Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
First, thank you for having invited me to meet with the committee. Before I proceed, I wish to introduce my officials who are with me today: the Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Robert Benson; the Director, Strategy and Policy, Mr. Stephen Tsang; the Director, Corporate Affairs, Ms. Lyne Robinson-Dalpé; and the Director, Communications and Parliamentary Relations, Ms. Micheline Rondeau-Parent.
My appearance today is in relation to my office's 2006-2007 main estimates. This is the third year of our activities, and it represents, in some sense, the anchor year in terms of our operations and budgetary requirements. That is, relative to at least the current arrangements, we've arrived at what I believe is the appropriate stabilizing level. The total amount requested for 2006-2007 is $5.051 million. By comparison, for last year, our first full financial year, we sought and received $4.675 million.
Our current year's request represents an 8% increase over last year. This relates solely to an increase in the cost of the provision of services from our parliamentary partners, namely, an increase of $220,000 in the memorandum of understanding with the House of Commons with respect to the provision of information technology services, and an increase of $250,000 in the memorandum of understanding with the Library of Parliament with respect to the provision of financial, procurement, administrative, and library services.
It is important to note that our main estimates requirements assume that the mandate and functions of the office remain the same. Although my office has taken some preliminary measures in preparation for the possible coming into force of Bill C-2, the proposed Federal Accountability Act, our estimates for 2006-2007 do not take into account any budgetary requirements that may result from its enactment. Should the bill be enacted during this current financial year, supplementary estimates will be sought, if needed.
I would now like to provide you with a brief contextual perspective of our budgetary requirements. As members are aware, my office is relatively new, as it was created on May 17, 2004. Our first year, 2004-2005, was a transition year. We sought and obtained $3.7 million for 10.5 months of activity. This enabled us to bridge our operations towards the creation of a new office as a unique and separate entity under the Parliament of Canada Act, outside the purview of the executive branch of government.
Our second year, 2005-2006, was a development year. This was our first full year of activity and our first full-year request as a new parliamentary entity. We sought and received, as I said earlier, a little more than $4.5 million. The increase from the previous year was attributable to our operational needs for a full year, particularly in the area of salaries and benefits related to a significant increase in the number of personnel, the provision of legal and investigative services, and costs for new services previously rendered and absorbed by other government entities.
This year, 2006-2007, is a year of stability and status quo, as already explained earlier. As detailed above, it is a flat budget, since it does not require any additional operating funds.
On a general matter related to our budget, I would like to discuss another, more general consideration. As some members may be aware, since the fall of 2005, i.e. the launching of our new Web site, in a spirit of transparency, we have posted all our expenditures. These present the Office's entire budget's expenditures, not only those related to travel or hospitality, as is the case for all government organizations. That practice is ongoing as anyone can drill down a budget, in relation to each line object and see where each dollar has been spent. In order to keep them relevant, these are updated monthly.
You may recall that during my appearance before your committee on September 20, some members requested information with respect to past estimates. In response, I sent a letter to the chair, dated October 3, in which I provided, in appendix, further information and clarification on the specific issues raised. I assume that members have been provided with copies of this correspondence.
Finally, the Parliament of Canada Act provides my office with a distinct financial mechanism through which the Speaker of the House of Commons considers the office's requirements and transmits them to the president of the Treasury Board. Last year this committee tabled its report entitled “A New Process for Funding Officers of Parliament”, which listed my office as a participant in the recommendation that established a budgetary panel for a two-year pilot project.
The pilot project process prescribed that officers would “provide their annual budget submission directly to the panel along with an accompanying submission by the Treasury Board Secretariat. As an officer of Parliament under the Parliament of Canada Act, I wrote to Speaker Milliken, as chair of the panel, to clarify this process. On November 23, 2005, he responded, confirming that, “I am in agreement that, in the current context, there is no role for the Treasury Board in the review of your budget requirements”.
Although my office has not been called before the panel, should the Speaker of the House of Commons wish to refer my budget submission to a review panel, I'd be pleased to participate, noting that my office does not operate within exactly the same context and parameters as do the agents of Parliament.
I thank you for your attention. My officials and I would be pleased to answer your questions and address any issues related to our 2006-2007 Estimates or any other related matter, including further clarification related to my October 3 letter.
