STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS
Thursday 16 December 2004 Jeudi 16 décembre 2004
The committee met at 1053 in committee room 1, following a closed session.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Mr Norman W. Sterling): The subcommittee of our public accounts committee met yesterday with a view of choosing which areas of the auditor's report we wanted to consider in our hearings, which we normally do each year. We usually take nine areas of the auditor's report, call the ministries in and have them explain what they're doing to meet the criticism in the auditor's report, and then we write a report back to the ministry indicating what we think should be done and how we want them to report to us in the future with regard to the matters raised.
You can see the selections of the subcommittee on the report that's before you. There are nine sections chosen there. They include: section 3.01, Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, Ministry of the Attorney General; section 3.04, air quality program, and section 3.05, groundwater program, Ministry of the Environment; section 3.08, independent health facilities, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; section 3.09, employment rights and responsibilities program, Ministry of Labour; section 3.13, media tax credits, Ontario Media Development Corp and Ministries of Culture and Finance; section 3.14, maintenance of the provincial highway system, Ministry of Transportation; section 4.04, long-term-care facilities activity, Ministry of Health and Long-Term-Care; and chapter 5, stranded debt of the electricity sector, Ministry of Finance.
Do we want to have a motion, then, by a member to accept the recommendations of the subcommittee as to the sections which the committee looks into? Julia, do you want to move that motion?
Mrs Julia Munro (York North): OK.
The Chair: Seconded by Laurel. Is everyone in favour? Carried.
Interjection.
The Chair: Which one?
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Having the committee meet right through Thursday.
The Chair: Yes. Since the House is returning from February 15 to March 9, because this is an unusual time for the committee to sit, the members of the subcommittee had some conversations as to how we should structure our hearings this year. Normally we would sit sort of in the second and third or the third and fourth weeks of February to have extended hearings on the nine different matters which we have just chosen. There was some feeling by one or two members of the subcommittee that one of the problems we had was, by the time we received the report on a matter we had heard in February -- we received the report in June of the year. Some members had a disconnect between the hearing we had in February and when they received the report. So there was some desire to bring together the reports that the research people were preparing for us and the actual hearing, so that people would have a better recall with regard to that. Maybe some of us who are getting a little older have that problem a little more than the younger people.
But the other part was that because there's essentially a six-week break between January 1 and February 15, many members of the assembly and this committee had already made plans with regard to when they were going to take a vacation etc. So we thought we would try, rather than having hearings during the intersession, to plan our meetings on Thursdays for the three weeks between February 15 and March 9, having one ministry each week. Rather than at 10 o'clock, we would begin our meetings at 9, go to 1, have lunch perhaps served while we're going through that meeting and then, if necessary, we would meet after question period. Hopefully, it won't be needed in many cases, but it might be needed where we wanted to examine or talk to the ministry further.
We thought we would try that for a three-week basis, and then if we wanted to alter the pattern of doing that, we might consider coming back in the week before March 29, when the Legislature is going to resume. We might also consider after that time that we would just continue on with the process that we're developing.
That was the thought in terms of how we would carry on for the first three sessions, going through February 15 to March 9.
Mr Patten: That sounds good. I agree with starting earlier and moving into the 1 o'clock period. The only thing I suggest is that it prejudices the members who don't live in the Toronto area who try to get back to their riding. Now they can't, because they're away from their riding most of the week, obviously. It knocks out Thursday night, which is a key night because when you're here, it's one of the few nights you can still be meeting with your riding association or whatever it is, plus Friday. I just share that concern.
The Chair: Does the committee agree that we go ahead with that particular scheme at this time? OK. We'll have to get authorization of the House for us to sit during those hours, but we can do that when we come back on February 15.
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Mr Chair, can I just make one point?
The Chair: Yes.
1100
Ms Martel: I was the one who had expressed some concerns about setting that precedent for sitting longer on Thursday. I'm not terribly comfortable with that, but I recognize the dilemma we have in terms of the House sitting in a period where the committee would sit and people's inability to sit earlier in February, which would have been my preference, one day after the other, to get it done.
The only concern I raised in subcommittee -- and there was a general agreement that it would be dealt with -- is that sitting on the same days that we would normally sit to do reports would cut into the time we would have to do nine reports. So we also need to be conscious of the fact that the timing we are establishing may have that effect. If that is going to be the effect, I would want the committee to reconsider the schedule to ensure that what we are not doing is cutting down the number of public hearings we can actually have and the number of chapters we can actually look at.
The Chair: The structure of this committee is probably going to change as we go forward. We had a brief discussion about this as well, as the auditor starts to look into the MUSH sector, the municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals. I think we'll have a general discussion about it, but it might be advantageous to the committee -- and I guess we can discuss this with the auditor -- to have the auditor consider reporting on those particular functions in June, for instance, about six months away from what he does provincially.
This committee may find itself two years hence -- because that's probably the timing we would work into it -- sitting for a week or so in the summer to deal with the MUSH sector, and we'd be sitting in February to deal with the provincial aspect of the auditor. So I think there will be a little bit of structural change as we go forward, but I just put that forward as a possibility.
Mr Jim McCarter: If I can just interject, just so you're aware of the background, the way the new Audit Act works is it doesn't really allow us to go in and audit hospitals, the MUSH sector, right away. The way the act is phrased, we can't look at any dollars retroactively; it's only dollars spent essentially once the act is passed. So there's probably no point to us going in until the fall, at the earliest. You're going to have six months' worth of expenditures. Typically, on our value-for-money audits, it takes eight or nine months to do the work, to get through the reporting process and everything.
I had mentioned yesterday that the way the Audit Act is written, it allows the auditor to table one annual report a year. However, there is a section that says that if there is a matter of such urgency that the auditor wants to table another report, the auditor can table a report. So there is that avenue.
I kind of threw it out on the table yesterday that one route would be -- this is getting pretty big as it is -- if we have some audits on the MUSH sector, maybe it would make sense to table a second report, if it would be the wish of the committee to table that at a different time.
The Chair: That's certainly something we'll take under consideration. The new Audit Act has been passed, but it hasn't been proclaimed, I don't think. Or does it kick into effect automatically on April 1?
Mr McCarter: I think it has been. I think it's the other one, the advertising one, that has not been proclaimed yet. It has had third reading but not been proclaimed yet.
The Chair: So it automatically kicks in on April 1.
The following sections, in terms of the subcommittee, would be the first ones to be considered: The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, the independent health facilities. and the stranded debt of the electricity sector. We had another one, a fourth one, long-term-care facilities activity. So we thought we would name four -- Julia?
Mrs Munro: I think the "or" in there was simply the fact that we had potentially two from the same ministry. The idea was that if that represented a problem, to have two from the same ministry in the course of three weeks, the "or" is there. It would be the independent health facilities or the stranded debt.
The Chair: I think the best idea would be to put four out and see what they can schedule for us and for the committee. The clerk can report back to me as to how those negotiations are going and we'll plan for three of the four, beginning the week of February 15. Is that agreeable to everyone? OK.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair: That takes care of all of the business, I believe. Oh, yes. There was some question as to whether or not the committee wanted to prepare a report on the intensive early intervention program for children with autism. As you know, we had a report prepared by the auditor. We had the ministry in. It has not been the normal practice to prepare reports in those cases, but I thought I would raise the issue with you as to whether or not the committee chose to do so. Any comments?
Mrs Munro: I appreciate the fact that it hasn't been the practice to do that, but I think a lot of issues were left dangling in the public hearing part of the process. I wonder if, rather than a report, we couldn't ask that the ministry report back to us. It's not unusual for us to do that with regard to things in the auditor's report. It seems to me that when they came, they already knew the issues around the two methods of delivery of service, the question of even including the subcontractors in their meetings. I think it would be appropriate to determine a timeline and they should be responsible for coming back to us on specific issues that we raised, as opposed to a report.
Mr Patten: That makes sense. The ministry is now in charge. It's brand new. They've been working like crazy. They're a very small ministry. This is, as you know, very complicated, based on trying to respond to a totally inadequate database, which they're working on. I think they just need time to put the things in place and respond to it. So I would certainly support that.
The Chair: Shelley, did you have a comment?
Ms Martel: Two things: There was information that I requested on behalf of the committee, and I've been in contact with Cynthia Lees several times to find out when that is coming. I got a voicemail message from her yesterday saying that the package is complete and should be coming to the committee by tomorrow. So information about questions that I raised will be coming back to everybody and will be available in January.
It's true we haven't done a report on the special reports that have been done, so that would be a little bit out of practice. We haven't had very many, but of the two in the last four years, we didn't do any response. I think it would be interesting to have them come back, and I wonder if we can put in our heads a potential timeline for that, whether or not that is something that we can, as a committee, agree to doing before we recess in the June session. Is that a possibility? That would give them a number of months to respond to what was raised. In fairness, we should do that, and if we look for some opportunity in June, if that's a possibility, I think that would give them enough time to work toward that and try and make some of the corrections that need to be made.
Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax): I just want to take the opportunity to agree with Ms Martel of the NDP, since I don't often do that.
The Chair: So what is the desire of the committee? Do we want to have the ministry back to report to us on their progress? What's the timing here?
Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Six months, I guess it would be.
The Chair: From when they were in front of us.
Ms Broten: Perhaps what we could do is have the clerk or yourself, Chair, write a letter thanking them for coming back, indicating that the committee continues to have an interest in pursuing the follow-up of the developments in this area and it is our intention to ask them to come back approximately six months from the time that they came. As we look at our schedule, we can perhaps target one of our last meetings before the end of the session as an opportunity for them to come and provide us with an update.
1110
The Chair: Why don't I say they should be prepared to come in late May or early June? Because we don't know how long the session's going to last. I'll write that letter on behalf of the committee then, OK?
Ms Broten: Thank you.
The Chair: Is there any further business?
Mr David Zimmer (Willowdale): I just have a question to Jim. At the meeting in Fredericton of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees, did they generate any papers or hard copy --
Mr McCarter: I can only speak from the auditor's side. We do minutes and things like that for the auditors' meeting. Typically what happens is we have the general session and then it is split up. Basically the public accounts committees met and then the auditors met. For the auditors' meetings we have minutes --
Mr Zimmer: But there are no articles or papers or anything?
Mr McCarter: There are no articles or papers.
Mr Zimmer: It sounded like a very interesting topic, and I thought there might be some articles on the material that was presented.
The Chair: What's that institution in Ottawa?
Mr McCarter: The Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Zimmer: The Management Institute?
The Chair: No, the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation in Ottawa. The committee might want to talk to them at some point in time in terms of what their ideas are with regard to the whole process of the committee. They seem to have one presentation.
One of the frustrations you find when you talk to some of our colleagues is that a lot of the provinces aren't even into value-for-money audits and therefore their experience in this area isn't that great. Some of the provinces don't have any research help with regard to their committee. Nova Scotia, for instance, appears to be very keen in the whole area, but they're not producing any reports because their committee doesn't have the help of researchers to construct the report.
It was really driven home to me how important the researchers are to this particular committee in producing work and actually encouraging the ministries to respond to the auditor's report.
I don't know; maybe we should be looking further afield. I understand there's a conference in February in Australia that I know all members of the committee would like to send their Chair to.
Ms Martel: Chair, can I just raise a point of order before we leave? On behalf of all the committee, I'd like to congratulate Jim McCarter for his appointment. We look forward to continuing to work with you.
Applause.
Mr McCarter: It's a great honour to have the responsibility, and I have to say it's a great committee to work with.
The Chair: I'd just say for the purposes of Hansard, there was applause from almost everybody.
Mr Zimmer: Just a question maybe to the legislative research folks: Is it possible for someone to do up a literature review on public accounts issues?
Mr Ray McLellan: You're saying nationwide or Ontario?
Mr McCarter: Or worldwide?
Mr Zimmer: Whatever catches your eye. I want to start reading into the whole issue. I don't need the literature, just a list of materials that I can --
Mr McLellan: Current literature?
Mr Zimmer: Yes.
Mr Patten: Some of the issues that are dealt with in the Canadian jurisdictions, for example, would be a good start.
Mr Zimmer: Yes, and where I can find the stuff.
Mrs Munro: In the parliamentary review, if that's the right name for it, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Review, I've certainly come across articles over the years that deal with this issue. I think the Chair's comments about the difference between us and other provinces make it difficult in the sense that it's not always an apples-to-apples kind of comparison, but if you look at some of the other Commonwealth jurisdictions, there I think you get into some of the issues. I know the auditors have looked at issues like value for money, the questions of governments privatizing services. I assume that's the kind of thing you're talking about.
Mr Zimmer: Yes. What I'm looking for -- and I don't know if it's the auditor who does it, or the research folks -- is a reading list.
Mrs Munro: Yes, but I think the Commonwealth areas are the best ones.
Mr McCarter: There's some information out there, for instance, on best practices for public accounts committees.
Mr Zimmer: Can somebody organize that?
Mr McLellan: I will. There was an article recently in the Institute of Public Administration's journal by John Malloy up at Carleton. He did a comparative overview of public accounts committees across --
Mr Zimmer: That's probably a good place to start.
Mr McLellan: I think we had talked about this actually during the summer, and there were a few areas. I don't know how accurate they are, but anyway that's a very good overview of provincial committees.
Mr Zimmer: I'll start there, then, if you can get me the citation before Christmas.
Mr McCarter: There is quite a difference. The auditors kind of look to Ontario and the feds as being fortunate, because our public accounts committees are very active relative to the other jurisdictions. We're sort of looked upon as, "You lucky guys" -- you know?
Mr Zimmer: Thank you. I can start there.
Mr McLellan: I will get that to you.
The Chair: The other one that would be interesting, Ray and Elaine, would be to find out, are there in fact any other jurisdictions doing the equivalent of the MUSH sector?
Mr McCarter: There are some jurisdictions that have the ability to go in and look at the MUSH sector. I know a number of jurisdictions are much more -- our work is about 75% value-for-money. We are way at the value-for-money end, as opposed to a number of jurisdictions who have the ability to go to hospitals, but they do a financial statement audit.
To be honest, the auditors are meeting for a couple of days in January, and one of the things that I was going to raise was, who else is doing work in this area? Maybe there's some latitude for two or three of the auditors to get together and do work in areas, in a hospital.
The Chair: The interesting part for me in terms of that whole area is comparative accounting. When the auditor's looking at the province of Ontario, there really isn't another comparison that we can look to and say, "How are we doing?" because the regions across Canada are so diverse. But when you get to comparing the Ottawa Hospital to the Toronto General Hospital, a school board to a school board, a college to a college or whatever it is, there will be more opportunity, I'm sure, for that kind of thing to occur. It's going to be difficult to set how those benchmarks are going to be accepted.
Mr McCarter: I'd be interested in your thoughts on this, but one of the things I would be interested in is if there were two or three other Auditors General who had the mandate to do, say, hospitals or school boards, and let's say the three of us said -- just pick something like emergency room management. If three other jurisdictions decided to do it, that might be a very interesting report too, from that perspective as well. But I'm not sure about the interest of my colleagues, because we're very value-for-money oriented here in Ontario.
Mr Zimmer: That's a good place to start.
The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1118.
CONTENTS
Thursday 16 December 2004
Subcommittee report P-263
Committee business P-264
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Chair / Président
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / York-Nord PC)
Ms Laurel C. Broten (Etobicoke-Lakeshore L)
Mr Jim Flaherty (Whitby-Ajax PC)
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt ND)
Mr Bill Mauro (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Mrs Julia Munro (York North / York-Nord PC)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre / Ottawa-Centre L)
Mrs Liz Sandals (Guelph-Wellington L)
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Lanark-Carleton PC)
Mr David Zimmer (Willowdale L)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton L)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Jim McCarter, Auditor General
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Mr Ray McLellan, research officer
Ms Elaine Campbell, research officer
Research and Information Services