There is no denying that the annual federal budget is a massive collection of departmental spending planned for the coming year and that keeping track of how taxpayers’ dollars are doled out is no easy task.
Still, the method by which the House of Commons reviews spending and provides accountability to the public has plenty of room for improvements, says a committee report released this month.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is an all-party committee of MPs that began a study early this year aimed at making scrutiny of spending easier for standing committees of Parliament.
Noting that earlier reports calling for updates to the system had led to virtually no changes in what is described as an antiquated review system, the committee devised a report that looks to “make focused and modest recommendations that will result in progress in select areas.”
The findings basically back up the position of parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, who in recent weeks has told Parliament that government departments are not providing enough information to enable him to properly do his job.
Page has also called on improvements to the flow of budget information to the standing committees tasked with reviewing the estimates, which are the spending details that implement the intentions laid out in departmental budgets.
The government operations committee, in its new report, has, in turn, called on the government to review Page’s role to possibly strengthen the office.
While earlier reports called for but did not result in changes, the committee has made it clear it will follow up its report “to ensure that the government has made progress in implementing the recommendations directed to it and that standing committees are fulfilling their responsibilities in holding the government to account for economical, efficient and effective use of public funds.”
Part of the problem, the report acknowledges, stems from the parliamentary requirement that committees must approve spending within a certain time frame, otherwise a vote against budget spending stands as a non-confidence vote in a government.
“Nonetheless, the committee believes that the scrutiny and approval of the government’s spending plans is one of the fundamental roles of Parliament and that there are a variety of ways that the parliamentary processes, estimates information and capacity available to members can be improved,” says the report’s conclusion.
The Canadian Press reported this week that not a single standing committee was able to finish its review of government estimates during the spring session this year because the estimates are arriving too late to enable committees to undertaken their work and the parliamentary clock ran out on committee meetings.
In the end, the official record merely indicates that committees were “deemed” to have reviewed the departmental spending even when they were unable to complete their work.
Mike Wallace, who is the Conservative vice-chairman of the committee, told The Canadian Press that the method of review is decades old but there is no reason why it cannot be improved. The committee has brought forward 16 recommendations and wants answers from the government by next spring.
“We want some change,” said Wallace. “We will be keeping the government’s feet to the fire on it to see if we can implement some of these changes.”
There is no argument that the government has the mandate to determine how to spend taxpayers’ money. That’s why we have elections. But when an out-of-date review system makes it nearly impossible for Parliament to even access that spending information, much less properly review it, then action is warranted.
The all-party committee has put meaningful, reasonable recommendations on the table. The government should get cracking on putting them in place to provide the sort of accountability that has been long promised — but not yet delivered — to Canadian taxpayers.
Original Article
Source: the chronicle herald
Author: MARILLA STEPHENSON
Only problem is, the Harperites are directly responsible for that lack of information; it is an integral part of their agenda and strategy of keeping any oversight away, and shun any attempt to hold them accountable.
ReplyDelete