Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 25th, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Sure.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chairman, your comment was—and I recall the committee recommending it—that the panel had an opportunity, if it felt it should, to request independent experts, independent auditors, as you've said in your opening statement.

Did the panel do that?

[Mary Chaput]

I'm going to defer to Rose on that. My recollection is that they did not last year. That's not to say they may not next year.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

No. Mr. Chairman, the committee hopefully will have an opportunity to look at the estimates of the information, ethics, and privacy commissions in particular.

How do you foresee that process fitting in with this process you've described to us?

[Mary Chaput]

That process should unfold in much the same way as it would otherwise. The review of the estimates by the committee, with or without the panel, should unfold in the same manner.

I think what might be a little different is some of the conversation you might have with the agents at that point in time around the development of their estimates and the degree to which they feel their resource requirements have been met or not met.

They may bring to you a different kind of view on that issue. Of course, I wouldn't want to speak on their behalf, but in that there would be a different dynamic leading up to the creation of the estimates, you may find a different kind of conversation in your review of the estimates.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

You see, Mr. Chairman, my recollection of it was that when the committee reviewed the estimates, we had all three commissions here in one afternoon, for two hours, and that was it. The panel held three meetings in the fall of 2005. The first one was simply an overview meeting to discuss things, and the other two were to hear specific requests from the Information Commissioner, the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Official Languages Commissioner, and the Privacy Commissioner. There's not much time.

I'm recalling the former clerk, Clerk Marleau, who came to the accountability committee and talked about the process of estimates. He said that we as parliamentarians don't spend enough time reviewing the estimates of ministries, commissions, and all sorts of things. He was certainly right regarding this committee reviewing the estimates, but I question, still, whether we're spending enough time looking at what's going on at those commissions. They're almost going to be up to about $10 million each, the three commissions.

I guess I'm looking for some assurance on the effect of this panel. I believe it has great potential, and I think we're all in agreement on its coming about, but I believe there needs to be more work done with it.

Could you comment on that?

[Mary Chaput]

Certainly, as I said, we don't feel that we've necessarily got it perfect on the first run. As for room for further discussion of the estimates, there's always one more question that could or should be asked and would be informative and helpful. I guess it boils down to the availability of people in this room, panel members and others, as to whether that questioning takes place.

Rose is signalling that she has more to say on this.

[Rosemary Robertson O'Reilly]

Mr. Chair, if I could, I would like to add a little bit of perspective to the two meetings that did take place, that the panel had to study the estimates. I want to make sure we're saying the same thing.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

They had two meetings to discuss five commissions.

[Rosemary Robertson O'Reilly]

No. They had two meetings and they discussed two funding submissions--one for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and one for the Office of the Information Commissioner.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Oh, they didn't discuss the others, the Official Languages--

[Rosemary Robertson O'Reilly]

No. What I wanted to impress upon you, which, from a due diligence perspective, from the panel's perspective, and from that of the Treasury Board Secretariat, was that at these meetings there was a substantial discussion about one funding request, which is a small piece of the full, main estimates. I would not argue, but I would indicate that there was some good discussion from panel members on a small piece of the full, main estimates. Should the panel continue, each time there's a new request, that will come in through the panel and a picture will be built over a period of time. Probably in another five years the panel will have assessed and affected the full estimates of that office, and that would be the outcome of the value of the panel.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Could I have one more question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

No. You're already over ten minutes on a seven-minute round.

On your point, Mr. Tilson, we will have a discussion of the main estimates of the Ethics Commissioner on Wednesday, November 1, the main estimates of the Information Commissioner on November 6, and the main estimates of the Privacy Commissioner on November 8. There will be one meeting for each of them, as opposed to one meeting for all three of them, so we're making some progress. The more the members are prepared, the more the two hours will be of benefit to everybody.

We'll now go to Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Continuing with what Mr. Tilson was saying, there are only two members, Mr. Tilson and Mr. Zed, who were here when this panel was established, if I'm right. When I look at this, we're saying that it's very successful and is an innovative approach to funding. I don't see clearly where it is successful and what measures are there to say that it's successful. Continuing with what Mr. Dewar was asking, can the panel explain why this is an innovative approach, and are there any shortcomings that this committee can look at as well to make this a successful project?

[Mary Chaput]

Certainly in the course of doing the evaluation that we've talked about, inclusion of the view of the committee, discussion with the clerk of the committee, etc., would be part of the evaluation process. So we would hope to have the benefit of the input of committee members as we move forward.

As to whether it is truly innovative or not, for Canada it is indeed, to the degree that it steps away from the traditional process and brings parliamentarians' views to bear on the decision-making around the estimates for these particular agents of Parliament.

On the point about success or its lack, as I said, I hope I haven't declared victory too early. But I can tell you that among those who work in these areas at the secretariat—and if I can speak on behalf of the agents, just in this one scenario—we agree that this is certainly a more constructive way to have a dialogue; it perhaps brings down frustration levels a bit. I think having a more constructive and a more suitable funding mechanism for the agents of Parliament is a precursor to success.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I'm still confused, Mr. Chair.

Could you elaborate maybe two or three perspectives of this panel that you see from a Canadian perspective are new, compared with how the funding was done earlier?

[Mary Chaput]

Certainly. Prior to the establishment of the panel, an agent of Parliament—take the Auditor General—would prepare a Treasury Board submission duly signed off by the Minister of Finance. Under the traditional process, it would have gone directly to Treasury Board—the cabinet committee. In between those two steps, yes, there would have been some conversation with the secretariat, but it would likely have been limited to brief exchanges.

The secretariat would then provide, based on that limited exchange with the agent of Parliament, a recommendation to the Treasury Board cabinet committee. Parliamentarians would not have been part of that deliberation process, would have had no view, first of all, into what that recommendation to the cabinet committee was going to be, and would not have had the opportunity to hear from the agents in their own words.

In effect, parliamentarians, except those who sat on the Treasury Board cabinet committee, would have been outside this process. By virtue of the panel process, parliamentarians are engaged at the outset of this exercise. They hear directly from the agents of Parliament; they hear from the secretariat as well; and they're given an opportunity to get their views on the table in an official way.

From that point of view, it's very different in the way the people in this room are engaged, and we feel that's highly appropriate, given the special relationship the agents have with Parliament.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Would it be advisable that this panel act as more than an advisory panel? What is the view of the panel?

[Mary Chaput]

The role this panel is able to play at this point in time is circumscribed by the Financial Administration Act. The authorities and powers of Treasury Board are vested in that cabinet committee, and therefore for the panel to be afforded more than an advisory role would require an adjustment to the Financial Administration Act as it describes the authorities of Treasury Board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll direct my question through you, Mr. Chair, to our witnesses today.

I noted that this committee's recommendations back in May of 2005, prior to the establishment of a panel, specifically mentioned at that time the three commissioners who fell within the mandate. Specifically included were the Information, Privacy, and Ethics Commissioners. At that time the recommendation was to use the Board of Internal Economy as the forum for this.

Some time between May of 2005 and the fall of 2005, when the first meetings of the panel were developed, changes were made. We now have five offices, in fact, that would appear before this independent thirteen-member panel, but the Ethics Commissioner stayed with the Board of Internal Economy.

Could you tell us a little about what transpired in going from the initial model that this committee contemplated to where we ended up, and--to go back to Mr. Peterson's point--could you reiterate again why the Ethics Commissioner's reviews are still with the board, rather than with the panel? Could you address that again?

Thank you.

[Mary Chaput]

I'll certainly try to do that. I may ask Rose O'Reilly to back me up on this one, because she's likely to be able to bring more information to the floor.

The panel process was expanded to include more agents of Parliament than initially envisaged because of the interest expressed by the agents of Parliament and the fact that the compelling issue here, the conflict of interest issue, was felt to be shared by all of them--shared to different degrees, because of their different levels of interaction, and from different angles, because of their varying mandates. They saw it as a horizontal issue that cut across them as a group. Because we wanted to deal with that issue and all agents of Parliament on a level playing field to the degree that we could, we felt there was merit in including a broader group.

We didn't think the movement to the larger group would be too weighty or more than the panel could handle once this gets to steady state, in that the number is still quite limited, so we weren't worried particularly about volume. We were more interested in ensuring that if this problem existed in more than one relationship an agent of Parliament had with the secretariat, we would be able to resolve it in as many places as possible with one tool.

As for the inclusion of the Ethics Commissioner, it comes back to the legislation setting out the fact that their funding levels and considerations will be dealt with by the Board of Internal Economy.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

That is set out specifically then.

[Mary Chaput]

Yes.