Thank you.
Mr. Chair and honourable members, I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before the standing committee today to discuss the new funding and oversight mechanism for officers of Parliament.
Accompanying me today is Ms. Carol Bradley, Executive Director in the Government Operations Sector, and Ms. Rosemary O'Reilley, Principal Analyst, who has worked extensively on establishing the new funding and oversight pilot project and who was present at all Panel meetings that have occurred to date. For the purpose of this pilot project, participants include the offices of the Auditor General, Chief Electoral Officer, Privacy Commissioner, Commissioner of Official Languages and Information Commissioner.
Let me quickly recap the developments that have ultimately led to the establishment of the original or first parliamentary panel for funding and oversight of officers of Parliament in the fall of 2005. In response to concerns flagged by the Auditor General, as well as recommendations formulated especially by this committee and recommendations of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Senate Committee on National Finance, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the officers of Parliament have engaged in significant dialogue and consultations on the appropriate funding and oversight mechanism for their offices.
These consultations and committee reports underscored a growing unease with the traditional budget determination process for Officers of Parliament. The consultations also called for the development of a mechanism that recognized the special relationship that Officers of Parliament hold with Parliament and with Canadians.
More specifically, this committee recommended that:
Primarily, the budget determination process must be removed from the exclusive domain of the executive; while at the same time, an appropriate performance review, budgetary challenge, and accountability mechanism must be maintained.
In responding to the recommendations of the parliamentary committees, a new funding and oversight mechanism for officers of Parliament was launched as a two-year pilot project, beginning last fall with the 2006-07 budgetary cycle. In this context I would like to point out that the new government, recognizing the vital role played by the officers of Parliament, is committed to the collaborative approach that has characterized this endeavour to date and is supportive of the continuation of the pilot project.
To ensure a successful launch of the pilot project, last fall Treasury Board Secretariat and the offices of the officers of Parliament engaged in discussions regarding the modalities of the pilot project. Together we focused on developing an approach that would fit within Canada's constitutional and statutory framework and be broadly applicable to all officers of Parliament. We were also conscious of the need to strike a balance, recognizing the independence of the officers of Parliament, the critical role of Parliament, and the responsibility of government for the sound stewardship of public resources.
Likewise, the Officers of Parliament — given their independence and role in relation to Parliament and Canadians — were conscious of the special duty of care they owe in managing their offices. The Officers indicated support for the funding and oversight mechanism that would ensure that their respective resource requests and their management practices were subject to scrutiny and a rigorous challenge process. Related to this, the Officers noted their obligation to uphold the highest standards of leadership excellence and management confidence.
We worked closely to ensure that the pilot project was implemented smoothly, and it was. This was due at least in part to the implementation framework developed by Mr. Robert Marleau, former Clerk of the House of Commons, with over three decades of experience in positions related to Canadian parliamentary procedures, and at one time an interim officer of Parliament. This implementation framework described the process and the modalities to assist the panel in the initial stages of its deliberations. The officers of Parliament and the previous panel agreed to this framework, and we intend to recommend the same framework to the new panel.
I would now like to take the opportunity to outline the process as detailed in the framework, and as we foresee it playing out on relaunch of the Panel.
In brief, the officers' presentations and budgetary submissions would be made directly to the panel. These may include broad outlines of their mandates, resources, and priorities, as well as specific requests for new resources. Treasury Board Secretariat would provide, as advice to the panel, an overview of the budgetary parameters and an assessment of the officers' budgetary requests. This advice would be based on a thorough analysis of the proposals, including the legal and policy contexts that govern the officers' activities. The panel may wish to call relevant officers to explain their requests and the Treasury Board Secretariat to explain its assessment. This was our experience last fall with the funding requests from the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
In preparing its assessment, the Treasury Board Secretariat would assess the consistency of the budget proposals with the officers' mandates, would review the proposals against prior spending and performance information from the previous estimate cycles, and would determine whether the resource requests were aligned with the proposed activities and the anticipated results. The committee should note that as a matter of course, in performing its challenge in advisory functions, the Treasury Board Secretariat would engage in active dialogue with the offices of the officers of Parliament to ensure a full understanding of the nature and rationale for the request and explain the Treasury Board Secretariat's concerns and recommendations, if any.
In assessing Officers' budgetary requests and management practices, the Panel may choose to draw on a range of different perspectives — including the advice of both independent subject matter experts and auditors. In addition, the Panel may launch reviews or call for third-party assessments.
As required under the Financial Administration Act and as outlined in the framework, officers continue to adhere to Treasury Board policies and directives. Consistent with other public service entities, officers of Parliament are required to submit annual reports on plans and priorities and performance reports to Parliament as part of the estimates process. In addition, the office of the Auditor General continues to exercise audit responsibilities with respect to officers of Parliament.
The committee should note that, should the application of Treasury Board policies and directives, in the view of any Officer of Parliament, be incompatible with an Officer's statutes or in some way hinder the independence by the Officer to carry out its mandate, the Panel can consider the issue and make recommendations for adjustments or exceptions to the Treasury Board.
In undertaking its work during the last session of Parliament, the panel considered two submissions for increased funding, one from the Office of the Information Commissioner and one from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. The advisory recommendations of the panel to Treasury Board ministers reflected deliberations of panel members at meetings held on November 17 and 24, 2005. The 2006-07 main estimates reflect the panel's advice regarding the funding requests.
In their recommendations to Treasury Board ministers, the panel noted:
Members of the Panel believe that this new decision-making process, incorporating and reflecting advice from Parliament, can achieve the central objective sought by the Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Judging from the experience to date, we tend to agree. We're looking forward to the re-establishment of the panel, which we understand may happen in a matter of days, and the continuation of this important work, which will hopefully lead to a permanent mechanism upon the successful conclusion of the pilot.
In conclusion, I would like to note that the Treasury Board Secretariat and the officers have been anticipating the re-establishment of the panel, which will mark the continuation of a new and innovative approach to the funding and oversight of officers of Parliament.
Thank you.
