Public Accounts Committees Shouldn’t Go In-Camera. It’s Not Right.

Unique status and role of Public Accounts Committee needs to be shielded from raw politics



Geoff Dubrow – October 31, 2011

When the pundits start weighing in on the machinations of the Public Accounts Committee, it’s usually a bad sign (See The Hill Times, Spin Doctors, Oct. 17, p. 22). As the audit committee of the legislature, the Public Accounts Committee is mandated to review reports of the auditor general, and is supposed to function in a manner less partisan than other committees.

That is certainly the case in other prominent legislatures. In the U.K., government and opposition members often collaborate in questioning accounting officers appearing before the Public Accounts Committee; in the Quebec National Assembly, federalists and separatists put aside their varying political viewpoints and work almost entirely by consensus. 

Photograph by Jake Wright, The Hill Times
Public eye: NDP MP David Christopherson chairs the House Public Accounts Committee. His committee was recently forced in-camera and when the committee emerged, consideration of an auditor general’s report that had begun in the previous Parliament was no longer on the agenda. This is indeed an unusual practice.

Contrast this reality with the observation of Conservative strategist Fred DeLorey, one of The Hill Times’ Spin Doctors, who said “it wouldn’t be fair to the members on the committee, nor to the Canadians who elected them, to expect them to agree with reports written by the Liberal Party.”

Consistent with the idea of consensus, committee reports in Public Accounts Committees are drafted by the committee researchers, discussed extensively by the committee, and adopted wherever possible by consensus. Committee reports are rarely owned by one party.
A couple of the Spin Doctors stated their concerns about the fact that a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee was recently forced in-camera and that when the committee emerged, consideration of an auditor general’s report that had begun in the previous Parliament was no longer on the agenda.

This is indeed an unusual practice. The guidelines of the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees suggest that in-camera meetings should be held to reduce, not increase partisanship. The guidelines suggest that in-camera meetings are appropriate when discussing and adopting committee reports, holding briefings on subjects for review by the committee, discussing personnel matters and planning long-term strategies. The guidelines suggest that hearings should be held in public, and should only go in-camera “when evidence of a particularly sensitive nature is given.”

As an oversight committee, the PAC does not function like an ordinary legislative committee. The spin doctor who justified the shelving the Auditor General report tabled in the last Parliament stated that “this isn’t the same PAC committee from the previous Parliament.”

This should not affect the work of PAC in this Parliament.  While legislative committees cannot resurrect draft bills that died on the Order Paper in previous Parliaments, there is no statute of limitations for PACs in dealing with auditor general reports. Reports of the auditor general of Canada are permanently referred to the Public Accounts Committee for the express purpose that the committee retains the right to review them.

It is not unusual for Public Accounts Committees to grapple with reports from previous legislative sessions or to have a backlog of auditor general reports to review. The committee’s mandate to review inefficiencies in the execution of government programs should not be affected by a Parliamentary election. The PAC in one province—Manitoba—recently cleared a five year backlog of auditor general reports that spanned the life of several legislatures.

Particularly during an economic downturn, Public Accounts Committees can play a strong role in ensuring that government departments and agencies are achieving value-for-money by executing programs economically and efficiently. This can best be accomplished by keeping the politics out of the work of the PAC and providing the committee with the independence it requires to support the auditor general in getting the best value-for-money for Canadians.

Geoff Dubrow is an independent consultant with over 10 years experience in strengthening Parliamentary oversight in Canada and abroad.

Original article on Hill Times website (subscription required)