(David McKie, May 19, 2010) Nov 1991 a-G Audit of House of Commons

8/9/2019 (David McKie, May 19, 2010) Nov 1991 a-G Audit of House of Commons

1/57


2/57

VERIFICATEUR GENERAL DU CANADAAUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA

To the Honourable Speaker of the House of Commons:

I have the honour to transmit herewith my Report on the Audit of the House ofCommons Administration.

L. Denis Desautels, FCAAuditor General of Canada

OTTAWA, November 1991


3/57

Table ofContentsINTRODUCTION

Section 1Matters Of Special Importance 1Section 2Characteristics and Recent History 4Section 3Audit Approach 10

AUDITOBSERVATIONSSection 4Management and Decision MakingSection 5House Of Commons Services

1218

Section 6Members' ExpendituresSection 7House Of Commons SecuritySectionS.Basic Administrative Functions

263237

Section 9Managing Employee PerformanceSection 10Summary Of Recommendations :

4247

APPENDICESAppendix 1CorrespondenceAppendix 2Audit CriteriaCover: The Confederation Building of the House ofCommons as reflected in theC.D. Howe Building where the Office ofthe Auditor General is located. Photocourtesy ofIndustry, Science and Technology Canada.


4/57

Section 1Matters"of Special Importance." ' f ' -' .

", ,

''' n, the simplest t,erms. the p u of theI audit of the House ofCommons was toexamine how wcH,the ,House is run, in anadmmiStrative-not political or legislative

s e n s e ~

1.2 1'hisquestion is important because the workof the House of Commons. is important to a11Canadians.' If the House'isweU administered. thework of Members, theHoustand its committees isfacilitated. RecOgoizingtbiso,.theobjective of thisaudit was to 8SSC$St fQrtbe Board of InternalEconomy, whether the systems8Qd pr:actices inplace within the House administration aresatisfactory. This should help the Board improveadministration, w/JerpiQlPrOVtmleQIs art} needed.1.3 Our audit doaltwitb thesupport provided to 'the House by the Oerk of the House, theAdministrator and theSergel;lDt-at-Arms(collectively referred to tbJ'pugbout the report asthe "House administration")., This audit reportdoes not address how the 295 Members ofParliament organized!lnd managed the offiCes,staff and resources made available to them by theHouse or the merits of expenditures they incurred.We did eX!lminesqme ~ ~ 1 d , r ! l Q S 8 c t i o n s todetermine whether m . e t a n l l Q ~ ~ d l D i i : t i s t r a t i o n fmancial procedureS v m a d C q ~ ~ i C . ,' '1.4 ,This is the second auc:til-by the AuditorGeneral'ofHouse administration. The first audit.in 1980, identified serious and longstandingadministrative deficiencies.In response, the Houseadininistratioo,underwent fundamental change inthe early' 1 9 8 ( B ~ By 1983. when we did a(onow-up, we fouod signifiC!lnt progress in almostall arejlS.

1.5 In 1980 we made a series ofrecommendatioos, the implementation of whichdramatically changed the nature of Houseadministration, particularly in the area ofmanagement systems and practices; In 1991 wefound a quite different situation. While ourobservations indicate that a significant number ofareas need improvement - in some cases majorimprovement"":" our observations do not suggestserious, widespread problems. ' .1.6 Still, the recommendations we are makipg. i facted upon, should have a far-reaching effect onHouse administration; one that will ultimatelyfacilitate the work of Members and the House. Inthis section, we highlight issues that we considerto be of particular importance.1.7 House-wide management needs to bestrengthened. Some of thema;t importantobservations and recommendations of this auditdeal with the structure and process ofmanagementin the House (section 4). Deficiencies noted'throughout this report reflect the fact that, in thepast, different parts of the House administrationhave operated relatively independently; .Mechanisms for providing a House:"wideperspective have been weak. A priority in comingyears should be to fa;ter more interaction andco-ordination between the different activities ofthe House administration.1.8 We make a series of recommendations tore-examine and formalize the structure of themanagement committees, and improveinformation, planning and direction. Mostimportantly, these changes should improve thesupport provided to the Boord of InternalEconomy, and facilitate its work. Under the lawas set out in the Parliament of Canada Act, theomeEoFmEAUDlro l l GENERALOF CANADA 1


5/57

AMdlI 01 theHouse ofCommonsAdministration

Board of Ioterna\ Economy is responsible for alladntinJslrative aDdQDancial matters relating toboth Members and the House administration.W J i l l c . ~ a U l ' c S ~ b i U t y for HOwie administrativematters restS with'the Board, it is important torecall that its Members serve part-time and thatmuch of its attention will be taken up on m atterswhich direCtly affect Members. So, with limitedtime available to fulfil its statutory responsibility,the Board must be supported by formal processesand systems, but tbcsc must not be overlycomplicated or bureaucratic.1.9 A Dew apprOltch to Members' expendituresIs needed. The HOIJSC, like all legislatures, has adifficult balancing acL It must provide support toMembers to facilitate their work, but yet do sowith fixed resources. One of the simplest ways isto estabUsb ,pecmc limits and restrictions. Forexample, the House permits Members to sendannually no more than four newsletters, called"householders". Although this no doubt curbswasteful use or misuse, it restricts the Member tosome extenL For example, the Member whothinkS that bimootbly householders are a moreeffective way to communicate than frequent trip;to the constituency.cannot make that choice.1.10 The House has gradually made its rules lessrestrictive, and support more generous. But it hasnot set up a parallel IIJCCbaoism to encourageMembers to use resources and services witheconomy and efficiency.1.11 We believe that the current approaCh toMembers' expenditures needs to be rethought(section 6). The House should implement twomeasures. First, it ~ l provide moreinformation on Members' expenditures; both toMembers, and then to the public. Second, in duecourse, it should extend Members' budgets so thatthey pay for s e r v i ~ n o W paid for directly by theHouse.1.12 UWe information on expenses for eachMember is made available. No doubt, providingthis information to Members would itselfencourage better use of resources. Even betterwould be to disclose this .information to the pUblic.The knowledge that expenditures will bescrutinized wQuld PrQvi.de an added incentive forMembers to use resources well. We recommend a

phased approach that would first provideinformation to each Member, then to the public bythe beginning of the next Parliament.1.13 The second measure we suggest is that, indue course, more services be paid directly fromMembers' Operating Budgets. This would requirethat these budgets be suitably adjusted, afterconsideration of such factors as constituency sizeand distance from Ottawa. Overall spendingwould be limited to that amount. Travel,telecommunications, householders, and printingare potential candidates for inclusion.1.14 There are three substantial benefits thatshould result. First, it would reduce the number ofarbitrary limits needed; the Member who wants toproduce bimonthly householders, and fund this bytravelling less, could do so. Second, it wouldprovide Members with a direct benefit fromeconomizing; every dollar saved would beavailable for use elsewhere in the budget. Lastly, itwould put greater pressure on the House toprovide services economically and efficiently,since their costs would have a direct effect onMembers' funds.1.15 Services meet Members' needs. Anorganization must accomplish its objectives. In thecase of the House administration, we askedMembers and their staff whether services meettheir needs. The results speak for themselves for almost all services, about 90 percent ofrespondents said that their needs were well met(section 5). Clearly, managers and staff of theHouse have reason to be proud of thisaccomplishment.1.16 Efficiency of services varies. Anotherimportant question is whether services aredelivered in an efficient manner. Here, the resultsare mixed (section 5). We found some servicesthat compare favourably to the "well-perfonningorganizations" reported in our 1988 AnnualReport; services that have continually improvedoperations and client services and exhibit goodmanagement practices. We also found some at theother end of the spectrum; where operations areinefficient, and management practices inadequate.One result is that, for a number of services, costsare higher than necessary. A priority cif the Houseadministration should be to bring all services to


6/57

the levelalready achieved by some. In somecases, like printing and messengers, this willrequire a fundamental rethinking of bow theservice is delivered. .1.17 Two Important changes to security areneeded. The provision of security to (X'oteetMembers is one of the most important servicesprovided by the House administration. It involvesmore than simply securing people and assets; itmust also take into account the traditiro of publicaccess to the legislature and to Members. TheHouse shares the Centre Block with the Senateand occupies the grounds of Parliament Hill, thepolicing of which is largely the responsibility ofthe RCMP. We concluded tbattwo significantchanges to current security arrangements areneeded. First, we recommend improving theeffectiveness and the control of the securityperimeter, by strengthening existing securitymeasures.1.18 Second, we concluded that radical changesto joint security arrangements with the Senate arevery likely needed - ones that we are examiningfurther as part of an audit now underway ofmatters of joint interest to the House and Senate,to be reported to the two Houses in 1992. At thispoint, we believe the two separate securityservices should be merged into roe joint force.1.19 In the body of the report, we describe oursignificant observations and recommendations,beginning in section 4.1.20 Because only a limited number of federalstatutes - and no government central agencyrules - apply to the House administration, webased audit criteria on general standards ofgoodmanagement, adapted to tlw. special nature of theHouse and ihe (X'actices of siriiiIar l e g i s l a t u r e s ~ Some of our auditobservations deal with specificdetails of House administratiro, others withhigher-level issues. This reflects the fact that thereport is aimed at different audiences - the Boardof Internal Economy, Members, and the generalpublic. Management had recognized many ofthese issues and action is already underway inseveral areas. For some issues, for example publicdisclosure, timing is critical; with prompt attentionit should be possible to complete these changes bythe next Parliament. The underlying key to

effectively implementing these changes is the roleof the Board. Whether the implementation of aparticular reaxnmendation can be delegated tomanagement, the Board must take overallresponsibility fa ensuring implementation.

OFFICEOF1'HEAUDrroRGENERALOF CANADA 3


7/57

Audit 01theHouse ofCommons Administration

Characteristics and Recent History

he House of Commons is well known toCanadians, as a symbol of our democratic form of government, and ofthe nation itself.2.2 Ours is a form of responsible government,meaning that the executive is drawn from theHouse of Commons, is responsible to it, and mustmaintain its confidence. Many of the activitiesthat occupy the House, its committees and itsMembers are tied to the dual roles of passinglegislation, and holding the executive responsible.2.3 The House of Commons, its committees andMembers are supported by resources and servicesadministered by staff under three senior officials:the Clerk, the Administrator and theSergeant-at-Arms. The organization of the Houseof Commons is shown in Figure 1. In this report,we refer to the activities carried out in the threebranches as the "House administration" todistinguish them from those of the legislatureitself. The annual expenditures of the House ofCommons in 1990-91 were $219 million, asshown in Figure 1, and about 1700 person-years.Key Characteristics of the House ofCommons . ~ - .

2.4 The House of Commons has a number of characteristics that distinguish it from otherpUblic sector organizations. These uniquecharacteristics have important implications for.how the House functions and how it is managed.As a r e s u / ~ House administration, while similar inmany ways to other public sector organizations,is also different in some respects.

Section 2

2.5 The House k adminktratively autonomous.rights, immunities and powers collectivelyreferred to as "parliamentary privilege". Thesedeveloped in the United Kingdom as theinstitution of Parliament evolved. In Canada, theyare based in the Constitution Act.2.6 One such privilege is the right of the Houseto regulate its internal affairs. In other words, theHouse enjoys a considerable degree of autonomy;it cannot be directed to act by the courts or theCrown.2.7 Because of this principle, it is generally heldthat only the few statutes that expressly name theHouses of Parliament apply to them. Equally, theHouse is beyond the scope of governmentadministrative rules, policies, and the control ofcentral agencies. Thus, while the cabineteffectively controls the legislative program of theHouse, the House is much more independent inadministrative matters.

Parliament, and parliamentarians, have a series of

2.8 The effects of this autonomy are numerous.The House can choose to voluntarily followgovernment administrative policies, or it candevelop different ones. $0, while the goals ofmanagement are much the same as anyorganization - to achieve objectives, manageresources cost-effectively, and so on - there isflexibility in how these can be accomplished.

4


8/57

Figure 1House of Commons: Organization and Resources

(1990-1991 Actual)

Members'Board of ExpendituresInternal Economy

Speaker of theHouse $ 18.7 Indemnities

Retirement

I 6.7.4.1 1::::.1 Benefits

ExpenseDeputy Clerk$ 3.0 [;:/::::::1 $ U r::m\i\::,:\::l Comptroller Allowance.5.perations$10.2 Security 1 . 0 ~ Law Cle


9/57

AJldit o/theHouse ofCommonsAdministration 2.9 In practice, this flexibility means that one ofthe defining characteristics of the House is that itis often either one of the first, or last, .organizatiOns to embrace innovation or change.For example, it was one of the first public sectororganizatioll$,to launch a full-scale

. / " e n ~ t - f r i e n d l y " program. On the otherI ' hand, staffing by merit became House policy inthe early 1 many decades after the publicservice. In fact, until the early 198Qs, the Houselagged the public service in the adoption of manymanagement systems and practices (section 2.31).Collective bargaining came to the House with theenactment.of the Parliamentary Employment andStaff Relations Act, two decades after it began irithe federal public service.

2.10 Menmers are independent from tbeHouse. In maucrs of administration, considerableindependence is given to Members in organizingand operating their offices. Members can hire,largely set pay levels and dismiss their officeemployees. Staff are legally employees of theMember, n o ~ o f the House administration. To paysalaries, and various other office expenses,Members are given an annual budget2.11 Nevertheless, the House administrationissubstantially involved in adll1iJmtering the fundsprovided to Members. For example, Members arenot provided funds directly; they make claims andforward invoices to the House administration forpayment. The system of rules governing fundsand services, and how they are administered, is amajor component of this audit (section 6).

'X2.12 House activities ar e numerous anddiverse. The Hill is lUte a villl!8e with all mannerof activities - e v e r y ~ n g from shuttle buses andparking administiation through to parliamentaryprocedural research. This affects how theorganization is managed; management approachessuitable for one activity may be entirelyinappropriate for another. Taken together, thesemany activities require a suno.tantial number ofemployees and financial resources (see figure 1).Indeed, .the House administration is similar in sizeto a small government department.2.13 Service etTecdveness is critical. The statedobjective of the House administration is to serveMembers, either individually, or collectively in

committee or the chamber. Many of the services- committee clerks, messengers, table officers,security guards, to name but a few - involvepersonal contact with Members, or their staff.

2.14 The duties of Members make theeffectiveness of s e r v i ~ - the extent to which aservice assists Members well- a critical matter.Those who have written on the working life ofMembers invariably stress the heavy, ofteni m ~ i b l e , demands they face. Time must bebalanced between family, friends, constituents,political party, committee service and the chamberitself. Deadlines are tight. Reacting to theever-changing agenda of politics - as fQnnerBritish PM Harold Wilson noted, "a week is along time in politics" - means that administrativesupport, information, research and proceduraladvice are needed quickly. Houseadministrationmust respond to these needs. So, the effectivenessof services was a major thrust of our auditapproaCh (section 5).2.15 Public scrutiny is a powerful controLThose who hold elected office receive publicattention. This can be both positive and negative.The public, aided by the media, closely scrutinizesthe behaviour and actions of politicians. Thisprovides a powerful check over their actions,whether these concern political activity or use oflegislative funds and services. But, as well,innocent actions that only appear improper canreceive undue public attention, and even damage apolitician's career. That is the dilemma faced bythose who have examined whether to disclosemore information about Members' use of Housefunds and services (section 6).2.16 The partisan nature of the House atrectsadministration. One of the most obviouscharacteristics of the House of Commons is itspartisan nature. Almost all Members belong to apolitical party. A guiding ethic throughout theHouse administration is not to favour certainmembers because of party or position; allMembers are to be treated equally.2.17 Party control over Members also has aneffect on administration. It is commonly thoughtthat party control over Members of the House ofCommons is strong, particularly when comparedto that found in the United Kingdom. In addition

"


10/57

to exerting control over a Member's politicalactivity, parties, cognizant of the effect of badpublicity, also provide a check over excessive orinappropriate use of funds and services byMembers. For example, party whips sometimesbecome involved in deciding whether a Member'srequest for services is excessive.2.18 Member 's average tenure Is short.Another defining characteristic of the HouseofCommons is the high turnover rate amoogMembers. In Canada, both incumbent defeats andresignations are proportionally higher than that oflegislators in the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates. This places periodic heavy demands on theHouse administration to assist and inform a largebody of new Members and, as well, to adapt itselfto each new "class" of MPs.2.19 The House is a national institution. TheHouse of Commons is a national institution,housed in heritage buildings that are nationalsymbols. A number of its functions are affectedby this role. For example, the buildings must becleaned and maintained to a degree befitting theirstature. Guides and facilities are provided for themany tourists and visitors the House receivesannually. Maintaining security is challengingbecause of the tradition of the public's access tothe legislature. ( ):P0afJ2.20 Administrative d e c i s l ~ Iscomplex. Another key characteristic of the Houseis that it has, of necessity, a relatively complex.decision-making structure for Houseadministrative matters. Ultimate responsibility fordecisions rests with the Board of Internal t , I lEconomy. It has clear and extensive legal ~ : authority, under section 52.3 of the Parliament ofCanada Act, to " ... act on an fmancial andadministrative matters respecting. the House ofCommons, its premises, its services and its staff;and the Members of the House of Commons".This gives legal effect tothe House's autonomyfrom the government in administrative matters,and its authority over Members.2.21 The role of the Board was s u ~ t a n t i a n y strengthened in 1985, when its mandate was setdown in law through amendments to theParliament of Canada Act. At the same time, themembership of the Board was broadened. Prior to

this, it was composed of Cabinet ministers (alongwith the Speaker) and the Cabinet was perceivedas having undue influence over Houseadministrative matters. Now the Board iscomposed of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker,three members of the oppc6ition parties, and fourmembers of the government party.

2.22 The Speaker, as chairmanof he Board ofInternal Economy andas presiding officerof heHouse of Commons, is the critical link betweenthe Board and House administration. In someways, using an analogy from the private sector,the Speaker can be thought of as the ChiefExecutive Officer" of he House administration.The Speaker's control over House administrationtakes two forms. First the three senior officialsreport to the Speaker. second, the Speakerchairs the Executive Committee, of which thethree senior officials are members. The threesenior officials together form a third committee;the Administrative Committee.

2.23 These three committees form a three-leveldecision-making process. Decisions not requiringthe Speaker's involvement are made by the'Administrative Committee - the first level.Otherwise, they are dealt with by the ExecutiveCommittee - the second level. In tum, mattersmay be referred by the Executive Committee tothe Board of Internal Economy - the third level(section 4). Of course, the Board can, and does,initiate consideration of issues that have not beendealt with by the other two levels.2.24 A standing committee of the House advisesthe Board on administrative matters. Untilchanges in the Standing Orders in April 1991, thisadvisory role was the responsibility of theStanding Committee 00 Management andMembers' Services. With changes to the StandingOrders, this committee was abolished. Thismandate was given to the new StandingCommittee on House Management, with a muchbroader mandate that includes the role of theformer Striking Committee and StandingCommittee on Privileges and Elections.2.25 The Board's authority over Members hasincreased. The Board of Internal Economy notonly deals with House administration, it is alsoOFFICE OF TIlEAUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA 7


11/57

AudJt 01 the House 0{Commons Administration

responsible for cstablisbing the rules governingMembers' use of resources and services. Duringour audit, the responsibilities of the Board ofInternal Bconany concerning Members werefurther expanded through amendments to theParliament of Canada .Act; it may DOW issueby-laws binding 00 Members, and give opiniomon the propriety of a Member's Use of resourcesand services. Thus, Members are accountable tothe BOard of Internal Ecooomy and not to theHouse administration.Recent Key Changes2.26 House procedurehas changed In the lastdecade. "Procedure" is the sum of rules, writtenand unwrittep, by which a legislature .cooductsbusine4S. Procedure is the meam through whichfUndamentally conflicting.objectivesare balanced:the right of the government to legislate, the rightof the opposition to question and challenge, andthe rightof the ordinary Member to playa role inthe p a r l i a m e n t a r y ~ . Procedure bas a directeffect on House administration, in terms of thesupport needed by Members, committees and thechamber.2.27 The last decade bas been a time ofconsiderable procedural change. Specialcanmittees were established in 1982 (chaired byT. Lefebvre) and again in 1985 (chaired by J.McGrath) to examine the need for proceduralreform. A number of their recommendations wereacted upon. Further procedural changes weremade during Apri11991 and mote are anticipated.Clearly, the earlier procedural changes had aneffect on the House administration. At the timeof the audit, it was too early to see the effects ofthe 1991 changes on the House administration.2.28 The role of committees has broadened. Inparticular, the procedural reforms of 1985enhanced the role of House committees.Legislative committees were established to dealsolely with legislation, following second readingin the House. The powers of standing committeeswere expanded. They no longer require a specificreference from the House to undertake a study;they have the power to study and report on allmatters relating to the mandate, management, andoperation of their assigned departments. As well,they were given the ability to review - but notblock - certain Order-in-Council appointments.

These changes mean that the support provided tocanmittees has become more important (section5).2.29 As well, in order to enhance theindependence of the legislature from theexecutive, a new procedure for freely electing theSpeaker was established. Prior to this, the PrimeMinister, in effect, chose the Speaker.2.30 House administration changeddramadcaUy during the last decade. Our auditof the House of Canmom in 1980 is oftenregarded as a turning point in the administration ofthe House. The 1980 audit confirmed manyserious administrative problems. In a phrase thatcaptured the essence of the situation, AuditorGeneral James Macdonell, in section 5.8 of the1980 Annual Report, wrote: "I t is reasonable to

expect that (House) general and financialadministration would be a model of excellence ...this is far fran being the case". Equallysuccinctly, Speaker James Jerome noted at the 14November 1979 meeting of the StandingCommittee on Management and Members'Services: "we simply have not kept pace in termsof professional administration".2.31 Many of the problems were long-standing..Indeed, the 1980 audit echoed many of thefindings of a 1964 study by the Civil ServiceCommission, in which 170 specific problems werenoted. Half of the problems dealt with personnelpractices. The intervening years exacerbatedproblems, as services to Members grewdramatically in the late 19608 and 19708. Houseadministrative staffgrew three-fold, Houseexpenditures ten-fold.

2.32 Soon after the 1980 audit report wastabled, the House embarked on a dramaticprogram to improve House administration.Those who witnessed the initiative, or wereinvolved with it attest to the serious obstaclesthat were faced, and the critical importance ofthe determination of successive Speakers tomodernize House administrative practices.


12/57

2.33 In 1983, at the request of Speaker Jeannesauv6, we conducted a folloW-up of the audit. Wefound significant, though still incomplete,progress in almost all areas. As well, a recurringtheme in the follow-up was concern that progressmight not prove to be permanent.2.34 Significant improvements have been madesince 1980. In specific sections of this report, wecomment on many of the same functionsexamined in 1980 and 1983. It isdifficult to makespecific comparisons between the situation thenand now, because considerable time bas passed,and the organization and responsibilities ofspecific activities have changed in significantways. But, whereas we concluded in our 1980audit that "the quality of general and financialadministration was significantly below a minimumacceptable standard", we now COnclude that it issignificantly above such a standard. And, with thepassage of time since the 1983 follow-up, there islittle reason to be concerned that improvementsmight prove temporary.2.35 Many more administrative changes areunderway. One might expect, given the extent ofchanges during the last decade, that Houseadministration would now be relatively static. Onthe contrary, at the time of our audit, many areaswere again in a state of transition. Managers of aDumber of key activities have recently changed. Anumber of studies of partiCUlar services andfunctions were completed in the last year or so.Action on these studies was underway at the timeofour audit. In March 1991, Houseadministration underwent its most substantial _reorganization since 1980. 1be effect was to shiftresponsibility for a number of activities from theSergeant-at-Arms to the Administrata, namelymessengers and transportation, parkingadministration, Press Gallery _ ~ u p p o r t , furnitureand auxiliary services, teleconimunications, andparliamentary accommodations. At the sametime, some activities were shifted to the Clerk most from the Administrator - namely the PubliInformation Office, broadcasting, guides, pagesand the Dominion Carillonneur.o

OFFICEOF 11IEAUDITORGENERALOF CANADA 9


13/57

Audit of theHouse ofCommonsAdministration

II" he terms of reference of this audit arecontained in an exchange of", " correspondence between the Speaker ofthe House of Commons and the Auditor Generalduring July 1990 (Appendix 1). We began theplanning phaseof he audit in October. InFebruary 1991 we submitted our audit plan to theBoard of Internal Economy. It agreed to the planin April.3.2 We selected areas fer detailed audit workbased on their importance to the functioning of theHouse. Therefore, we included some areas thatappeared to be satisfactory. Other areas weselected fer detailed audit werk were ones inwhich significant deficiencies were indicated. Aswell, we included some areas, such as security, atthe request of the House.3.3 During the planning phase, and in the ,earlieraudit of the Senate administration, some issuescame to our attention that involved both theSenate and House of Commons. These will beSUbject to further analysis and inquiry andreported in a 1992 report to the Senate and Houseof Commons on matters ofjoint interest.3.4 We did nottxaarlne issues related to theHouse of Contn1o"n's constitutional and legislativeroles, parliamentary procedure, public policy orthe level of Members' salaries, non-taxableexpense allowances and pension benefits. As well,because our audit focussed on overall Houseadministration, we did not examine themanagement of any individual Member's office orthe merits of individual Member's transactions.We did, however, examine some transactions byMembers as part of the examination of Houseadministrative procedures.

10

Section 3Audit Approach

3.5 Fer each area selected, we identified a seriesof criteria against which to audit. These weredeveloped from several sources, inclUding Houseof Commons policies, and accepted managementand operational practices in other public secterorganizations and legislatures. The criteria aresummarized in Appendix 2 in order to explain thebasis ofour audit f i D d i n ~ . 3.6 We designed audit projects to assess whetherthese criteria were met. Each project used a rangeof audit techniques, including: document and filereview, comparisons with other legislatures,interviews with managers and staff, and a reviewof available efficiency and effectivenessinformation. The extent ofwerk for each projectvaried according to our judgment of what thecircumstances required. Each section of the reportexplains more fuJJy the work completed, includingany limitations that applied.3.7 In addition, we conducted a survey, by mail,of Members. The survey contained a series ofquestions on the extent to which House servicesmeet Members' needs, and their views on a rangeof specific administrative issues. We hadresponses from 190, or 65 percent, of Members,some of which were completed by their staff.Because not all Members responded, thequestionnaire'resultsdo not necessarily reflect theviews of all Members. But, based on keycharacteristics such as region and party, those whoresponded were representative of Members as awhole. Moreover, the questionnaire results aregenerally consistent with opinions expressed to usin interviews of Members with leadingl'oles in theHouse of Commons. We provided the Speakerwith a detailed repcrt on the survey's results.


14/57

3.8 As noted earlier, a number ofspecific areas ofHouse administration were undergoing change atthe time of the audit. This makes the job ofauditing mere difficult, particularly in decidingwhether recently canpleted (or still ongoing)action bas corrected problems. It can be risky tojudge an initiative to be successful before it basbecome proven in pctctice. So, in areasundergoing significant change, we describe thestate of these changes, along with the problemsthey are attempting to address, while notprejudging their success.

OFFICEOF THEAUDITOR GENERALOF CANADA 11


15/57

Audit oftheHouse ofCommons Administration

Section,4.Management andDecision Making

. be managem.ent. and decision-making .. process forHouse administrative mattersII...H. . is complex, noted in section 2.

4.2 We examined the process; structure andsupport ~ b l e to decisionmakers, and thereporting of administrative matters to Membersand the pUblic. We expected to find that the rolesandresponsibiJities of the managementcanmittees (the Board of Internal Economy; the~ ~ v e ~ l t e e and the Administrativecommittee) were clear and well communicated,thjlt the management c o m m i t ~ had sufficienttools and r e s o ~ r e e s to effectively manage theHouse adminiStration and that matters withcorporate implications were co-ordinated andbrought forWard to the appropriateJevel.. .

4.3. Our conclusion is that a numberofimprovements in the management anddeision-maklng process are needed. Themanagement committt16S althe House ofCommons are not as eff8ctiveas they should be.The improvements needed include: clarifk:Btion and redefinition of the roles and,responsibHltles of the managementcommitlee$; t_ ~ . . :. betterplanningprocessesand direction forHouse administrative. activities; and better informatjonfor the managementcommittees.

4.4 It is important to acknowledge that many ofthese issues have been recognized bymanagement, and corrective action is underway.Each issue alone is opt critical. But, takentogether, they suggest that improving management

and decision-making should be a higher priority .Timing is important: the recent changes to the roleof the Board and to the organizationof he Houseadministration have aeated an opportunity to dealsystematically with these matters. Also, this is asuitable time to make changes for the nextParliamentThe Process and Structure4.5 The statutory powers of the Board as set out insection 52.3 of the Parliament of Canada ActPfar-reaching; it "...shall act on all financial andadministrative matters respecting ...the House ofCommons. ..". The Board relies on the.AclIniJmtrntive and ExecutiveCommittees to dealwith the details of many matters for which it isrespoosible. Given this, these Committees should begiven a clear mandate, and be organized andoperated to best serve the Board. These Committeesshould provide a House-wide perspective andchallenge to matters presented by the senior officersof the House for approval and guidance. Ultimately,the House administrntion is accountable to the Board.4.6 Each Committee should have guidelinesoutlining what matters it will normally deal with.These guidelines should ensure that all significantitems with House-wide impact are presented foraPJX0Y81 by one or more of the managementcommittees. These items should also be reportedback to the appropriate management commilteesupon completion or implementation to ensure fullacoountability.

4.7 The Executive and Administrative .Committees do not have formal mandates orclearguidelines. We found a wide v a r i a n ~ e ofpractice as to howmatters are dealt with.


16/57

4.8 For example, the involvement of themanagement committees in the progress ofprojects or studies is inconsistent. In some cases,the Administrative Committee was not involved instudies concerning House-wide matters earlyenough to ensure its information needs wereincorporated into'the study terms of reference. Inaddition, studies were not always reported to thecommittees upon completion. For example, a1990 consultants' review of Materiel Managementexamined Branch operations, actions taken onprevious audit recommendations and assessed thefuture direction of the Branch. At the time theAdministrative Committee approved the contract,it did not ask to receive the final report, or Branchmanagement 's action plan. Neither the report northe action plan have been presented to theCommittee.

4.9 In another case, the management committeeswere not systematically invoived in directing andmonitoring the Integrated Accounting System(lAS) project. The project, to integrate the generalaccounting systems for the House administrationand Members, started in early 1986. There was aplan outlining some of the functions the systemwas to include. The plan did not, however, showestimated costs and resources. In the initial stages,House managers were not asked to identify theirneeds from the system. Enhancements continue tobe made to the system. The managementcommittees were involved at some junctures, suchas in April 1987 when the Executive Committeereviewed the annual capital plan which includedthe purchase of lAS computer equipment andsoftware. Involvement at these junctures did notinvolve a full review of the project design andprogress to date.4.10 The recent changes to the Parliament ofCanada Act have given the Board of InternalEconomy new powers and Clarified its role. Boarddiscussions should now focus increasingly ondeveloping priorities and objectives for Houseoperations and revieWing the mandates of keyactivities. Matters of particular interest toMembers will likely continue to require ongoingattention from the Board. We recognize that theBoard will also have to devote time to its newresponsibilities to make by-laws and issueopinions. In addition, the Board should nowre-examine, where appropriate, the role andresponsibilities of the Executive and

Administrative Committees. It must do this takinginto account its own statutory role on the one handand the need for a lower-level decision makingand integrative structure on the other hand.4.11 The current role of the Executive Committeeis primarily one of agenda setting for the Boardand ratifying Administrative Committee decisions.Given that its membership is mixed (that is, itincludes the Speaker as well as the three seniorofficers), we consider that its role should be moresubstantive and clearly defined. For example, theBoard could specifically assign responsibility tothe Executive Committee for ensuring asystematic review of all proposalS and documentsdestined for the Board; the need for which isdescribed in paragraphs 4.35 to 4.39.4.12 Of the three senior officers, the Clerk isrecognized as the most senior, havingresponsibilities as Chairperson of theAdministrative Committee and as Secretary to theBoard. In this capacity, the Clerk's role is toensure that the decisions and actions of theAdministrative Committee are presented to theSpeaker and the Board in a manner that reflectsHouse concerns. Since early in 1991, theComptroller and the Director General, HumanResources, have regularly attended AdministrativeCommittee meetings. Other managers at theDirector General level attend on occasion. Suchinvolvement enhances co-ordination andconsultation across the House administration.These managers could be made regular membersof the Committee; an option that should beconsidered by the Board after it has settled thenature of that Committee's role andresponsibilities.4.13 Recommendation: The Board should __.1clarify the mandates and operatingguidelines of the management committees,following a review of the appropriate role ofeach.Planning and Policy Making4.14 Better planning is needed. We expected tofind that the management committees set andcommunicate objectives and priorities for theHouse and that long- and short-term plans aredeveloped and communicated for areas ofcorporate importance.OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA 13


17/57

AudJt of theHouse ofCommons Administration

4.15 managemtfJl)t committees do notfolTJ1t!.IIy s,t andcommunicatB priorities andobJ.es tor t h B , H q ~ The d e t a i ~ budgetdociJlnBnt, prepared annually, sets objectives forsome q r ~ n ~ t i o ~ l u n i t s and providesinfbrmatiq(lQn actiVitie,$ ,but it does flot provideH o u s e - " ( l i J ~ P r l O r i ~ .lJi objeCtiveS. Nor doesanyother dpCumfln(' ,$P ,technolOgy,acComl7JOt1atic>t1, human reSOl,lfCSS and capitalbudgets a r ~ e x a m p ~ s of,areas that should beplanll8don'a Ho.use-wide basis. '

4.16 Despitethe'lack of formal planningprocesses, some planning is undertaken. Forexample, one element of good planning isre-examining the strategic direction of a particularactivity. There bave been many cases where suchre-examioatioosbavetaken place. For example, insection S, we nXe sOrvicta where substantial andinnovative improvemo.,bave been made.4.17 EDPTecbnOlOgy. There is no long-tennplan for Copipuiersystems and equipment.Viewed frOnt a House-wicte perspective, resourcesmay be used to develop loW' priority systemsrather than systems with greater significance to theHouse. The Computer Systems Branch developsan annual plan which sets the priority forcomputer sYstems d ~ l o p m e n t . T h e Administrative Committee does not review orapprove this plan, although it does approveindividuarproposaIs for equipment purchase andcontraetdevelopmCrit.4.18 Accommodation. As we note in detail insection 8, accommOdation planning is undertakenon a project-by-project basis. There is no,mechanism or policy for systematicallyreallocatiDg s ~ ~ : to its. best possible use.. 4- ;:4.19 Buman Res6ul"te Plans. There are noHouse-Wide human'resource plans developed foreither the long- or the short-term. Such planningis important because the House is currentlyundergoing both demographic changes, as thework10rce ages, and aganizational changes. Thisis not to say that no human resource planning hastaken p,ace. Some ,human resource andoperational planning ,i$ done within variousdivisions and work has bc:en done on some sectorand division missions, mandates, and values.14

4.20 Capital Budgel$. C a p i ~ l budgets shouldalso be managed on a HOl.lse-wide basis. Wefound that the proportional split of the capitalbudget between the Clerk. the Administrator andthe Sergeant-at-Arms has been the same for thelast three years. This suggests that capital assetrequirements may not be dealt with in order ofpriority 00 a House-wide basis. Although theAdministrative Committee approves transfersduring the course of the year, House-wide,priorities should be reflected in the capital budgetsat the beginning of the year.4.21 The replacement of photocopiers forMembers' offices provides an example of the needfor better capital planning and budgeting. Copierswere replaced in 1990-91 at a cost of $860,000.However, the money had not been set aside in thecapital budget for this, despite the fact thatcopiers require replacement about every fiveyears. Because tbis expenditure bad not beenprovided fain the capital budget, the Houseentered into a lease/purchase agreement until itcould find funds to pay for the purchase. TheHouse should have a better process for identifyingfuture capital needs, including replacement items.4.22 Reconimendatlon: The managementcommittees should set House-wide direction,priorities and objectives for the Houseadministration. Long- and short-tennplanning for key areas should be done.4.23 Polieiesare absent in a number of areas.One of the principal means by which themanagement committees should be directingHouse administration is by establishing Housepolicies. We found examples where neededpolicies were not in place. For example, somenecessary financial (paragraph 8.18), purchasing(paragraph 8.22) and asset control (paragraph 8.7)policies are absent. Frequently, we found thatdraft policies had been developed and proposed tosenior management, but never approved. Somebecame de facto practices; in other cases nofurther action was taken.4.24 Recommendation: The managementcommittees should develop, approve andcommunicate policies where these are neededbut not in place.


18/57

Information Provided for DecisionMaking4.25 In order to manage, the managementcommittees need sufficient, apIXOpriate andconcise information on current operatioos. Themanagement committees also require informationon operational performance in order to hold theadministration accountable. A decision-makingprocess requires information from both formal andinformal sources. We examined informationprovided to the management committees on aregular basis from information systems,information provided relative to particularproposalS, and information provided fromindependent reviews.

4.26 There are significant gaps in theinformation regularly provided to themanagement committees from informationsystems.

4.27 Regular information is a critical tool formanagers as it provides an early indication ofpotentially significant trends. We examined keytypes of information needed by program andsenior managers that should be provided bymanagement information systems: financialinformation, human resource information, andinformation on operational performance.4.28 Improvements have been made ininformation going to the management committees.Until recently, the Administrative Committeereceived monthly computer printouts ofperson-year utilization and occasional financialmanagement reports, in both cases without anyanalysis. The Committee is now receivingperson-year utilization reports and financialmanagement reports, inclndilm.analysis andreasons for changes, on a regular basis. In section6, we note the need to establish regular reportingof Members' expenditure information to the Board.4.29 There is little overall analysis of humanresource information, as we discuss in detail insection 9, and there are few regular reports goingto the management committees. The HumanResources Directorate is conducting a major studyto determine the human resource informationneeds of different levels of management. 'The

results of the study are scheduled to be reported inthe near future to the Human ResourcesManagement Committee which has beenoverseeing the study.4.30 The study was initiated because ofrecognized inadequacies in the many existingsystems. Some systems were designed by specificdirectorates for their own day-to-day informationneeds and serve these needs well. Others weredesigned by the Human Resource Directorate toserve a specific need. Each system wasdeveloped and operates in isolation. As a result,there are cases where information cannot beshared between systems and valuable data iscollected but not analyzed. There is littleorganized analysis and coosolidation of humanresource information and preparation of regularreports for consideration by the managementcommittees.4.31 We found wide differences in the quality andusefulness of operational performance informationsystems, as discussed in paragraph 5.38.4.32 Infonnation not regularly provided tomanagers could reveal significant trends. Toidentify the impact of the information gaps, weassembled and analyzed some of the humanresource information available but not regularlyprovided to managers. Our analysis revealed aseries of significant findings in the areas ofaccidents, sick leave and overtime, demonstratingthe importance of improving House informationsystems. The results of our analysis are describedin section 9.4.33 Given that many existing informationsystems meet the requirements of responsible .program managers, future information systemsdevelopment should rely on existing systemswhere practical, with modifications andimprovements as necessary. We would expectthat, in the future, the information and analysisavailable to the management committees would berelevant and concise, with only the mastsignificant matters being drawn to the attention ofthe Board of Internal Economy.4.34 Recommendation: The Houseadminis tration should systematically identifythe information needs of management atOFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA IS


19/57

Audit 01 theHouse ofCommonsAdministration

e a c h J e y ~ l and.elllUR that the House'slnfonnation systems provide this infonnation.4.35 Better flnuciallnformadon concerningspecUk ~ ls.neede40 In practice, people~ I ~ soU.rces


20/57

Speaker, to provide independent assuranceon House administrative activities.Reporting to Members and the kPublic

4.44 Members want to know more about theadministration of the House. One of themessages contained in Member responses toour questionnaire was the need for moreinformation on a range of House administrativematters.

4.45 A substantial majority of Members considerit important to know more about the plans,activities, results and expenditures of House .administration. Organizations, includinglegislatures, typicaJJy use some form of an annualreport or detailed annual budget submission tocommunicate such information. SubstantiaJJy lessinformation has been available to Members andthe pUblic on the administration of the House ofCommons than is available about governmentdepartments in Part i l l of the Estimates. Thisplaces Members in the curious pa;ition of beingable to know more about the administration ofgovernment departments than their own Houseadministration.4.46 For a number of years, a detailed annualbudget document, somewhat similar to the Part i l lof the Estimates, has been prepared for use byHouse administration, the managementcommittees and the standing committeeresponsible for advising the Board. In 1991-92 itwas made available to Members on request.4.47 We examined the performance informationin this document for a numberof activities, and inalmost every case, found only activity reports (forexample, covering the number of units of servicedelivered). With improvements in performanceinformation and future plans, the annual budgetdocument could provide a suitable accountabilitydocument for informing Members concerningHouse activities and results, if it were madeavailable to Members each year. Such a documentmight usefuJJy be given to the internal auditfunction for review for completeness andreasonableness.

4.48 Based on our questionnaire results, there wasalso a substantial majority of Members whothought it important to know more about Board ofInternal Economy decisions. House StandingOrders require that the Minutes of the Board betabled at the beginning of each session. With therequirement in the amended Parliament of CanadaAct for tabling by-laws within 30 days, it wouldseem reasonable to table Minutes much soonerthan the beginning of the sUbsequentsession.Members generaJJy do receive promptcommunication of decisions that directly affectthem.4.49 Recommendation: The Board shouldprovide more infonnat ion on the Houseadministration to Members, in particular,through an improved annual budgetdocument, and should reportBoard decisionssooner.

4.50 Little public information on Houseadministration is available. In addition toinformation for Members, there should be moreinformation made publ ic on the administrativeactivities of the House. Many of the samemechanisms for informing Members can alsoserve to provide information on Houseadministration to the public.

4.51 Recommendation: The Board shouldmake information on House administration,such as the annual budget document,publicly available.

OFFICEOF THEAUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA 17


21/57

AuditoftheHouse ofCOIIUtIOIIS Administration

Section 5House. of Commons Services:" '.' L.. ' , ~ , ' , ./' J

....

5.2 We 'seleCtedsel'VfCes tbatare representative ofthe broad rangc'of'aetiYit.ics'clelivered by theHouseadmidisttation:: .In total, the 1990-91budget for the services we examined was $48million with 1,200 ~ r s o o - y e a r s , equalling 70percent of House administratim staff. Theseservic;;es are:

r:'t


22/57

5.6 For the majority of services, over 90 percentof the Members who responded to ourquestionnaire indicated that their needs wereeither "weIr or "vety weIr met. Printing services,messengers and internal mail services,Members' householderservit;es, postal anddistribution services andpublications servicesare examples of services that were rated highlyby Members.

5.7 However, Members did identify saneproblem areas. Services that were not rated ashigbly by Members were: computer-relatedservices (hot-line assistance, maintenance,training); cafeterias; and par Icing administration.The main complaint of Members withcomputer-related services was a lack ofresponsiveness to inquiries; for cafeterias theproblem was poor food quality and hours ofservice; and for parlcing, the problem wasavailability.5.8 Clients lack Information on services.Members responding to the survey indicated thatthey do not bave full information on the broadrange of services available. Details on eachservice are contained in tbe Members' Allowancesand Services Manual, but 90 percent ofresponding Members and staff stated that theyconsider it important to have additionalinformation on services. They identified a needfor information on services directed to Members'staff as well as Members. They also noted that theinformation should be provided throughout theduration of a Parliament.5.9 The House administration has talcen steps tobetter inform Members and staff about theavailable services. For example,'at the beginningof each Parliament, extensive briefings are heldfor all new Members explaining the servicesoffered and how to access them. The SupportServices Directorate, responsible for delivering anumber of services we examined, bas recentlydeveloped an information program involvingperiodic meetings with Members and their staff.5.10 Recommendation: The Houseadministration should develop more ongoing

programs to clarify and supplement existinginformation on available services.Management and Delivery ofServices5.11 We examined whether the basicmanagement structures for services weresatisfactory, if adequate planning and controlswere in place, and whether the services weredelivered in an efficient and cost-effectivemanner. We examined whether adequateconsideration was being given to measuring andimproving program performance and exploringalternatives to existing services. We expected tofind clearly defined service standards, efficientlyorganized delivery and that cost-effectivealternatives had been considered.

5.12 We found that the adequacy ofmanagement practices varies signifICantlyamong branches. As a result operating costs ofmany services are likely higher than necessary,as shown in paragraphs 5.15 to 5.40.

5.13 We found examples of well managed andefficient operations that provide quality services toclients. A case study on a well managed andefficient operation, tbe Parliamentary PublicationsDirectorate, follows.5.14 Another example where management andstaff have taken initiatives to increase efficiencyand expand services to Members is the Paltal andDistribution Services Branch. This Branch isresponsible for internal mail, paltal services, andthe preparation of Members' householders fordistribution. In the past, the staff workedexclusively in one of the three activities. Overthe past two years, management has integrated thegroups and provided training to allow staff toperform the different functions of eacb activity.Thus, staffcan be allocated to meet changingworlcload demands. The Branch has also put intoplace an efficient process for preparing Members'householders for distribution to constituencies.This service was rated very highly by Membersresponding to our survey.

OFFICE OF TIlE AUDITOR GENERALOF CANADA 19


23/57

Audit oltheHouse ofCommonsAdministration


24/57

Printing Operations Branch

OFFICE OF TIlEAUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA 21


25/57

Auditof theHouse ofCommonsAdministration

.S;lSltI contrast, we fOUnd other aCtivities lackingclear objectiVes, strategic and operational plans,penormance standards and performancei o f o m i a f i o J ) s y s t e ~ In these Organizations, whilethe focus was on the quality of the service,insufficient attention was paid to d e l i ~ e r y c o s t s . asthe ~ , ~ f : ! J , ~ ~ l C ) p ; ~ . ~ ~ t i n g Qpcntions Branchi l l u s t r ! J ~ .. , .' .', ....

",,' "S . 1 6 , R ~ ~ e , n d ~ ~ : MIulagement shouldrevleW'th. . . . . .gem.,.t a n ~ o p e r a t i n g p r i e 1 k e s O r t J 1 . ~ ..perfonpjnl branchesand appl)'. the beStpractltesto' aD branches.

. ~ 5 . 1 7 W e ' o b S e r v e a ~ c ; I ) ~ : w i t b ~ r a t i o n a l deficlenciCs'aridbigbo!i-.ratingcosts. For, e X l l I D P ~ . intbf; Pllrlfamtintary Restaurant ServicesD ~ t e . : wt nQtedlbat tbeecst of operationSwere I i i g b r ~ l J l t i v o to sales.' Ia,the Print ing 'Operatials B r a n ~ ~ , CC)St.of ~ t printingw a ' ~ t a ~ y ~ , ~ C ~ . i f .p u ~ ~ ' ~ P : : l \ ~ c ~ ~ ~ r . In the caseo f ~ l ~ . a s ~ ~ r s e r v i c e 5 , thedelivery-cOSt ~ " ... t J ~ i s low. Aconsultant w a s e n ~ ' t o . f & the CleaningService B ~ n c l l i o ~ J i s b i D g s ~ n d a r d s forqUiJli1y a p d ~ ~ n o p ( ) f the service to bedelil'tlJd'i ~ , * t a b ~ t ; t s ; r e I a t e d to quality were, a c b i e v e d b u t t 6 e ; ~ t a r & e t s were n (L Thecurren'productivityof.tbtdeamng service.measured insquarci feet pethour, is only 75 to 90percen;tof he minim)Jlll standards recommendedby ~ e , ; c o n s i . i l t a n L Ids'Qotablo, hoWever, thatcleamng service praltitiliiitybas improved. substanUalljsince ttie:time'oCourl980 audit.

.. , . .5.18 W$identified If numbgeoffaetors thatcontribWJ to high dslivel costs withoutiripreasin{j, the, q u a J i t y t : J f : . ~ .services. In somecases, these facto" detiB.ct' from the quality ofthe services b8/.ng dellviJt8(f. to Members.

5 . 1 ~ Some sernce8'8I'e 'not weU co-ordinated.We Qqte4 ~ w h e l l ' - s e r v i c e s were not well~ r d i r i a t ~ . , T h ~ P s t n o t a b l e . example is themessenger service and internal mail service. Bothprovide delivery services Within the parliamentaryprecinct. We found considerable overlap in theiroperations. Some ()Verlap could be acceptable ifme&,enger deliveries w e ~ C O D S i d e r a b l y faster than

internal mail. Our tests suggest they are not.When we compared the turnaround time of the .messenger service to that of letters sent at thesame time through the internal mail system, about40 percent arrived sooner than the internal mail.about 30 percent took the same time, and in 30percent of the cases. internal mail was faster thanthe "urgent" messenger service.5.20 The additional operatingC($ of themessenger service over internal mail is.considerable, in the order of $2 millionannua1ly.Significant savings could be realized by usingmessenger services only for truly urgent material.

.. A recent reorganization combined the two servicesunder a single management team. 1bissbouldallOw management to better co-ordinate theservices.5.21 In additiOn, the Printing Operations Branchand Materiel Management Branch eadi have theirown deliverY service and do not use the internalmail or messenger service for d e l i v e r i e s ~ Weconcluded that these delivery activities need to bebetter co-ordinated to avoid duplication.5.22 Some services must be used together such asa combination of materiel management (ferstationery). printing, and and dijtti.butionservices. In this example, the existing.sei'vices arenot well ~ t e d . The service to Memberscould be enhanced with better co-ordination.5.23 High absenteeism. We noted examples ofhigh absenteeism in the Parliamentary RestaurantServices Directorate, the Maintenance andCleaning Services Branch, and Messenger ServiceBranch and T r a n s ~ t i o n Services Branch.Absenteeism at the levels observed in he Houseadversely affects operating COits. Furtherinformation on sick leave is presented in section 9.5.24 Absenteeism was a major problem in thePrinting Operations Branch. However, in 1900,Branch management addressed the issue byinstituting a program which significantly reducedabsenteeism.5.25 Workload variations. Many operationshave considerable variation in demand for servicesdepending on whether the House is in session.This results ina variation in staff requirements.


26/57

Some branches use part-time employees. This hasbeen done with success in the ParliamentaryPublications Directorate and in the ParliamentaryRestaurant Services Directorate. Workload peaksand valleys were identified in other services,namely printing, messengers, maintenance andcleaning. For these services, it may be moreeconomical and efficient to make more extensiveuse of part-time and term employees and increasethe sharing of resources between branches tohandle workload variances.5.26 Staff use or services. For most services,high standards of service are set to meet the needsof Members. Yet, the same level of services isprovided to other eligible users. These usersinclude: House administration staff, Members'staff, staff of government departments working atthe House, as well as Senate and Library ofParliament staff, and members of the Press Gallery.5.27 House administration staff, Members' staffand others are eligible for a number of personalservices such as barber services and parking.House administration branches use other services,including cleaning and picture framing services.We noted that, in many cases, staff use of theseservices is not simply filling excess capacity, it isadding to the overall costs of the service. Forexample, i f barber services were exclusively forMembers, it is unlikely that three fUll-time barberswould be reqUired. Administrative offices arecleaned to the same high standard set forMembers' offices. Staff working at the Househave access to approximately 1000 parking spacesin the parliamentary precinct which they use freeof charge. By comparison, in most cases, thiswould be declared a taxable benefit for employeesworking for federal departments or agencies indowntown Ottawa. The rate.for parking indowntown Ottawa can exceed $1,300 annually.5.28 Clearly, staff use of services is warranted insome cases. However, the Board has notapproved, in all cases, the use of these services bystaff and others, and the House administration hasnot identified the extent of such use and the extracosts incurred.5.29 Recommendation: The managementcommittees should review'services to ensure

adequate co-ordination and reduce, wherepossible, the delivery cost of services.5.30 Recommendation: The managementcommittees should consider whether costsand benefits warrant continuing to makeservices available to House administratives t a ~ branches and other eligible users.Management Challenges5.31 As noted above, our examination revealedthat some services are well managed and provide ahigh quality of service. We also noted areas foroperational improvement. We observed attributesthat are common to the well-performing servicesthat could be applied to the other services, wherereasonable and appropriate, and we have identifiedthree common areas where improvements areneeded. First, there is a need for better directionfrom the management committees to clarifyexpectations for the service. Second, there is aneed for performance standards linking the leveland quality of the service to the cost of delivery.Third, there is a need for basic ca;t andperformance information to assist managers inmonitoring the performance of their operationsand to enable them to fulfil their accountabilityrequirements.Management Direction5.32 Clear direction is needed. We examinedeach service to determine whether clear strategicand operational direction was provided by themanagement com mittees. We found several caseswhere the management committees did notprovide adequate strategic direction.5.33 An example is the Parliamentary RestaurantsDirectorate, where various studies have pointed tothe need for clear policy decisions regardingoperational direction. While substantial changeshave been introduced, in cafeterias and foodpreparation and through eliminating catering, theneed for an overall policy on level of service andoperational costs has not been addressed. Ofparticular importance is the degree to whichoperations will be subsidized. In otherlegislatures, it is a common practice to sullsidizefood prices.

OFFICE OF TIlEAUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA 23


27/57

Audit oltheHouse ojCommonsAdministration

5.34- Recommendation: T b.Board shouldreview the mandate ofeach .service and,where appropriate, /Jet ooUhelevel andquaUtt.of t h e . ; s e ~ C e required; . .Performance Standarda .

'.5.35 P e r f - ' ~ . " " " ' s " Q u i d be clearlydefined. We expected to find dearly definedperformance standards linking ~ level of service .to be delivered to itSOOlt. .5.36 SoJne brand1ea baveestablisbed serviceperformance ~ r g e t s M d monitor to'ensure thate s ~ b 1 i s b e d s t a ~ arC met, as $own in the casestudyonthePltrliamenlary PQblicationsDirec;tQ@te. Ip other C 8 $ C 8 , w ~ r e it would ber e a ~ : t e and appropiate for' JIJClQagement toestablish p e r f o ~ ~ g e t s , t b ~ e are none.Performance s ~ n c f a r d s have not been establishedfor most services;, for example printing, furnitureand .oUler repaiJ: messengers,maintenance and. c J ~ g , information systems,and transportation 5.37 Recommendation: The Houseadminist ration sfloold ~ t a b l i s h performancestaQdards linking sernte level with servicecost, where r e a s o n ~ l ~ and appropriate.

, , ' ~ , 'ts by Member are not reported.

6. 12 Given that many Members' expendituresare paid from the House budget and the amountsare not reported to them, there is little incentivefor economy.6.13 There is little incentive for economy in the64-point travel allowance. Members are entitledto three different travel allowances: travel statusexpeD$CS; oonstituencytravel; and the 64-pointallowance. The first two are subject to financiallimits per Member, the 64-point allowance is not.Each Member is allocated 64 travel points. Thesystem allows Members and their spouses to travelanywhere in Canada. Designated family membersmay use 24 points for trips between the Member'sriding and Ottawa ("regular" trips), and 15 pointsmay be allocated to Member's offiCe staff forregular trirs. In addition, 6 points may be used bydesignated family. members for trirs anywhere inCanada ( " s p e c ~ l ~ t r i p s ) ~ 6.14 We found that the flexibility of the 64-pointallowance bas expanded over the years. Oursample revealed an average'annual usage of 50points in a range of 7 to 64 (fran November 1989to November 1990). We found that the averageca>t per Member was $31,147 a year on travel ofthis nature, in a range of $1,435 to $73,840.6.15 Members receive regularly a travel pointstatus report; however, it does not provide cost

information. Special trips, on average, cost morethan regular trips but both have the same pointvalue. F i r s t ~ l a s s tickets, in general, cost 50percent more than economy tickets but both countfor one point when used by the Member. Discountfares also oost one point. We believe that thissystem does not encourage Members to arrangetravel economically.6.16 In general, there is perhaps more incentivefor ecooomy in spending a dollar than a point. Weacknowledge the House's intention to beequitable to all Members in establishing a systembased on travel points. However, in an era of. ongoing restraint, consideration should be given totranslating the points budget into a dollar budgetfor each Member, taking into account factors suchas remoteness from Ottawa.6.17 Telecommunications is anotber largeexpenditure area witb few incentives foreconomy. In 1990-91, almost $7.5 million wasspent on these services, of which $3.3 million wasfor the use of the government long-distancenetwork paid from the House budget. Dependingon the source and reason for a call, oosts may becharged against the House budget, Members'Operating Budget or personally to the Member.6.18 There is a full review by the Houseadministration of all Bell Canada and othercommercial charges for the purpose of allocatingthe ca>ts to the appropriate bUdget account. Thelong-distance portion of these charges averaged$4,212 per Member in 1990-91.6.19 On the other hand, the government networklong-distance charges, representing 44 percent of telecommunications oosts, are not reviewed. Allthese charges are paid from the House budget. Onaverage, Members and their staff spent $11,000 in1990-91 on the government network. The rangehere is a wide one with some Members spendingmore than five times the average. Neither theHouse administration nor Members regularlyreceive information.on these oosts, althOUghMembers can request their government telephonenetwork oosts from the GovernmentTeleoommunication Agency.6.20 As with the 64-point travel system and otherexpenditures such as householders and other


32/57

Iprinting services, telecommunication ~ t arelargely invisible to Members and may beperceived as "free". .Asa minimum, Membersshould receive timely information on these coSts.Such information would assist Members inevaluating their expenditure patterns and couldresult in choosing more economic alternatives.6.21 Incentives for economy would be furtherenhanced by having Members pay for these costsfrom their individual Operating Budget. EachMember's overall spending would be limited tothat amount. The House budget would then berestricted to those costs not reasonably attributableto individual Members.6.22 Extending the Member's Operating BUdgetin this way would require careful consideration toensure that Members continue to be treatedequitably. .As well, s t e ~ discussed elsewhere inthis section such as better expenditure informationto Members and greater public discl05ure, shouldbe put in place before the Members' OperatingBudget is extended in this way.6.23 Recommendation: In order to Costerincentives Cor economy, the Board shouldconsider having costs that can be reasonablyattributed to Members paid from theMember's Operat ing Budget, which wouldbe appropriately adjusted.6.24 Some guidelines lead to apparentlyunintended consequences. In the course ofreviewing Members' expenditures guidelines, wenoted several areas where specific guidelines andaccounting practices have apparently resulted inunintended consequences. Two examples arenoted below.6.25 First, for furniture and supplies purchasedfor Members' offices, there is a lack of formalentitlement policies and guidelines. That hasresulted in considerable discretion being exercisedby House administrative staff. House staff decidewhether the purchase of a non-stocked item can becharged to the House budget or must be paid fromthe Member's Operating Budget. I f charged to theHouse budget, Members do not receiveinformation on the cost of the purchase.Expenditures for Members' furniture and supplies

charged to the House budget are considerable,$5.0 million, and vary significantly by Member.6.26 Second, Members have the authority to setsalaries for their staff but do not have the authorityto award performance bonuses. Staff salaries aresubject to numerous rules. One is that no bonusescan be paid. However, we found cases where aMember awarded a large (25-50 percent) increasein salary for a period of several months,subsequently reducing it to the previous level.Members must disguise what clearly are bonusesin order to comply with the Members' Allowancesand Services guidelines.6.27 Recommendation: The Board shouldexamine the need Cor entitlement policies Corfurniture and supplies and review its rulesconcerning Members' staff bonuses.Information on Members'Expenditures

6.28 We found that Members are not receivingthe financial information needed for fullmanagement of their individual spending.

6.29 The Comptroller'S office providesaccounting services for Members and maintainsrecords on Members' budgets, allowances andexpenditures throughout the year. Monthlyfinancial reports are produced giving Members anup-to-date statement of their accounts. Thesereports contain information on Members'Operating Budget expenditures and certain otherallowances paid out of the House's budget.6.30 .As noted earlier, there are additionalMembers' expenditures that are paid from theHouse budget, not subject to monetary limit andnot regularly reported to Members. These includetravel, telecommunications, office furniture andequipment, householders, stationery and supplies.These totalled $30 million in 1990-91.6.31 Members should be fully informed of theCCllts they incur. All costs for goods and servicesthat can reasonably be attributed to individualMembers should be reported to them 011 a regularbasis. This information, with appropriateOFFICE OFmE AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA 19


33/57

AudU of the House ofCommonsAdministration

comparisons to other fiscal periods and to theexpenditure 'pItttaasOf81l Members wouldprovide a better opportunity for the prudentmanagemeot,C)f, a v a i l a b l ~ resources.

'i6.32 OUr lurveyofMembers suggests supportfor tbiJ Idndaf information. Over 75 percent ofthe r&IpOndeots:'indiCated that they would like to

, know more, about t b e ~ c o s t ofMembers' servicespresently paid from tho House budget.6.33" With the exception of charges incurred onthe g O V e m m e r i t ~ l e p t i o n e n C t w o r k , these costs,by Member, are all available from theComptroller'lioffice; ,6.34 " R ~ ~ t l i j n : Members shouldrecelvelilOnthlyltnanClal'reports thatInclude the costot'illlentJdefuenfsandservices p a l d 0 J . l ! b e ~ r a c c o u n t either fromthe H o _ , b ~ ~ o r tWlDthe Member'sOperating B " ~ t . T h e s e reports sh9uld '" ' ~ Q d e suflldent lnrormation to permitcompansonwlth'other periods and theexpenditurepatterns ofaU Members.~ 3 ne B o a r c l ' d ~ Dot receive regularaagreptedlnlormadOnOD Members'e x p e n d l t u r " . , . ~ ~ _ ~ ~ t s responsibilityfor t 1 l ' ; . ~ D t o f ~ C l u s e expenditures.W i t b t J t ~ ~ n am.endments to the Parliament ofCanadatt. tI1e ~ l1a$ ac1ear responsibilityfor botI1 tinanci8J Bndfdministration mattersrelated to spending by Members ahd the HouseadministratioQ.6.36 From time to time, the Board receivesi n f o ~ t i ( ) Q OQ Me.m,\>Crs' expenditures. Forexample, a ,travel ~ t e l ~ c p m m u n i c a t i o n e x p e r i ~ i t u r e ~ e . p o t t . l ' o r 1990-91 has recently beenprepared for, the ,Board.6.37 The Board should be informed regt.llarlyofthe costs of Members'.allowanCes and services.For example, the ,average cost and the range fordifferent allowances could be provided.Quarterly reportsofcosts compared to otherfiscal periods and, the budgets as wellas instancesof n o n ~ p l i ! l , n c e with establisbed policy wouldalso ~ , t . i s e f u ) information for monitoringMembCrs' expenditures. Sucbinformation and

analysis is necessary for the Board to carry out itsgeneral management responsibilities. For thisreason, specific Members may not need to beidentified in the reports. Ofcourse, i f this '.information were made public, it would beavailable to the Board.6.38 Recommendation: The Board shoulddellne what Information It requires onMembers' expendituresand should establishan appropriate reportingmechanism.6.39 Publk d l s d ~ of.Members'expenditures needs to be expanded.We haveearlier recommended that more information onMem\)Crs' expenditures be made available to theMemberS themSelves, and to the BoaR:l. H theserecomrnendatioos are accepted, it will be an easy,and yet important, final ~ t e p to make public thedetails of Members' expenditureS. We believethat the publiaationof this information,. coupledwith the publicationof financial infcirnJ8tion onHouse administration (section 4) would enhancepu blic accountability.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ' _ 1 ' ~

6.40 Each year in the Public Accounts, theHouse reports a statementof indemnities,'expense allowances and travel expenses byMember. This represents only37 percentofMembers' expenditures. Forexample, Members'Operating Budget expenses are not disclosed(except for constituency travel that is includedwith other travel entitlements under the travelexpenses). Nor is there disclosureofnon-financial information to assist in interpretingMembers' expenditures, for example, the numberof rips taken.

6.41 The House should provide timely reportswhich are readily accessible by the public. Theinformation should present expenses attributableto Members with a reasonable level of detail in aform that will permit an easy understanding ofMembers' use of the public funds provided by theHouse. Additionally, Members themselves shouldhave the opportunity to review information ontheir expenses before it is disclosed to the public.6.42 Increased public disclQ!>ure for Memberswould put the House of Commons in step with

30


34/57

public disclosure practices of other legislatures.We found that most provincial legWIaturesdisclalCd information on the expendituresof theirMembers to a greater e ~ than Ihe HoUsealCommons.6.43 I f he public disclosure we arerecommending were put into effect at thebeginning of the next Parliament, it would provideMembers with an opportunity to adapt to suchdisclosure and would provide the Houseadministration with the time to develop thenecessary means of providing it.6.44 Recommendation: Information on allthe expenditures of Members should bepublicly available, at a reasonable level ofdetall, effective the next Parliament.

OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF CANADA 31


35/57

Auditof the House ofCommonsAdministration

Section 7H'ouse of Commons Security

"" ecurity was given ~ audit emphasisI I at the requestof the Speaker of the Houseof Commons. To accommodate timrequest, we examined the role of he House ofCommons Security Service (tl1e Service) as anintegral part of he overaJI sc


36/57

7.7 The HoUStpf Commons and Senate share theCentre Block and the East Block. Entry to theHouse of COmmom can be gained by w ~ of the .Seoate'portioD of these buildings. Tberefore; thesecurity of each Houstris partially dependent uponthe effectiveness of he access control practised atthe entrance points of he other. Without similarlevels of access cmtrol and parity in otheroperations such as the usc of the Restrjcted AreessList and training, eacb House C8I1lD be sure thatthe levelof security it demallds is not beingcompromised. A single security force couldstandardize practices to provide uniformsecuritycoverage.7.8 security operations within the sharedbuildings of the House of Commons and Senatehave not been co-ordinated so that authorities andresponsibilities are clearly understood by bothsecurity services. The Service's routine, dailyoperations fcx:us on providing for the protection ofthe House of Commons. In an emergencysituation, it may be called upon to eQter the Senateprecinct-or to act jointly with the Senate ProtectiveService. If required to fonn. part of abuilding-wide force, the Service's operatingproccxlures would change to accommodate thedifferent jurisdiction, authorities andresponsibilities. In comparison, otherorganizations we visited found that security forcesworked best wben they responded to emergencysituations under the same authorities andresponsibilities that wefe practised aDd understoodin DOn-emergency. situations.7.9 Weaknesses in communication and control fora building-wide emergency are being addressed bythe Service. A new Operations and CrisisManagement Centre is being developed to replacethe current operations centre. Although the singlecommand centre is near compleJP1; thCre are DOformal procedures or agreements on whether thecentre will control and co-ordinate both House andSenate security.

7.10 The Operations and Crisis ManagementCentre will respond to problems made evidentduring the April 1989 bus hijacking incident onParliament Hill. During this incident the/ack ofcommunication and fully co-ordinated actionbetween the House and Senate resulted indffferent responses to the sal718 situation.Desp;re efforts to co-ordinate and controlsecurity, specifically to evacuate the buildings,each security force acted independentlyandunder its own chainof command.

7.11 The issue of joint security will be the subjectof further analysis and will be included in thereport to the Senate and House of Commons onmatters of joint interest.7.12 Recommendation: The Houseadministra tion should assess the implicationsof meeting security needs through ajointservice with the Senate. Subject to furtheranalysis as part ofour joint report, webelieve there should be a single security forcewithin the buildings or the parliamentaryprecinct.Access Control7.13 Good security practice uses a concentric ringstructure to contain threats as far from potentialtargets as possible. Each ring acts as a perimeter.Perimeter controls at the U.N. and U.S. CapitolHill were established at the boundary of thegrounds and buildings to detect threats as early aspossible. A ring structure is also used onParliament Hill. However, the Service'sjurisdiction does not include the grounds aroundthe Parliament buildings. The first ring for Housesecurity begins only at the entrance points to thebuildings and the second ring, to screen personsbefore entering the Clamber Galleries, is close toa possible target point. This can pose a threat i fthe Service is unable to quickly detect and detainsomeone intending to do harm.

OFFICE or THEAUDITORGENERAL or CANADA 33


37/57

Auditof theHouc ofCommonsAdministration

7.14 Acc... control .A k In s.veral"sJ**." .The firstrlngcan be compromised inseveral ways w h i c i f t " \ Q J . I t J l I J ~ i J J e 1 Q w . If the .stJOttCOmlngi . , ttillfIiiItrirIflSrs Corrected, thesecond rlrigwillth&tHJMVtHO provide'additionalaSSlJf'BJ'lde thaI themost $enSitiVeareas of the .House affl'sdequatelyprotected.

7.15 Gr6urtCts ~ t l : 0 ~ t t l e grounds ~ Parliament Hill, securny for politically-motivatedcrime, traffic and ~ oontrol is the~ b i l i t y of tbCRCMP, Supported, ODoccasibd, by the q ~ o f Ottawa Police. Thep r i m a r y ~ b i U t y of the RCMP"is security;b ~ c v c r , itseontlnual presence on the grounds ofParliament Hill serves as a deterrent - and, in themajorit,y. of c;ases, it is thc initial response - tocriminal a c t i v i ~ , . : . ' : 47.16 S l I N ' e ~ o f tbo ooter perimeter of theHiD ~ : t r ~ b y RCMP pitrol cars andcameraS.1bC:'RCMP has electronic s u r v e i l l a ~ eqW.pnent;bOWftfJ'J'systcm operating limitationsresult in reducec:Je_t\veness. Security for the .House of Commons does not include foot patrolSon the gt'QlJD(BcxcqJtas conducted by the RCMPHill Detachment as .partoftheg,quad car p a t r o l s ~ Early threat detectimandmoDitoring could'beimpro\'edbYincrCaIiOgfoot patrols in proximityto the tluildirigS. "7.17 Pass C o n ~ : ' Th S e ~ c e must CODStantly

, " ' ,"",.-. ,> ' - , ' - be alprttp p e ~ , ~ t t e m p t i n g to gain entry to theHousefOc' P ~ . Q f creating adisturbance.Over 7,500 ~ J l ~ iQ.. circulation. Personsdisplaying a validxaentification/Pass card area l l o / ' ~ e n t r y ; , ~ e v e r ~ ~ n t r o l proceduresareweak. lbcrSCMCX1 is not informed byP e ~ ~ : W b e ~ c ; 9 ! O Y ~ leave. Our sample off ~ e r i o d e t e r m ~ ~ , ~ e ! O Y ~ shows that 10percent have ~ wpl not expire until 1995.approXirmlteJy2,stXl passes for employeesof gaveimpent departments haVe been issued.There is no procedure to ensure that passes arereturned when no longer required or expired. Passcootrol alsO affects Gallery security becausepersons displaying a Hoose of Commons pass canbypass screening and enter the Galleries.

7.18 Visitors: Over 500,000 persons.visitParliament Hill annually; We recognize thefundamental importance of access to the Housesof Parliament but note tbatvisitors entering thebuildinp are not scanned or required to cbeckparcels, unless enteringthe Galleries. From asecurity perspective, cootrol over the movementsor activities of hese persons is not a l w ~ y s adequate in light of the numbers a[visitas at anyone time. Tour groups are large and persons could:slip away fran their groups undetected. AlthoughtIDe visiting specific offices are checked againsta Restricted Access List and issued a temporaryday pasS, visitors to committee meetings are notalways ~ u e d with passes and can proceedwithout identifying themselves. .7.19 DeUveries: Courier deliveries are notscanned on a 24-boor basis. There is no securitypolicy on freight deliveries. Thus, freightdeliveries are not inspected prior to being accepted.7.20 Priortoasimulation cbec:k bY the RCMP inNovember 1990, mes

(David McKie, May 19, 2010) Nov 1991 a-G Audit of House of Commons

Documents

Transcript of (David McKie, May 19, 2010) Nov 1991 a-G Audit of House of Commons