Gomery Rec #1: The dog ate my homework

"Recommendation 1: To redress the imbalance between the resources available to the Government and those available to parliamentary committees and their members, the Government should substantially increase funding for parliamentary committees."

As you peruse Gomery Chapter 4, you find his analysis of the Estimates process. Essentially, he argues it's complicated, MP's have too much to do, and really don't understand it.

Gomery Solution: More money for committees for research staff.

He has a point. The Estimates are difficult to understand.

Of course, that may be why every department is also required to table a Plans and Priorities document in Parliament every fiscal year, which explains - among other things - what they are going to do. You know, things like... what they're going to spend money on...

I think there is another problem. Gomery also notes:

"Members often admitted—sometimes with regret—that they did not pay much attention to the Estimates, that they had only a weak idea of what level of resources was expended to achieve program results, and [that] they did not know what financial instruments departments use to achieve their assigned results. In the series of incidents over the last few years (Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) contributions program, gun control, Sponsorship), a number of MPs apportioned at least some “contextual” blame to inadequate parliamentary oversight of program expenditures. "

Well gosh. I guess we taxpayers all regret that "...they did not pay much attention to the Estimates..."

But read on, it gets better:

"Each year, some 87 departments and other government organizations provide parliamentary committees with separate spending estimates and related reports, and many of these receive no formal attention in committee meetings.And when meetings occur, they are typically dominated by partisan exchanges with ministers that shed minimal light on the estimates. Consideration of the supplementary estimates, which allow departments to obtain additional funding at specified intervals during the year, has been even less satisfactory.With only a few exceptions, committees regularly fail to examine them at all."

No formal attention? Partisan exchanges? Committees regularly fail to examine them at all?

Well, gosh golly, let's throw some more money at them.

Publius recommendation 1a: Hey - MPs! Do your freaking job.
Boosting resources is likely a good idea, but it will not solve the problem of MPs not paying attention.

In the private sector (this part is for you Mr. Harper and Mr. Kenny, I know you've never worked in the private sector) Directors who suggest at annual board meetings to shareholders that the money stuff got all screwy because no one read the budget projections is usually a long walk off a short short plank..

Publius Recommendation 2b: You're fired.
The next time an MP shows up at election time, ask them about the estimates. What did they do, what concerns did they raise. It's boring stuff for sure, but we voters hold some culpability here as well.

Anyone who sat in the last three parliaments and who was not a minister, should have been asking questions.

They weren't.

Spank them.

It's our money.