Opening Statement to the Subcommittee on the Estimates Process of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

26 February 2003

Maria Barrados, Ph.D
Assistant Auditor General

The Estimates documents

As you are aware, the Main Estimates are divided into three parts:

• Part I provides an overview of the government's spending for the new fiscal year and describes the relationship of the Estimates to the government's Expenditure Plan (as set out in the Budget).

• Part II directly supports the Appropriation Act by identifying the spending authorities (votes) and providing a detailed listing of the budgetary and statutory expenditures for all departments and agencies.

• Part III of the Estimates are split into two documents, departmental Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPPs) and Performance Reports (DPRs):
  • Reports on Plans and Priorities provide information on the plans and priorities of departments and agencies and how resources entrusted to them will contribute to the achievement of their strategic outcomes.
  • Departmental Performance Reports provide information on the results that programs have delivered over several years and on whether progress is being made in attaining performance targets, including strategic outcomes.

Standing committees can use the planning and performance information in RPPs and DPRs to

• examine the overall direction of public policy,
• assess the use of resources to achieve results, and
• suggest where priorities should be adjusted or where resources should be reallocated.

Powers available to standing committees

Standing committees have a number of powers available to them when examining the Estimates, which are often not fully used.

• They can call departmental and agency officials to appear before the committees. Committees can question officials on technical, administrative issues related to the Estimates. Rigorous questioning of officials in a public forum can make a difference.
• They can issue reports on the Estimates and matters related to the management and operation of departments and agencies. While committees cannot issue substantive reports on the Estimates themselves, they can include substantive comments in committee reports on DPRs and RPPs.
• They can suggest the reduction or rejection of a vote. This is a rarely used power that can have symbolic impact.

Effective review of the Estimates

In order to make their review of the Estimates more effective, standing committees can do the following:

• have committee members carefully examine the Estimates and the RPPs and DPRs to identify areas of interest or concern;
• develop a set of priority areas for questioning, possibly in a planning meeting, before the review of the Estimates and the appearance of witnesses;
• have researchers prepare technical, administrative questions, which are forwarded by the chair to departmental officials before their appearance in front of the committee;
• select a specific program or business line of interest to committee members for careful scrutiny;
• use the independent information and expertise available from other organizations—such as industry groups, interested parties, and the Office of the Auditor General—to support the committees' work;
• engage other stakeholders in the discussion of the Estimates and RPPs and DPRs;
• encourage departments and agencies to provide the type of information in the RPPs and DPRs in a way that meets the committee's needs;
• tie the high-level information provided in the Estimates documents to more detailed information, usually available through electronic links.

The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates could set an example for other committees on how to examine the Estimates and the RPPs and DPRs.

Questions to ask officials

We have prepared a handout with possible questions that committees could use to question officials from departments and agencies. We have identified five areas that committees may want to pursue. Committees can ask questions about

• government policy and direction,
• what has been accomplished with the tax dollars and authorities provided by Parliament,
• better ways of delivering results,
• how the program is being delivered, and
• the usefulness of the Estimates documents.

The Office of the Auditor General can help

There are several ways the OAG can help parliamentary committees review spending plans, past performance and other management issues:

• Office staff can describe the results of audits to committees or committee staff if they are still relevant;
• the Office endeavors to monitor committee interests and concerns and plan its work to provide information that is timely and relevant;
• the Auditor General and other senior representatives of the Office are available to appear as witnesses;
• the Office reports on the quality, fairness, and reliability of selected Departmental Performance Reports; and
• the Office can help parliamentarians by offering briefings to parliamentary committees on subject matters of interest, including the functioning of government, the information available to them, and approaches for scrutinizing the Estimates documents.

We have examined estimates practices in other jurisdictions and are following them with interest. In 1997, we noted that legislators in other jurisdictions in Canada and abroad were using performance information because they had recognized the need to find ways to make the review of this information more meaningful.

I would like to remind the committee that we are revising and reissuing a document we originally released in 1998, Parliamentary Committee Review of the Estimates Documents. We are hoping to have this document ready to give to parliamentarians by the end of March. Much of the information I have discussed today is contained in this document.

Questions that standing committees could ask officials

In reviewing Reports on Plans and Priorities and Departmental Performance Reports, committees could ask the following questions.

Government policy and direction

Are the strategic outcomes (objectives) and costs of the program reasonable?

• Would taxpayers agree that these are wise investments and the right priorities?
• Does the program and its objectives continue to make sense in today's context?
• Is the level of resources appropriate?
• Are the risks, challenges and the course of action adequately discussed?

Are the strategic outcomes (objectives) and costs of the program clearly described and linked with other horizontal results?

• Is the program's overall direction clear?
• Is it clear what planned results are to be achieved in the short, medium and long terms, by when, and at what cost?
• Is it clear what would have to be accomplished for the program to be judged a success?
• Is the program adequately linked to the related horizontal results of other programs?

Accomplishments with the tax dollars and authorities provided by Parliament

Has the program delivered the planned results?

• Is there a logical, credible link between the outputs (services provided) and the planned outcomes?
• Is the program achieving its strategic outcome and planned results?
• Is the program sustainable in light of the risks and challenges?
• Is the evidence presented relevant and reliable?

Is the financial information adequate?

• Is it clear what has been and will be spent on the program?
• Are significant year-to-year variations in expenditure or revenue explained?

Was the program's contribution to the results achieved explained well?

• Were things other than the program's activities—for example, external economic and social factors, —that could affect the results discussed?
• Are the measures used to report results clear and reasonable?

Better ways of delivering results

Could the program be managed more efficiently?

• Can the program be redesigned to produce the same result at less cost or to produce better results for the same cost?

Could the results be delivered more effectively?

• Has the right balance been achieved among the various delivery instruments (for example, policy, regulation, and direct program delivery)
• Would collaborating with other levels of government or the private sector be more effective?

Delivery of the program

Was the program managed with proper attention to fairness, propriety and sustainable development?

• Is there assurance that public sector values and ethics are integrated in management controls, for example, codes of conduct?
• Does performance information provide assurance of fairness in service delivery?
• Is the sustainable development strategy effective?

Usefulness of the Estimates documents

Could the documents be made more useful for the committees' policy and legislative agenda?

• Would including additional information in the Estimates documents be useful?
• Have the departments responded to previous committee suggestions and recommendations?