PACP Committee Report

OVERVIEW

This report presents the results of a review of government responses to a selected group of recommendations of the PAC, made during the 37^th and 38^th Parliaments, and announces new procedures the Committee has begun using to follow up on recommendations.

The purpose of the review was to develop a credible estimate of how frequently governments accept recommendations of the committee, and whether Committee recommendations make a demonstrable difference to what government departments actually do.

The central finding, discussed under the heading “Findings and Observations,” is that there is a great deal of room for improvement. While there are numerous examples of recommendations that have resulted in action by the government, there are many more where ambiguous responses and inadequate reporting of actions leave the real impact of recommendations open to doubt.

Our major conclusion is that communication between the Committee and the government needs to become a great deal clearer and more complete. This will strengthen the accountability of the government to this Committee and Parliament. It can also help to ensure that the contributions of this Committee to public policy and administration are as well-informed, constructive and effective as possible.

The concluding section of this report, entitled “Next Steps: Establishing Systematic Follow-Up,” sets out our plan to address these issues. The Committee is already implementing this plan; systematically reviewing government responses to its recommendations, monitoring results, and dialoguing with the government about implementation issues as required.

BACKGROUND

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts was described, in the February 2006 Phase 2 Report of the Gomery Commission, as Parliament’s administrative accountability committee. This description accurately captures the central focus of this Committee, which is to make sure that government is held accountable on behalf of citizens for its performance and for delivering results efficiently and effectively.

A key requirement for this work is the availability of clear and reliable information about departmental performance, its deficiencies and prospective improvements. This is why the reports of the Auditor General comprise an essential information base for the Committee. The formal responses of the government to committee recommendations are also essential. They can provide key information about how deficiencies will be remedied, and state action commitments for which the government can subsequently be held accountable.

This report originates from longstanding concerns of members about the degree of real accountability that is achieved in many government responses to our recommendations. Too often, responses leave considerable uncertainty about the level of agreement with the substance of recommendations, and the precise nature of action commitments. However, the work pace undertaken by the Committee makes it difficult to devote committee time to achieving greater clarity. Reflecting these concerns, the Committee launched the background research that is presented in this report as a basis for defining problems and developing solutions.

FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS

The study assessed government responses to a sample of Committee recommendations made between 2001 and 2005. The sample was composed of 110 recommendations that called for the reporting of results in departmental performance reports or related publications. Since public reporting is required, this type of recommendation provides a readily accessible means of determining governmental compliance.

The purpose of the assessment was, first, to provide an estimate of the proportion of Committee recommendations that are being accepted. Second, it was to determine whether the government is actually doing what its says it is going to do in these responses. For details concerning the study methodology employed, see Appendix 1 of this report.

The detailed results of the review, on a recommendation-by-recommendation basis, are contained in Appendix II of this report. Table 1, immediately below, summarizes the results by providing the number of government responses in the sample that: (a) accepted a recommendation, (b) relied on status quo statements focussing on what the government was already doing, or (c) rejected a recommendation.

top

Table 1: Government Responses to Selected Committee Recommendations

* Plus two non-responses.

Table 2 indicates, for the same group of recommendations, the number where subsequent government reports: (a) provided confirmation that recommended actions had been taken, (b) did not provide clear confirmation, or (c) could not be expected to provide confirmation, because the government had rejected the substantive recommendation that was to be reported on.

Table 2: Number of Performance Reports Confirming Government Actions in Response to Selected Recommendations

*Plus two non-responses.

While Table 1 indicates that most of the recommendations surveyed were accepted, a significant proportion resulted in essentially status quo responses from the government. In these responses, the government provides vaguely affirmative comments on the recommendations, and focuses on descriptions of what is already being done.

Where a Committee recommendation reflects the substance of an earlier Auditor General recommendation, it is reasonable and even desirable that departments would already be acting in response to the Auditor General by the time that the Committee recommendation is made. However, it is important that responses make it clear where action has been initiated in response to recommendations. Otherwise, they leave the impression that nothing new is being done.

If anything, Table 1 understates the problem of status quo responses. Vaguely worded statements of acceptance in government responses posed a significant challenge in the classification of these responses. The group of responses that have been classified as “status quo” responses represents merely the most obvious cases where commitments to recommended actions were not clearly made.

The second pattern indicated by the survey results, in Table 2, is that government departments are failing to live up to approximately one third of commitments to use the DPR’s to report publicly on actions taken and results achieved (including status quo statements implying that the required reporting is already being done). Departments may be doing what the Committee (and frequently also the Auditor General) has recommended, or they may not. Short of a follow-up investigation, however, or access by the Committee to follow-up work of the Auditor General, there is simply no way for Committee members to determine the answer.

Most obviously, these results reinforce the concerns about Committee effectiveness discussed above. If Committee recommendations do not at least provoke clear responses, with explanations and timely reporting of results, then Committee members and the public have reason to wonder what is being accomplished.

Where a government is not prepared to accept a Committee recommendation, we urge that the recommendation be clearly rejected. There may be valid reasons for a government to reject a Committee’s recommendation, including the element we frequently include that calls for the public reporting of results. Our central requirement, in such cases, is that the rejection be clearly stated and accompanied by valid reasons, including the presentation of better approaches where these are available. Such responses can provide useful information to Parliament and the public, and contribute to the broad process of accountability that is our ultimate reference point.

The results of the review presented above need to be treated as estimates rather than definitive facts. The substantial size of the sample and the nature of the evidence detailed in Appendix II strongly suggests, however, that the overall direction of the findings is reliable. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that there is widespread room for improvement in the clarity and completeness of government responses to recommendations of this Committee.

top

NEXT STEPS: ESTABLISHING SYSTEMATIC FOLLOW-UP

The findings outlined above should not detract from the fact, apparent in the content of many government responses, that the federal government does take very seriously its responsibility to parliamentary committees by preparing detailed responses to report recommendations. However, the consistency, quality and degree of comprehensiveness in the responses vary considerably. There is clearly a need for the Committee to strengthen its capacity to ensure that all government responses fully address the substance of its recommendations and result in action. Without improvement, the full potential value to citizens of the work that is done on their behalf by this Committee and Parliament is not being obtained.

Strengthening the relationship between government and this Committee can provide an essential basis for stronger accountability, and a remedy for many of the specific problems documented in this report. This concluding section of our report outlines the steps that the Committee is taking to initiate this kind of change.

In particular, the episodic character of communication between this Committee and government, consisting of individual reports and recommendations from the Committee, followed by one-time responses from the government, needs to be addressed. While there is room for improvements to the key events — individual recommendations, individual responses, and changes to individual performance reports — Committee members believe that a far more powerful basis for progress can come from better communications about these events, and a more systematic approach to holding the government accountable for its actions.

This approach could provide a means of addressing questions that government officials may have about the central intent of recommendations, and questions that Committee members frequently have about the precise meaning of government responses and the nature of the actions, if any, that are being initiated specifically in response to Committee recommendations. It could also foster discussions about practical issues involved in the implementation of recommendations and, where necessary, alternative approaches that would satisfy the Committee’s intent.

As well, strengthened communication between the Committee and government could provide the Committee with a means to obtain information about the results that are being achieved by departmental actions, where information supplementing departmental performance reports is needed. Finally, more extensive communication could provide an information base to support formal follow-up meetings between government officials and the Committee, where these are needed to address issues that remain unresolved through more informal means.

Traditionally, the volume of issues generated by the reports of the Auditor General has led to chronic congestion of the Committee schedule, and severely limited time for follow-up activities related to earlier recommendations. However, the work process outlined below relies upon the use of Committee staff working under the direction of the Committee Chairperson and Steering Committee to expedite the more routine phases, as well as to identify critical issues that may require attention by the Committee as a whole. Among its other advantages, this approach should contribute to efficiency.

top

The relationship that the PAC is seeking to establish with the government starts with improvements to existing actions: Committee reports and recommendations and formal government responses. Building on this, a newly established phase of staff level work is focussing on the systematic review of government responses, the provision of assessments to the Committee and Committee follow-up communications to the government. Depending on the results achieved at this stage, further steps involving committee follow-up meetings and/or coordination with the Auditor General may also be taken. In sequence, the key events of the process are as follows:

1. Reports and Recommendations: As now, the Committee will issue these periodically, normally in response to reports of the Auditor General. Responses treating each Committee recommendation separately, and clearly addressing each element of composite recommendations, will be sought as a matter of routine practice.
2. Government Responses: As now, Committee reports will normally request a written government response to recommendations within the 120 days specified in s. 109 the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
3. Letters of Acknowledgement/Clarification: When a government response is received, it will reviewed by staff (who may consult departmental officials and officials of the Office of the Auditor General concerning its contents), and circulated to Committee members with staff comments. A letter of acknowledgement will be sent to the originator of the response. As required, the letter will include requests for a government letter clarifying the response, or providing information required so that all elements of all Committee recommendations will have been addressed. This step was initiated during the summer of 2007, with a review of Government Responses to recent PAC recommendations, and follow-up letters to eight government departments.
4. Government Letters of Response: Where the Committee has requested clarification of a government response or supplementary information, the government letter of response will be reviewed by Committee staff, who will provide periodic status reports to the Steering Committee of the PAC. The Steering Committee may direct further correspondence concerning issues that have not been addressed, or schedule follow-up meetings of the Committee, requesting the appearance of the minister responsible and/or departmental officials. This step has recently been implemented, with respect to government letters responding to the PAC letters sent during the summer.
5. Communication With Other Committees: Letters with follow-up questions sent to the government, along with government answers, will be shared with appropriate House of Commons committees. In addition to assisting these committees, we believe that this practice will foster reciprocal sharing that could enhance the work of this Committee.
6. Follow-Up Meetings: Depending on the nature of the issues requiring follow-up attention, the Committee may devote a short period at the beginning of any meeting to discussions with any relevant person.
7. Annual Follow-Up: The PAC will now be reviewing systematically and on an annual basis actions taken in response to recommendations and results obtained. Where meetings with departmental officials or the minister responsible are required for this purpose, the Committee schedule will provide for them in the early fall of each year. This review will be informed by two status reports prepared by Committee staff during the summer of each year, and presented to the Committee at the beginning of the fall session:

1. A status report on recommendations made in the current Parliament. This will consist of a compilation of recommendations made in the current Parliament, and government responses with staff comments, along with a status report on any ensuing exchanges of letters or consultations; and
2. A status report on government action in response to earlier recommendations. This report will assess government action in response to recommendations made during the previous Parliament, and selected recommendations made during earlier Parliaments. This report will be based on departmental performance reports and also rely centrally on information released by the Auditor General in Status Reports (follow-up audits that assess progress in response to earlier Auditor General recommendations).

8. Involvement of the Auditor General: The Office of the Auditor General of Canada conducts follow-up reviews of its own audits every two to three years to evaluate the government’s progress in addressing recommendations.[1] In addition to using these Status Reports in conducting its own follow-up reviews, the Committee may from time to time seek the assistance of the Auditor General in determining and assessing what government departments are doing in response to Committee recommendations, where the steps outlined above have not produced satisfactory results.

As indicated above, initial steps to implement this process have already been taken. Beginning in August 2007, letters acknowledging Government Responses to Committee reports, and seeking clarification or supplementary information where required, have been forwarded to the government. Answers to many of these letters have already been received. The additional information provided enhances the usefulness of the initial Government Responses, and will contribute to the future effectiveness of the Committee in holding the government accountable.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The ultimate measure of success for the process outlined in this report would be that it becomes largely unnecessary. Clear and complete government responses do not require follow-up questions, prolonged communication or follow-up meetings. Equally, departmental performance reports that provide clear and complete information about governmental actions and results responding to committee recommendations could preclude the need for follow-up work to find out what governments are doing. Current Treasury Board Secretariat guidance, requiring that committee reports be referenced where information in a Departmental Performance Report relates to recommendations, is a useful beginning here.[2] But there continues to be room for improvement in the usefulness of these reports. We believe that the follow-up process outlined in this report will encourage progress in the clarity and completeness of both government responses and the information subsequently reported about actions. More immediately, it is already providing improved information to support the accountability work of this Committee.

top