabo): Thank you kindly, gentlemen.

    We'll begin our questioning with Mr. Ritz.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Gentlemen, thank you for coming today.

    It seems as though we're duplicating our work. This subcommittee is looking at how to dumb down the estimates so we can understand them and make changes to them, yet you folks have done or are doing the same thing, if I'm not mistaken. In this report, you have some of the recommendations that I guess we're searching for, and you've already done the work. So maybe we're duplicating some of it now. Specifically, today we're talking about property management, and you've given us a little bit of a cross-section on that.

    The estimates are great. The horse is already out of the barn, and we're supposed to be closing the door. What we're missing a lot of is planning and priority, and performance reports afterwards. Was there value, when you talk about strategic outcomes, planned results, and all this type of thing in your wish list as well? How do we get there?

    Mr. John Mayne: I think what the document I tabled today is intended to do is to provide some of the kinds of questions that you might wish to ask departments.

    We have done a number of audits on performance reporting and, as you said, made recommendations on how they might be improved. I think this committee has an excellent opportunity to formulate its own view on what ought to be in those documents.

    The answer to your question is supposed to be found in the departmental performance review of each department. There's the front-end planning part, the report on plans and priorities that was tabled last week in Parliament--the most recent one--and then in November, departments are reporting against the prior year. Answers to not what they intend to do but what they have actually accomplished--

»  (1745)  

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: It's called damage control.

    Mr. John Mayne: --are supposed to be in their performance report.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: I understand all that, but the problem we have...and I've heard the same frustration from the Auditor General. She has made specific recommendations on the work you folks have done, and they're never listened to.

    We do the same thing from the parliamentary side. Non-partisan, we'll come up with something from the committee, and it's not listened to. It's never put into action.

    What kind of levers do we have to develop to get the departments to answer the right questions in a straightforward manner? Any epiphanies on that? I'm at a loss. The more I tackle this, the more I think it's insurmountable. It's a cultural change that needs to happen. How do we push them into this millennium and force them to answer the questions that need to be answered?

    Mr. John Mayne: I wouldn't underestimate what you as a committee could do. I don't think committees have spent too much time to date on reviewing estimates and providing direct feedback to a department or generally what should be in the estimates. I think this is really the first time a committee has taken this charge.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Yes.

    Mr. John Mayne: I think it could go some way. Given that the documents have a primary audience of members, I think that would be quite--

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Tony, could I have a little more time? Okay.

    In your point 14, you say, “The Department has agreed with our findings, Mr. Chairman. Ithas undertaken to develop an improved framework”. Well, I'll tell you, if I had a buck for every time I heard that here, I wouldn't have to show up for work.

    Where do we go? We've seen this with the sponsorship. We've seen this with all these other programs. I don't want to be political here, but there's always a six-point plan or a ten-point plan, and then it's done. Turn the page, and start over.

    I'm at a loss.

    Mr. Ronald Campbell: I don't want to speak for Department of Public Works, but I understand that you are going to be meeting with them next week.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Yes.

    Mr. Ronald Campbell: I think it's fair to say the officials we've met at Public Works certainly seem to be embracing change and seem to be open to it.

    While we certainly have not audited the 2003-04 RPP that came out, I think it would probably be worthwhile spending some time asking them questions on that, because there is some evidence--and again we haven't audited it--that they've begun to implement, at least in part, some of the recommendations we made in the chapter I just referred to. It probably would be worthwhile asking them if they see that as a first step, or whether they think they're done, or what's next, but it seems to me that there's some movement there.

    I have to say, we've had good conversations with them. They haven't been reluctant to make those changes. So you see in the 2003-04 document that there are some directions and some percentages, specific things that we've pointed out were missing. So I think if there's a little bit of momentum there, you might be able to get from them what's next in terms of improving that.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Okay, thank you.

    The Chair (Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)): Thank you.

    Okay, Gilles.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Gentlemen, thank you for coming. I have a concern. Today you are tabling a document which contains questions which should be asked, studied, learned, and so on. I have the feeling that you, yourself, ask these questions to various departments.

    Do you get answers? Do you expect to get answers?

[English]

    Mr. John Mayne: I think we expect the department to have answers. We hope the department has answers, and asking the right questions might push departments to provide the answers.

    You're right, of course, we've used those questions in some of our audit work, and we have found lots of gaps and weaknesses in the reporting. We too are concerned that progress has been too slow in improving those reports to Parliament.

    I think the document tabled today is to simply help encourage you to put the tough questions to the departments--the kinds of questions Mr. Campbell talked about--and ask them how they are going to prove this, what they are doing, or why the kind of information they think should be in the report isn't there.

»  (1750)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Surely, you yourself ask these hard questions to the departments.

[English]

    Mr. John Mayne: Yes, we do. The issue is there, as Mr. Campbell said. But in this particular case they have expressed an interest in--

[Translation]

    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Let us talk in general terms.

[English]

    Mr. John Mayne: One of the reports we did in 2000 across government was titled “Progress Too Slow”. Things are happening too slowly on this front. I'm hoping this committee will add an extra push to the exercise to get departments to report better information that you will find more useful.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: I would like you to answer by yes or no. When you ask hard questions, are you being told in a report that 10, 12, 15 or 20 different steps will solve your problem, yes or no?

[English]

    Mr. John Mayne: Okay.

[Translation]

    M. Gilles-A. Perron: Yes. Very well, I got my answer.

    I would like you to comment on what I'm going to tell you. I am a new member; I have only been here since 1997, therefore I am a new recruit, not in terms of age but in terms of experience. I have the feeling that all committees as a rule are more or less necessary to keep members occupied. I am not being political. I'm not talking about the Liberals but I say that if the government is determined to attain a goal, he will pull out the bulldozer and charge along, and if it happens that a member of its team is not sympathetic to its position, the government will have him replaced by somebody else, and there you are.

    Do you think that some day committees will have a serious and efficient role to play in this government? I am talking about committees in general ,this one included.

[English]

    Mr. John Mayne: I think the question is a very broad one.

    The Chair: Was that a yes or no answer you were looking for?

    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: It's up to you now. But I want the truth.

    Mr. John Mayne: I have observed that committees can have an impact on departments--more than they perhaps think. When committees are questioning and asking for information, it has an impact on departments. They try to respond. I've been on the other side in departments and central agencies, and we do listen to and pay attention to committees. They can make things happen.

    In this area of reporting, I don't think any committee has provided a report to the government on this issue. So this is an opportunity. This committee may choose to do that. The government has to respond to those reports, and I think it could have an impact.

    The question of the effectiveness of committees is something I would probably like to set aside at the moment. It's a much broader issue that you and your colleagues are talking about in terms of reforming committee structure. I don't have too many views on that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: What puzzles me, is the fact that often the present Auditor General as well as the former one, seems to identify a slew of problems in some department, and if after two or three years, the problem has not been solved, they come up with a wonderful theory and then we are back to square one.

    Therefore, if the Office of the Auditor General doesn't hold sway over the government, how do you expect a committee to have a hold on the government? This is my concern; I am saying loud and clear what I think deep down.

»  (1755)  

[English]

    Mr. John Mayne: I think both of us work by pressure, committees and our office. You're right, departments don't have to accept or implement our recommendations. One of the ways we're trying to increase pressure on that front is by reporting to Parliament specifically where departments are in implementing our recommendations. We've started to do that on a regular basis. Hopefully this will bring pressure to bear on departments to say why they haven't moved ahead. I think committees also bring pressure to bear on departments. Departments are big enterprises that are hard to move. I absolutely agree.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to thank our witnesses for being with us this afternoon.

    In paragraph 10 on page two of your submission you say, “We found weaknesses in the way the Department manages information on the supply of available office space”, and you outlined a few other points as well.

    On page five of your 2002 report you have planned spending of $1.705 billion. It breaks it out into owned, leased, and lease-owned. If we were to call the officials in, would they have data on previous years as to what the breakout would be on leased, owned, and lease-owned? We could start to know where they're going in the future and make comparisons. If something fluctuates from year to year, we can ask why and perhaps get the reasons for it.

    I'm tying the planned spending in the report to your comment on page two of your submission.

    Mr. Ronald Campbell: Again, without speaking for the department, I presume they would be able to do that. I would be surprised if they weren't able to not only provide the information but explain fluctuations from year to year. I would think they would be able to do that.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: They would have an accurate inventory of the space they're using and the vacancies they have.

    Mr. Ronald Campbell: Once you get down into more specific levels of detail, I don't know how good that information is. They certainly have problems in operational information in terms of what's available in particular markets and what the needs were of the departments they were trying to satisfy. But I would certainly hope that at a certain level they would be able at least to provide comparative information.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Please explain your paragraph 10, then. You say “We found weaknesses in the way the Department manages information on the supply of available office space” and “analyzes the available options for accommodation”. According to this you found weaknesses in those areas.

    Mr. Ronald Campbell: Real Property Services has a process for having strategies in each of their regions and major markets. Part of their strategy was to keep updated information on those markets so that when they were making decisions, they would have supply information and would know what was available and what was coming available. At the same time, they would have a good idea of the upcoming needs of the department that they were still trying to satisfy. We found that in several cases those documents were outdated or the analysis hadn't been done.

    In terms of the analysis of the options, we found that in many cases, rather than analyzing all the available options, including buying a building or a long-term lease, they found themselves pressed for time, so they would just do the costing for some of the options, usually shorter-term leases.

    That's what we meant by those three comments.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Ritz, and then Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Gentlemen, on page 14 of your report, you talk about the branch lacking complete and accurate information about the costs of its services. Do you find variances in that as you go from area to area in the country? Is it a systemic problem, or is it more confined to, say, downtown Ottawa, the general core? Or is it worse out in the regions? As you get further out, does it make any difference at all as to how the branches handle themselves?

¼  (1800)  

    Mr. Ronald Campbell: On that issue, I don't think there was a noticeable difference among the regions. I think it was fairly pervasive.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: The reason I'm asking is that it has just come to my attention in the last little while that in Regina, Saskatchewan, the government has purchased a tower complex, called the Galleria, 17,000 square metres of space. I haven't been able to track down any plan for it or use for it at this time. Now they've put out a tender for 3,000 square metres of space to use until that is completely revamped. Well, I'm wondering, if 3,000 square metres of interim space is going to handle what they're going to put into 17,000 metres later, why did we buy 17,000 metres to start with? Do you see any sort of conscience when they make those types of moves? Is there any justification for it? I haven't been able to find anything at all.

    Mr. Ronald Campbell: With regard to this specific case, I simply don't know. I wasn't part of the audit. But I'm sure the officials--

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: I'm sure there are others, if there's one.

    Mr. Ronald Campbell: I'm sure the officials from Public Works will have answers to that on Monday.

    We did note in the chapter that the department had started to become a little more proactive in terms of taking advantage of space that became available on the market, rather than waiting until a department had a specific need and then taking the time to find space to fill that need.

    We did note that when space became available--and we had two cases in the national capital area where space became available, and they knew they had a need for swing space and other demands--they acquired the space with a view to having someone yet to be identified move into it. So they have started to do that kind of thing. Whether that's the kind of thing that's at play in Regina, I simply don't know.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: But you're saying also that you're finding big holes in their planning--

    Mr. Ronald Campbell: Yes.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: --the thought process and what they're acquiring, and how they're acquiring it. There's no long-term streamlined thrust.

    Mr. Ronald Campbell: I don't know if we used those exact words, but we certainly did find weaknesses in many areas where we expected them to have a good handle on specific communities and markets and to have good information on that. We found that information simply wasn't up to--

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: And they assured you they have a plan.

    Okay, thank you.

    The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Welcome, gentlemen.

    What we have here is an audit report. It's not unlike what would be done for any corporation that has an external auditor for the shareholders, and during their interim audit they would assess internal control by doing a management report at some point during the cycle of the full audit on risks and other matters of importance that came to the attention of the auditors during their work. But this work is assessment of history, and it's the work of the public accounts committee. That's who deals with these, quite frankly.

    So I'm curious as to what your understanding was as to why you were asked to appear. Is there a communication or a statement of objectives for having these witnesses?

    The Chair: Sorry?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, the order of reference has to do with the review of the process for considering the estimates and supply. The information that has been prepared by research, the commentary done by the witnesses, the materials, and the questions we are asking are about public accounts activity. This is relevant to some extent in the assessment of performance, etc., but our principal focus was based on the premise that parliamentarians had not been discharging their responsibilities in terms of a proper review of the estimates. We wanted to do, as you indicated in your comments, a proxy review and go through all of the things we might do, the questions we might ask, and how we could be most productive given the time that's available. We then could share that experience with all of the standing committees, which have the responsibility to review the estimates. This isn't it, as you now probably realize.

    We have identified that within the estimates of all the various departments, a very large portion of the dollars involved are statutory and that our review and our commentary and dialogue with regard to any department or program within a department should be focusing on non-statutory activities, because it's the only place we could really do something.

    I would like to give you another opportunity to tell us from your perspective how we should approach developing what would almost be an audit program, but would be an estimates program, for a standing committee to use, which could generally be applied to a department or a program. More importantly, keep in mind our historic performance as parliamentarians on this and the amount of time we do or do not spend on it. Also keep in mind the opportunities we may have to shift the onus to the departments or the program principals to prepare due diligence statements or basically come to a confession and give us the information they think we should know that will clearly put on the table all of not only the good things but also the things that were not good.

    I want to try to separate this process from the public accounts review of history and the anticipation and maybe heading off at the pass of the risks or impropriety of planned expenditures.

¼  (1805)  

    Mr. John Mayne: I think you have articulated what this committee is trying to do, as I understand it. I think what departments do provide you in terms of information is the report on plans and priorities, which was tabled last week. That's this document. They also tabled in the fall a performance report, which I only have in a copied form. These are documents that are trying to provide you the information you're talking about.

    What I tabled today was an update of a report we provided to parliamentarians three years ago. On the coloured sheet in the middle, we tried to outline our vision of an audit program. These kinds of questions used in a particular case would provide the kind of scrutiny of that information that you could undertake.

    You're right, we're not discussing our audit report here today. It was just provided for background information. The committee decided to take a look at the federal office accommodation program, and our report has information on that. The report also has a couple of pages talking about our assessment at that time of the information in those estimates documents. This is what I see as the connection.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I've quickly scanned the questions that standing committees can ask. These would be questions that could be asked with regard to each and every program and general departmental line items, and so on. If you were to take a typical department and ask these questions with regard to each and every one of the program lines, how many weeks would it take to get through it all?

¼  (1810)  

    The Chair: But I think the point is that committees don't necessarily have to go to every line item but can randomly pick--

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Perfect.

    The Chair: --specific areas, which would keep everybody on their toes because they don't know if they're going to be asked a question.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Absolutely. So what we're missing is the front end of this. We couldn't do this for every line item. We talked about issues such as what techniques we can use to identify the indicators--trend lines, variance analysis, materiality, historic problems, potential problems, and so on. If you did this for every line item, it would take you weeks, no question about it. We have to get this enormous process down into, right now, one day. Most committees are allowing one day, one meeting.

    I think we feel that certainly the time that has been given or is being given by committees is not enough. If we simply kept it to that timeframe and did it on a restrictive basis and split the time between all the members, you would never get to the point where an auditor who was auditing the process would give you a clean opinion.

    Our end result is to opine on the estimates. We have to get there, but we have to have evidence. The only way we're going to do that is to be strategic in our focusing, our materiality, and so on. You go through this process when you do your selection for audit areas, materiality and sampling, and this kind of stuff.

    We get these lovely materials, traditionally known as “the phone book”, and another document, and you have your pile of paper. There are very few words there.

    What I was hoping we could do is put the onus back on the departments and those responsible for the line items to give us a commentary on what went well, what didn't go well, what was the impact, what were the reasons, what remedial action, if we're doing a result of the performance. But probably more effectively in terms of review of the estimates, it gives you an opportunity to head off problems before they happen.

    I think the gun registry is an excellent example. It was there, but our antennae weren't up, or the right question wasn't asked, or whatever. But those things should not happen.

    So I'm not sure what the solution to this is. I think we still have to think this through, how we are going to compress the process into a timeframe. Maybe you can help us with regard to saying what would be an appropriate timeframe.

    Somewhere in history, Parliament did an effective review of the estimates, department by department by department, and reported to the House. It stopped somewhere. We don't know why. But we have to get back there so that, as a parliamentarian, I can say we have discharged 50% of our responsibilities as members of Parliament collectively and done a review of the estimates.

    It's our job. It's a big part of our job, and it has been ignored. This is serious. She should be auditing us.

    The Chair: I'm interested in whether the Treasury Board guidelines on the content of the reports actually allows Parliament to meet the goals that you suggest in your report. Are there changes in format and content that you can suggest?

    Constantly when we had a round table with chairs of committees, the reaction was what we would expect. We get a bunch of information and are not quite sure what it is. It's difficult to decipher.

    Can you give us some guidance? I think the format and the content of the information is going to have a lot to do with how the estimates process ultimately functions.

    When the information commissioner's office came before the main committee for a second time, it had a couple of pages of a very detailed breakdown of his requests on the supplementary estimates, and that was very useful. In fact, the questions were very targeted, and the information gleaned from that was very useful for members.

    Is there any advice you can provide to us so that we can recommend back to Treasury Board if there is a change in the content of the format of the reports that would assist parliamentarians in doing the job they need to be doing?

¼  (1815)  

    Mr. John Mayne: I think Treasury Board guidance certainly has a degree of flexibility, and it would be quite appropriate for this committee to make suggestions on the kind of information they wish to see in these documents.

    A number of our reports have spoken to this issue. We haven't perhaps had as much to say on the specific format. We're leaving the format issues to the government, but trying to focus on the kind of information that should be there. I think this is evolving a little bit every year and they would welcome the views of a committee like this on what you think should be in there and, if we're using this example as a case, what kind of information on this program ought to be there that you think isn't there and would be quite valuable. You have to take a look at the information in both the report on plans and priorities and the performance report and make those suggestions.

    We certainly have done that, and there are a number of weaknesses in general in these documents. I quickly alluded to some of them in my opening remarks, such as not setting out clearly what they're trying to accomplish; not always identifying the programs and activities they're undertaking in order to achieve their larger goals; and not always linking the resources, which is what estimates are all about, to those activities. That isn't always well done.

    We've talked about and perhaps introduced this idea of a performance story that should simply describe what the program's all about; what you've tried to accomplish--point two, point three; what you have accomplished; what it cost; and what you are going to do differently next year because of that. That is the kind of information that would be not unreasonable to find in a performance report. You find that in some of them and it's hard to find in others.

    The Chair: In the performance reports of Public Works and Government Services on the acquisition of office space, was that typical in its deficiencies or was it worse, better, sort of a model, or not?

    Mr. John Mayne: It was average, kind of typical. Lots of programs have those problems. Some are much worse and some are better. I think it was a reasonably average kind of performance report with lots of room for improvement.

    The Chair: What would that improvement be?

    Mr. John Mayne: I think my colleague outlined some of those things in his opening comments.

    Mr. Ronald Campbell: Maybe I can just add a few thoughts, and then John can speak a little more generally.

    When we look at the report on RPP, Real Property Services lays out its planned results in terms of increased client satisfaction, revitalized workforce, value for clients, and improved financial performance. It doesn't really tell you what they do, what their business is. If you read this and didn't read anything else, you wouldn't really know what they did.

    Mr. Mayne just pointed out that a good starting point is describing your program and then describing what you tried to accomplish and what you did accomplish. So when you go to their website, on the first page of the Real Property Services they have a sort of broad goal of trying to provide office accommodation to the public service, but then they go on to use words that most of us could understand quite readily. They're in the real property business and they acquire real property, build real property, and manage real property. They operate some of it and have to maintain some of it. They repair it and dispose of stuff. When you read those kinds of words you see what they do.

    So some good questions might be: how much money do you need to do each of those things; why are they important; how do they come together to meet your strategic goal; what are you doing differently from the past; and what have been your successes and failures in those kinds of terms?

    When Mr. Mayne talks about describing your program, that's a good place to start, because then you can get into a discussion with the Public Works people about what they actually do. Otherwise you end up in a discussion about providing value, client satisfaction, and a revitalized workforce, but that could be any part of government. It doesn't really get you to the nub of Real Property Services: what do you do, why do you do it, which of these parts is important, how do they relate, how much do they cost, and why do you need more money for some elements than you did last year? So that might be a good starting point.

¼  (1820)  

    The Chair: Mr. Ritz.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Yesterday, we were sitting here discussing this and I listened to the frustration of my counterparts and so on, and the basic thought came to mind: is the committee structure the wrong way to do this? You know the old adage, “A camel is a racehorse built by a committee”. We see this type of thing here. We're very politicized and antagonistic in committee situations, which isn't right.

    An hon. member: No.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: We are.

    The departments come before us and they justify their budgets—not necessarily the program or the performance. As Mr. Szabo says, it's all numbers; there are no words.

    You guys in the AG's office do not work by committee. The private sector does not do this type of reporting by committee. Is this part of the downfall, that we're trying to do this with the wrong vehicle? And if this is what we're stuck with, how do we restructure it so that we can get our minds around this and get to the nub of what we're talking about?

    Mr. John Mayne: I don't really want to get into the question of committee structure and workings. I think it's not something that we would comment on.

    But I think we need to take into account that we're talking about a whole year's cycle, that while a review done now might include a focus on the numbers, there are other times in the year—usually November—when actual performance is reported. The idea is that if committees were to review the performance at that time, or indeed anytime during the year, not just the financial numbers as part of the supply process but the estimates documents, and made a report on them, the government has to respond. The timing is set up so that if issues are raised to the government, they might get reflected in the upcoming budget. So there's more than just the—

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: It's the reporting structure, and the government has to reply to it.

    Are you satisfied with the replies that the government gives to your reports—yes or no? I mean a report is a report.

    A voice: John's telling you that it's a good point.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: You don't have to answer that. Silence is golden.

    The Chair: You've done an audit report here on an area that we're essentially taking through a test-run to provide scrutiny or oversight of the estimates process. How many hours did it take you to do this job? And based on the number of hours it takes you to do the kind of work you do, can you give us a sense of how many committee hours it would actually take to do a job on the estimates process? I'm not looking for a definitive number, but just an educated guess, based on the fact that you do this type of work on an audit basis. We would be doing it from a parliamentary oversight basis.

    Mr. Ronald Campbell: From the standpoint of audit chapters, such as the one on real property, I don't have specific numbers for the entire piece. Bear in mind that only a portion of that chapter dealt with reporting to Parliament.

    But many of our audits run 6,000 to 7,000 hours a lot of times, from the very beginning or planning phase right through the audit examination to publication and translation and all of that.

¼  (1825)  

    Mr. Paul Szabo: So it may have taken about 1,000 hours of chronological time.

    Mr. John Mayne: I'm speculating here, but I would think that within two or three meetings a committee could do a pretty decent job on these documents, if it were set up well.

    We tried to answer some of Mr. Szabo's questions, albeit at a general level, on page 13 of our document, where we talk about trying to make the meetings more effective. It is obvious stuff. But if you are looking at real property or at the whole department, there's lots of information about it that could be looked at, or that your researchers could synthesize for you. As you already said, I think that you'd want to prioritize; you can't do everything. You could take a look at some of the areas that have attracted interest, attention, or whatever. I think you then need to be ready to ask the kind of questions that we're of thinking about today.

    I think the idea of having a department come in and make a presentation on its performance in the area you've chosen to look at is a good one, and then to have one or two follow-up meetings going back to challenge some of the areas of particular interest to you.

    In that time period, you could have a fairly decent look at a good chunk of a department and challenge it and hopefully get it to give you the kind of answers you want—and probably to promise some plans for the future.

    The Chair: Mr. Ritz is next, and then Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: I have just one last point, gentlemen.

    I agree with your effective meetings and so on. It's definitely a big part of our job that needs to be done. Would part of that effective meeting include interviews with the end users, the people who the programs are directed at to get their opinion, as opposed to just the department heads?

    Mr. John Mayne: It's certainly within the mandate of committees to do that.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: We've never actually called in the groups that are supposedly served by these programs to see if they got what they wanted. You would get the straighter goods from them as to what worked, what didn't, and how we could change it, as opposed to the department heads, who are justifying or doing damage control. That would take it in a whole different direction too, but again it would involve more hours.

    The Chair: You put them on a panel.

    Mr. Gerry Ritz: Well, a round table--it could be something like that. It's just a different thought.

    The Chair: But I like the idea.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I'm hearkening back to my audit days to see how.... Certainly trend lines were important in my corporate career. We used to have 10-year comparatives, or charts and graphs, etc. We don't have too many charts and graphs for the history plus the estimates, but stuff does jump off the page.

    There's a summary of the significant variances in the last year or two--your history to your projected--and the reasons therefore. So if I really want to synthesize through the books and all this other stuff and get it down, this is the raw material I want, but I want it in a different form. I want some pictures that will help everybody get up to speed on what's happening--this looks like an inflation scenario--as opposed to this, and I don't understand why that happens.

    I can get a better flavour of year after year...but if you fit a line to it you'd find that on average, because we have certain lumpiness in terms of this stuff.... There's the idea of statistical analysis. Do I have those numbers? Can I take those numbers and say I would like them shaped in such a form, where it's identifying on the basis of materiality and significant variance from either plan or prior year? That would be enormously helpful. I don't know whether it's realistic to ask for it. It might be “make work”, unless we just assume it's part of our job of reviewing the estimates of a department, because most standing committees are doing departments. But in doing that we will, at our discretion, pick a line item or two and do it in more detail, as opposed to doing the whole thing in a cursory way. I think it makes more sense to do something in between one and everything.

    How do we do that, and in terms of your audit experience, what is the effectiveness of that selection process or strategy of selectivity in being able to detect...? Then should you find a problem, there may be a decision tree that says, if you've done it at this level and you've found a problem, we recommend that you have to dig a little deeper. Then we go to the next level, so it's almost a decision tree for us. If it's, hey, for the last 10 years it has been the same thing; it's basically inflation, and 75% of this program is human resources cost, and the stuff in there has to do with either inflation or contractual settlements, we can deal with some big dollars and get it off the table.

    But I don't know how things slip through if you.... I keep coming back to the gun registry. I think it's kind of an important one. It was important to Parliament and everybody in Parliament. It was an important issue that Parliament embraced over the last decade. We got ourselves into a situation and it's hard to explain why.

    But those things must jump off the page. What do you have to specify should be on the page that would force it to jump off? That's what we're trying to do, because it will then help us focus our attention on the material, the significant departures, variances from the plan, or those kinds of things. We're looking for the exceptions.

    That's why I started earlier by saying I'd really like to put the onus on them to come to confession. Let's put them through a due diligence that you have given us and then focused us on, and we will from that...and I want all that in advance before you come and sit here. I certainly don't want to come here with everyone and be handed a 20-odd-page document to discuss. I'm sure we would all agree that is not the way to be the most productive, but it's the best we can do.

¼  (1830)  

    But I don't think that's an acceptable approach to a review of the estimates. You just can't say, let's have them here; we're going to put the paper on the table and start. I think we have to study and we have to prepare for that encounter with our witnesses. We probably have to have a pre-meeting to agree on our selection in terms of the area and the focus and split it up so we're not at cross-purposes or unproductive in our examination. Then we have to have this decision tree about where we go next. It means the committee as a whole has to work together to make that work--if it's possible in committee. Otherwise, if it's not, if we come to the conclusion that we can't count on non-partisanism when we really need it, then we have to look at what our options are, if any.

    The Chair: I'd be really interested in your reaction to this idea of a pre-meeting, speaking with researchers about what I might envisage along the lines Mr.Szabo has described. That's where the committee would receive documents and decide, perhaps with witnesses, perhaps with some experts at the table along with the researchers, in highlighting some aspects of a document that might be at variance, that might lift off the page. This would be so members actually have an understanding and an agreement that we are going to pursue these line items in this particular department for the following reasons, and you do that in advance, much like.... Of that 6,000 hours, you have some hours allocated to planning how you are going to attack a particular audit, and you work through a planning process.

    That the planning of how committees do estimates becomes a function of the estimates process is what I'm trying to get at, plus your reaction to that, because I think that's a big part of it. Members of Parliament are coming to committees, briefs are being dropped in front of them, and people are taking a cursory look at this thing.

    If there's one thing Parliament needs to re-engage in, it's exactly this. Preplanning meetings could--and I'm looking for some comment, agreement, or disagreement here--or should be part of the estimates process, as you've outlined in your drawing and your flow chart there, whether we now have committee preplanning on the estimates process becoming part of that flow chart.

¼  (1835)  

    Mr. John Mayne: I agree, Mr. Chairman. I think that's a good idea. I think you need some preplanning, because you've said, and I also agree, there's a need to be selective and focus on some programming areas that would be of interest to the committee. Within that, there would be specific items you might want to pursue, discussing your reasons for that and focusing your attention, and I think that would be very beneficial.

    If you just come, as you say, and get one of these documents of great width, you can't handle that coming at it cold, I would not think. So I think the idea of a pre-meeting to sort out exactly what you want to deal with, what issues you want to look at.... Even for that list of questions we provided, I don't know if you would ask all those questions even in an area you've selected. There'd be some aspects you might want to focus on. I think that would then provide...and as you say, you might be able to get different members to focus on different aspects, different kinds of questioning, or different areas.

    I think quite a constructive meeting would result; quite a constructive review of estimates would occur subsequent to such a pre-meeting.

    The Chair: Mr. Campbell.

    Mr. Ronald Campbell: If I may, I'll just add to Mr. Mayne's comments, talking about taking a strategic approach or maybe a cyclical approach, having more preparation, and having a set of questions that will presumably evolve over time to suit your own needs. There are a couple of benefits of this kind of proposal I could see right away, and one is that you'd probably find the departments would be better prepared when they got here. They'd know what you were going to talk about and they'd know what your area of interest was rather than trying to be prepared for every conceivable question on every single thing within the department. If you're prepared, they'll be prepared--or more prepared.

    The other interesting point I heard, just listening to Mr. Szabo there, was that it would also give you the opportunity, through your requests for certain types of information, to actually tailor some of that information to your own needs. I hear some of the frustration about the books, how they're presented, how the information is sometimes difficult to get through, and how it's not in the format you're looking for. If you're going to be communicating with the department in advance in preparation and saying, we're looking at a specific area, this is the information we want, and we'd like it this way over time through drafts or whatever, it would allow you to start encouraging them or requiring them to develop the information to suit your needs rather than you having to react to whatever is set out there.

    I think there are probably more benefits than that, too.

    The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I might point out just before I adjourn that we do have the Public Works and Government Services people before us at our next meeting. I thought, if there's agreement among committee members, perhaps we should have a pre-meeting before actually taking the estimates through a test run with this particular group. We'll be able to discuss amongst ourselves and with the researchers areas of interest we specifically want to focus on, so when they do come before us, committee members will be quite prepared to pursue certain lines in certain areas.

    Are you in agreement with that?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Agreed.

    The Chair: The next meeting is scheduled for this coming Monday.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Do you want to have a pre-meeting before this coming Monday? See you on the weekend.

    The Chair: The suggestion might be that we would have a meeting in advance of their coming. We're meeting from 5:30 to 7:30, so maybe we'll have them come at 6:30 and we'll meet at 5:30 or something along those lines.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: This is our test run. I assume it would be our plan as a result of doing this test run to ultimately come up with a first effort at a recommendation for standing committees on how they might approach it. If that's the case, if we're only going to do one, my preference--for consideration, anyway--might be that we should meet Monday to do our preplanning and have them rescheduled.

¼  (1840)  

    The Chair: We're meeting on Wednesday too, I believe, so it's on the table.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I think we should kick it around.

    The Chair: Is there agreement on doing that? Remember, though, that we have a certain timeline. We'd like to get this in by May.

    Since I really want to do this right, I'm interested in having the preplanning meeting. I don't mind rescheduling them to the Wednesday from the Monday if members think it's going to be worthwhile to go through that process. I think we've heard from witnesses that it would be a worthwhile exercise for a committee to go through. Is there agreement there?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Yes.

    Now, Mr. Chairman, for our preplanning we should have all of the relevant documents, and I'm going to bet right now that we don't.

    The Chair: I may take that bet.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I mean individually, so we can go home this weekend to prepare for the meeting on Monday.

    The Chair: Yes, individually, and I'm going to take that bet.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I'm not sure where that might be.

    Do I understand that we're going to be doing the Public Works--

    The Chair: The office, yes.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: There's history we don't have, and I think a big part of the planning is to be aware of recent history to, again, help us to understand the historical problems in this area. If they've been persistent or reoccurring on a cyclical-type basis, that's not evident to us without having some history. So I'm wondering, where do we find the history? It might be, in some cases, in Auditor General reports. I'm not sure whether it's in performance reports.

    Mr. John Mayne: The problem would be that it might be in a collection of performance reports. It may not be in one place. There might also be other relevant information on their website, which Mr. Campbell was alluding to. I discovered some useful information there. A quick search there could maybe pull out some of that information.

    Mr. Ronald Campbell: In addition, we did refer in this chapter in the December report to previous audits the Auditor General conducted on this particular area, I believe in 1991 and 1994, which might be helpful.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay, I'll scour my office to find papers.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. You've been very helpful.

    The meeting is adjourned.