March 5, 2007

Demands for Government Accountability

In the news release that accompanied the release of then Auditor General Wayne Strelioff's March 2006 report titled "Building Better Reports: Our Assessment of the 2004/05 Annual Service Plan Reports of Government", he said: "While some Crown agency reports are coming close to telling a complete performance story, ministry reports and the government-wide report continue to fall well short." A new set of Service Plans were released with the February 2007 budget, and they show that nothing has changed since Strelioff leveled that criticism.

The Campbell government's 2006 Strategic Plan offered a performance measure for greenhouse gas emissions that relied on relative ranking: "In 2003 B.C. had the third lowest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in Canada (behind PEI and Quebec). While it is important to improve our standing within Canada, it's also important to look beyond Canada for comparison purposes and examine how others, for example, Washington and Oregon, are doing. B.C. currently has more greenhouse gas emissions per capita than Oregon, but less than Washington. The 2015/16 target is to improve B.C.'s ranking." After the "green" 2007 Throne Speech, the 2007 Strategic Plan was released with a note that said: "In 2007, B.C. will establish a new performance measure for greenhouse gas emissions and aggressive, economically viable targets in consultation with private sector organizations and other governments." In other words, the key indicator for the Campbell government's latest theme is yet to be determined.

The government doesn't produce a summary showing what has changed from year to year in its Service Plans; it is necessary to go through each one and compare it to the previous year. It most cases the performance measurements are the same, but occasionally some are dropped and new ones slip in. All Service Plans are supposed to be consistent with government's Strategic Plan. The fifth "great" goal in that Plan is to: "Create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada." Some would argue that is more of a measurement than a goal, but why quibble? In 2006 the Strategic Plan listed seven initiatives related to the fifth goal; in 2007 the fifth goal was stated and discussion about it was limited to how improvements in education will assist in meeting the goal. Does relative silence and change in emphasis when discussing its fifth goal mean that government is planning a shift in its economic strategy concurrent with its shift with respect to global warming? Given the weak reporting standards for the Strategic Plan and Service Plans, we can only guess.

In the past I have criticized the Campbell government for not including infant mortality as a performance measurement in either its Strategic Plan or in the Service Plan for the Ministry of Health. Government has responded that it measures infant mortality, but that misses the point. An indicator that is not specified as a performance measurement doesn't carry the weight of one that is included.

The 2006 Auditor General's recommendations on building better reports refer to "reporting principles" that were discussed in a November 2003 Auditor General's report and endorsed by the Public Accounts Committee. Those principles are:

In his March 2006 report Strelioff said:

He also recommended that: "in addition to ministries and Crown agencies, health authorities, school districts, colleges and universities also be required to produce annual service plans and reports." Health Authorities are budgeted for over $8 billion in 2007-08, yet they escape even minimal accountability. You can find a Service Plan for the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Council with a budget of just $2.3 million, but you can't find one for the six health authorities that will spend over $8 billion.

As is always the case, the Auditor's Report concluded with a response from government. The Ministry of Finance wrote:

In other words, don't hold your breath waiting for legislation while the government is free to interpret reporting requirements as it chooses.

With respect to the Auditor's recommendation that select standing committees of the legislature annually review Service Plans and Annual Reports, the Ministry of Finance wrote:

Let's hope that financial information released by the Ministry of Finance is more accurate than its representation of how the Legislature works. Questions about Service Plans cannot be raised "at any time" in the Legislature. Strict rules determine how time is allocated in the Legislature and when any particular subject is in order. The government should be held accountable during question period, but it is "question period", not answer period, and seldom does the Opposition receive answers to its questions. It is also not true that "any Select Standing Committee of the Legislature has the option of including" anything in its terms of reference. The government, or to be precise a majority of the legislature (which means the government), determines the terms of reference for all Legislative Committees.

The Ministry of Finance also wrote: "Any changes to current legislative processes are best addressed by members of the legislature." The Campbell government doesn't seem to get the point that the job of the Auditor includes making recommendations with respect to Legislative processes; the Campbell government's response amounted to telling Strelioff to take a hike! That is why the response of the NDP members of the Education Committee with respect to the review of literacy is so important. Its Minority Report was organized so as to structure the debate in terms of the requirements of government reporting: goals, actions, performance measurements and annual reports. The rules of the BC Legislature do not allow minority reports, but in making an exception to allow the tabling of this report, the government recognized that it would receive public attention one way or the other. Unfortunately, it appears to have escaped the attention of many in the media. The NDP has shown that it can follow the advice of the Auditor and use the framework for better reporting and better accountability; now it needs to continue by restructuring the way it approaches Legislative debate. The NDP can drag the government into an era of greater accountability, particularly if the media and the public demand that the government answer reasonable questions.

Strelioff wrote: "The production of performance reports does not guarantee that performance will be scrutinized and government held accountable. For robust scrutiny by legislators of performance, time is required to discuss planned and actual performance." While the Campbell government can refuse to allow Legislative Committees to review performance reports, it cannot stop the NDP from using the estimates process to review Service Plans and performance. The estimates process consumes a large portion of the time allocated for debate in the Legislature. It is the ministry by ministry review of spending plans, and it is the perfect place to begin Legislative reform by focusing on the recommendations of the Auditor General.