Comparative Jurisdictional Implementation Survey -- Introduction

CANADIAN COUNCIL OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEES

Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees

Guidelines for Public Accounts Committees in Canada

and

Improving Accountability: Canadian Public Accounts Committees and Legislative Auditors

Comparative Jurisdictional
Implementation Survey

Prepared by

Craig James
Executive Secretary
Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees

and

Clerk of Committees
and
Second Clerk Assistant
Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, British Columbia
V8V 1X4

INTRODUCTION

Prompted by the Conference of Legislative Auditors, the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees was formed in 1979 with the following objectives:: -- to facilitate the exchange of information and opinion relating to public accounts committees and to discuss matters of mutual concern;; -- to improve the quality and performance of public accounts committees in Canada to ensure that taxpayers are getting value for their money;; -- to work with legislative auditors so as to improve the effectiveness of both the auditors and the public accounts committees;; -- to work with individuals and organizations knowledgeable about matters of concern to public accounts committees; and; -- to educate the elected members, the media and the general public as to the purposes and activities of public, accounts committees. [from the Constitution]

Every public accounts committee in Canada including Quebec's Committee on Budget and Administration is a member of the Council, which meets yearly, separate but coincident with, the annual meeting of the Conference of Legislative Auditors. These meetings afford delegates with the opportunity to present their views in both formal and informal business sessions related to the performance of their respective public accounts committee as well as a joint session between the two organizations primarily reflecting upon the expectations each has of the other.

In 1981, the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation published Improving Accountability: Canadian Public Accounts Committees and Legislative Auditors,

examining Canadian public accounts committees and legislative auditors providing detailed comparative descriptions of their individual characteristics and operations. It also identifies those features that seem to contribute to effective operation and makes recommendations for general adoption of useful features found in the various jurisdictions. Recognizing the differing practices and traditions of Canadian legislatures, the recommendations are usually framed in terms of general objectives rather than as specific actions to be taken.

In keeping with the Foundation's overall approach, the report is essentially practical rather than theoretical. It concentrates on what is being done and on what experience shows can be done, not on what might exist in a perfect world. Its goal is to provide a handy reference for members of Public Accounts Committees and legislative auditors in the ongoing discharge of their important responsibilities. (p.vi).

There are 69 recommendations which every public accounts committee in Canada and each legislative auditor's office should entertain on a systematic basis.

An Advisory Committee consisting of elected members, accountants, academics and a former Clerk of the House of Commons travelled the country and after hearing the views of at least 64 witnesses, published the 133 page report which has been circulated on numerous occasions to all public accounts committees, legislative auditors, accountants and interested students of the parliamentary process.

In 1987, the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees decided to provoke further discussion surrounding the impact of public accounts committees, generally, by establishing a subcommittee charged with the responsibility of developing guidelines of a model Public Accounts Committee in Canada. This subcommittee substantially completed its work in 1988 when, after consulting with its members and reporting to the Council at its annual meeting, passed the effort onto Newfoundland which primarily was responsible for the final production entitled, Guidelines for Public Accounts Committees in Canada. The 59 guidelines presented in the report represent in many cases, a philosophy, with which each jurisdiction is free to differ and implement accordingly. At the Council's annual meeting in July 1990, members decided to adopt the report as a 'working document' only, with subsequent yearly reviews. In reality this is all that can happen with the report since, as the reader will be aware, no outside body including the Council, can make decisions binding individual parliaments to act in a certain manner. In the absence of any real official status behind the report, the Council seems to be of the opinion that, as was the case with Improving Accountability ..., each jurisdiction review on a periodic basis the appropriateness of every guideline. This action may fulfill some of the concepts contained in Parliamentary Practice by Sir Erskine May which, in part, state that:

The Committee does not seek to concern itself with policy; its interest is in whether policy is carried out efficiently, effectively and economically. Its main functions are to see that public moneys are applied for the purposes prescribed by Parliament, that extravagance and waste are minimized and that sound financial practices are encouraged in estimating and contracting and in administration, generally. (20th.ed.p.728).

This Survey provides an implementation comparison among Canadian jurisdictions of both Improving Accountability. Canadian Public Accounts Committees and Legislative Auditors and Guidelines for Public Accounts Committees in Canada. The reader should be aware that each jurisdiction is not compelled to implement any or all of the guidelines or recommendations from either document. It should be noted that the survey headings Implemented, Sometimes Implemented and Not Yet Implemented were devised even though, as stated before, many of the statements surround philosophy, in the case of the Guidelines ... . Under each item there is no attempt to explain agreement or disagreement other than in the Explanatory Notes, prepared by each jurisdiction. The reader is left to draw their own conclusions respecting the information contained in this report. I submit only one caveat: deciphering the degree of implementation cannot in itself foretell committee effectiveness -- that remains in the substance of each committee report to its House.

In 1984, the National Assembly of Quebec abolished its Public Accounts Committee and shared out its traditional functions between eight standing committees. Meanwhile, even if these committees are not structured and do not operate like a typical PAC, they do share several of their functions. Therefore, the answers for Quebec must be seen as an assessment of both the implementation of the Guidelines ... and their compatibility with its proceedings.

It is evident that each public accounts committee operates separately and distinctly from their counterparts throughout Canada and comparisons as to operational effectiveness are misleading.

It may be of significant value to each public accounts committee in Canada that the future annual meetings of the Council include specific business sessions devoted to elements contained in both of the documents surveyed in this report.

Contents . . . Next

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