In P.E.I., members of the legislative assembly and the public are kept in the dark with regard to the accountability structures needed to hold to account. In Alberta, for example, the government’s spending plan is accompanied by a companion document that includes the government’s results framework and discusses the amount of spending needed to achieve its planned results for the current year as well as providing information about the cost of those initiatives that may take several years.
Returning to the review of the estimates that is currently taking place in the legislative assembly, members are asking the ministers and chief financial officers (CFOs) of each ministry about the numbers appearing in the estimates. First, without the missing documents I’ve mentioned above, members are left to ask basic questions about how many staff are being hired with the amounts shown in each ministry, or how many reams of paper the government is purchasing or, possibly, why a particular private sector entity is getting a certain amount of money. All of these questions are being asked without understanding what the funds are being used for and what results are being achieved. These questions are, in my opinion, a complete waste of time and as the responses to the questions are quite often not known or in some cases incorrect meaning that the result is very unsatisfying for the questioner and quite painful to watch for the public.
The politicians should be able to put a value on what is to be accomplished. For instance, in order for P.E.I.'s road system to have an average life of say x years for $x million that must be spent each year. Below that spending number, our roads will be deteriorating at a faster rate than we want. The questions and debate in the legislative assembly should be around whether the cost of maintaining the road system and keeping the average age of the roads at x years provides value for money rather than how much gravel is being consumed. Similarly, spending $x on cancer patients along with infrastructure and equipment should yield a greater success rate for the treatment of certain cancers. The debate in the legislative assembly should be whether the proposed spending on reducing the rate of cancer is appropriate. It is important however that this political process clearly articulates what the government/minister is going to accomplish for the dollars spent.
Where is the deputy minister who is responsible for the spending of public monies in line with the principles of good value for money? The elected minister is answering (or in many cases not) the questions being asked by members that really are the responsibility of the deputy minister. And the CFOs are explaining the underlying assumptions about how some of the numbers were derived for these responses. Meanwhile, the deputy minister — the accountable officer for ensuring public monies are being spent with due regard to value for money — is missing in action. Having the minister answering the questions which are the responsibility of the deputy minister implies to me that the fundamental governance structure of the P.E.I. government is broken and that ministers are involved in the day-to-day running of government where they not only have no role to play, but are acting inappropriately by being involved in the first place. This should alarm Islanders who expect good governance and the adherence of government’s operations to the Westminster model.
Therefore, I urge all Islanders to consider what is happening, or not happening, in the legislative assembly at this time, the colossal waste of time spent by members of the legislative assembly asking questions about the estimates, and how we can remedy this issue. Let’s ask the premier and his cabinet to change the governance framework and start managing public monies in this province using an approach that ensures public monies are spent with due regard to value for money. I also urge Islanders to ask for proper accountability for the spending of public monies so that this accountability rests with the deputy ministers in government where it belongs.
By shifting this accountability from where it is today to where it should be, ministers could then focus on their traditional role of developing legislation. Ministers would have the time to lead the process for the determination of the results government wants to achieve and provide the accountability for those results once public monies are spent. And with the focus on legislation and results, ministers would not be involved in the day-to-day delivery of government programs and services, something we pay the deputy ministers good salaries to do.
Martin Ruben runs a consulting business in Victoria-by-the-Sea and has a background in public sector governance. This is the second of a two-part opinion piece. Part 1 is available online and appeared in print July 7.
