CANADIAN COUNCIL OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEES

TABULATION OF SURVEY RESPONSES (FOOTNOTES)

TASK FORCE ON CROWN CORPORATION ACCOUNTABILITY

  1. 10 jurisdictions responded to the questionnaire: Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Canada.
  2. While 10 jurisdictions have this type of corporation, two (British Columbia and Ontario) did not indicate the number.
  3. As the survey model was not directly adaptable to the Ontario system, Ontario responded to the survey by listing the three Schedules Ontario uses. For the purpose of this survey summary, Schedule I is seen as applying to Departmental Crowns and Schedule II to Commercial Crowns. Schedule III's are probably closer to Departmental types of Crowns but have not been included at all in this tabulation.
  4. Same as endnote 2 above.
  5. Two jurisdictions (Quebec and British Columbia) combined all four categories to report on the level of magnitude of government expenditures administered by Crown corporations.
  6. Quebec and British Columbia are included in this category although, if they had allocated expenditures to each category, they might not have been included here.
  7. The 3 which do not have a formal framework (through legislation) are: Nova Scotia, Quebec and British Columbia.
  8. The 7 jurisdictions with a formal framework have different frameworks as follows:

Canada: Accountability for Crown corporations is clearly defined in legislation where each Crown corporation is ultimately accountable, through the appropriate Minister, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs. Accountability for departmental Crowns is the same as that for departments.

Newfoundland: The CEO reports to the Board which reports (and is accountable) to the Minister who is accountable to the legislature.

Prince Edward Island: Strategic overviews are requested by the government, the Minister receives Board minutes, quarterly financial reports are provided to the Treasury Board and the TB approves budgets, and annual reports are tabled in the legislature.

Ontario: Management Board policies are applicable to the various Schedules of Operating Agencies.

Manitoba: The Crown Corporations Council is legislated to facilitate the development of performance criteria for Crowns. They are accountable to a Minister and a standing committee of the legislature.

Saskatchewan: A recent report of the Saskatchewan Financial Management Review Commission considered that there was no framework. While there is some accountability of Crown corporations to ministers and the Cabinet, there is a framework at the executive level; but the only formal framework at the legislative level is 1) through the tabled annual reports which are referred to the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations and 2) through the consideration in PAC of specific issues identified by the Provincial Auditor in his report.

Alberta: The accountability framework is basically the same as that for departments.
  9. Prince Edward Island, Ontario and British Columbia are the 3 jurisdictions with a Crown corporation framework provided, at least in some respects, through policy statements.
10. Prince Edward Island and British Columbia both use administrative arrangements to define the accountability regime for commercial Crowns. P.E.I., however, does have the framework defined, in part, through legislation while B.C. has no such provisions.
11. British Columbia is the only respondent where there is no accountability to the legislature by these corporations.
12. The 6 jurisdictions which responded in the affirmative (3 or more than for departmental Crowns) reflects a shift from "not applicable".
13. For those 4 jurisdictions (Canada, Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia) where the government cannot create, acquire or dispose of Parent Crowns, this can be done by the legislature as with the other 6 jurisdictions.
14. 5 jurisdictions (Canada, Newfoundland, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia) which can not create, acquire or dispose of subsidiaries without government appeal can do so, along with 4 others, with government approval.
15. In Manitoba, Parent Crowns cannot create, acquire or dispose of subsidiaries (except in 1 instance) even with a government approval.
16. Manitoba and British Columbia require the legislature to approve the creation, acquisition or disposal of subsidiaries.
17. In British Columbia and Canada, the legislature is required to be advised where parent Crowns or subsidiaries are created, acquired or disposed of by the government.
18. In Canada and Alberta, directors may be appointed by the Minister but in Canada's case, only with the approval of the governor in council.
19. CEOs are appointed by the Minister in Canada but only with the approval of the Governor in Council. In Ontario, CEOs are most often appointed by the Board but may also be appointed by the Minister or order in council.
20. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Chief Executive Officers are appointed by the Board without the requirement for an Order in Council.
21. While the P.E.I. and Manitoba boards can set the remuneration for the CEO (as can Alberta's, Ontario's and Saskatchewan's), they also require government (OIC) to be involved.
22. Saskatchewan and Alberta do not require the government to set remuneration for the CEO but, rather, the board establishes the levels.
23. In Nova Scotia there is no provision for the issuance of directives to Crowns.
24. Only in Canada are directives that are issued to Crowns required to be tabled in the legislature or otherwise made public.
25. Ministers do not sit on Boards in the following jurisdictions: Newfoundland, Quebec and Canada.
26. Nova Scotia has no specific requirements for all corporations and requirements are seldom in legislation, and Quebec and Saskatchewan also have no requirements for the preparation of any of the documents listed. In addition, Alberta only has requirements for reporting on annual performance but not for the other documents listed.
27. No jurisdiction except Canada requires the tabling of the corporate plan or summary in the legislature.
28. Only in Quebec and Alberta is the lieutenant governor in council not able to appoint Commercial Crown auditors.
29. The Minister may appoint the auditor for some corporations in Prince Edward Island.
30. While in Manitoba the Minister may not appoint the auditors of Departmental Crowns, the Minister may do so for Commercial Crowns (along with PEI).
31. 3 jurisdictions (Newfoundland, Quebec and Alberta) which do not enable the boards of the Departmental Crowns to appoint auditors, allow such appointments for Commercial Crowns (along with Nova Scotia and PEI).
32. In Newfoundland, for various corporations, each of these types of appointments are made.
33. Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Manitoba do not provide for responsibility by the legislative auditor for work carried out by an external auditor.
34. Saskatchewan provides for additional audit to be undertaken by the legislative auditor if reliance is not possible.
35. Only Canada requires internal audit to be carried out for Commercial Crowns.
36. Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia do not have legislation prescribing matters to be addressed and reported upon by the auditor of the financial statements.
37. Only 3 jurisdictions (Canada, Quebec and Manitoba) have legislation prescribing a requirement for periodic value for money audit of Commercial Crowns.
38. 2 jurisdictions (Nova Scotia and British Columbia) do not have legislation prescribing the requirement to table in the legislature an annual report on the activities and results for the year just completed.
39. Canada and Alberta both have legislation which prescribes a requirement to report annually on compliance with legislation and directives for Commercial Crowns.
40. Manitoba and Canada prescribe requirements to report periodically on the discharge of value for money responsibilities.
41. Ontario and Canada require Commercial Crowns to report annually to the legislature on performance related to objectives for the year just completed.
42. Alberta, Manitoba and Canada require the Commercial Crowns' annual reports to be tabled in the legislature.
43. Manitoba and Canada require the establishment of audit committees of the boards of Commercial Crowns.
44. Newfoundland and Quebec prescribe some of the above noted requirements by way of order in council.
45. In Alberta, Audit Committees of the Board may prescribe certain of the requirements listed above.
46. Prince Edward Island has no requirement for information and explanations to be provided to the auditor. It does, however, require that such material be provided to the legislative auditor.
47. Access to information by the legislative auditor of Canada is dictated through the Auditor General Act. In the event that the legislative auditor is no the auditor, information and explanations may not be readily forthcoming.
48. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia do not have provisions for the legislature to control the creation, acquisition or disposal of Commercial Crowns or their subsidiaries.
49. Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island do not have provisions for control of the creation, acquisition or disposal of Crowns or subsidiaries by the government. This may rest with the corporations in the case of subsidiaries.
50. In 4 jurisdictions (Canada, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta) are directors required by legislation to act in the best interests of the corporation and its mandated objectives.
51. Canada, Ontario and PEI consider that information is provided to the legislature to enable the determination of whether corporation have achieved their objectives.
52. In Canada, Newfoundland, Ontario and Saskatchewan, the roles and responsibilities and interrelationships are provided.
53. In 3 jurisdictions (Canada, Nova Scotia and British Columbia) there are different oversight provisions for Crowns which are not profitable than for those which are.
54. In Canada and Newfoundland the PAC reviews, at least occasionally, the activities of each Crown.
55. Quebec disbanded the PAC in 1984.
56. In Canada, as part of the Public Accounts, Crown annual reports are referred to the PAC.
57. Canada and PEI maintain terms of reference for the PAC to encompass Crown corporation issues and Ontario provides the mechanism through the public accounts and provincial auditor's annual reports.
58. In Newfoundland, the PAC scrutinizes the divestiture and creation processes, if requested to do so and in Ontario, the divestiture and creation processes are examined but not as standard practice.
59. In Manitoba, the legislative auditor, if not the appointed auditor, may be present to defend the audit or answer questions.
60. British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Manitoba consider that the PAC does not consider it has sufficient access to information to scrutinize Crowns.
61. Alberta considers the question open to interpretation.
62. Alberta, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Newfoundland have no provisions for legislative committees to review divestitures.
63. Nova Scotia and British Columbia have no provisions for other legislative committees to review Crown corporations issues.
64. Manitoba and Ontario consider that there is adequate coordination among committees.
65. PEI considers that debate of supply alone adequately addresses issues of interest to various committees.
66. Canada, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan consider that all Crown corporations are subject to standing committee and oversight within their jurisdictions.
67. Alberta indicates a difference of opinion respecting the answers to these last questions.
68. PEI considers that legislative committees should not necessarily examine all aspects of corporate management in addition to the fulfilment of corporate and policy objectives.
69. Only Canada considers that divestitures should not be scrutinized by the PAC as other legislative committees handle this function.
70. While 8 jurisdictions indicated a desire for consistency in an accountability regime for Crowns, a number of comments were provided as clarification.

Canada: Accountability regimes should be consistent within specified categories but not necessarily across the corporate spectrum (this is essentially what Newfoundland said in its negative response).

Nova Scotia: There should be general legislation applicable to all corporations to help achieve uniformity in accountability and improve the understanding and responsibility assigned to Board members. Consideration might be made to the federal FAA model.

Prince Edward Island: A consistent accountability framework is essential in determining if an entity is achieving its goals and objectives with due regard for economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

Ontario: Consistency through each Ministry's Estimates process.

Quebec: A uniform regime is difficult to achieve due to the diversified nature of the Crowns.

Manitoba: Consistency in reporting will likely ensure a minimum level of accountability below which no Crown corporation may fall.

Saskatchewan and British Columbia: No elaboration provided.
71. Newfoundland believes a distinction should be made between departmental and the other three categories of Crowns.
72. No response was provided from Alberta.

[ Return to: Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees Home Page ]

Copyright © 1996: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada