Thank you.
As far as I know, the protocol, which is now on the PCO website, was not put there until late last Friday, and I did not have it to comment on until then. My great regret in doing the protocol is that I did not have the cooperation of Treasury Board, and it would be a better product if I had. I made every effort, as the committee did, to invite them to cooperate and collaborate, and they showed no interest whatsoever. So I have to live with the best job I could do, which is what I did for you.
I found the Privy Council Office's “Accounting Officers: Guidance on Roles, Responsibilities and Appearances Before Parliamentary Committees, 2007”--the document they posted late last week--to be disturbing because it seemed to me to fail to recognize what the statutes involved dictate.
The intention of the accounting officer approach as proposed by the public accounts committee, the Gomery commission, academics, and the Conservative Party and now embodied in the Financial Administration Act is, first, to identify the sphere of management that deputy ministers and heads of agencies--the accounting officers--hold in their own right; and second, to establish the principle that as accounting officers these very senior public servants are accountable before parliamentary committees, and particularly the public accounts committee, for their stewardship of their management responsibilities.
The Privy Council Office's document construes the accounting officer provisions of the Financial Administration Act so narrowly as to trivialize the very real and important management responsibilities of accounting officers and to deny that they are accountable in their own right.
The document also dictates a role for parliamentary committees in the accountability processes so limited as to make it doubtful whether, if the public accounts committee were to adhere to it, the committee could effectively hold the government to account for its stewardship of the public purse.
The Privy Council Office's document correctly states that the accounting officer provisions do not create new management responsibilities, but it is incorrect in stating that the accounting officers appear before the public accounts committee only in support of the minister's accountability to Parliament. Accounting officers cannot possibly appear in support of their ministers when they, as accounting officers and not the minister, hold the responsibility.
Responsibility means the authority to act. Accountability means being held to account for the use of that authority. Where ministers do not have the power to act, they cannot be accountable. Where accounting officers hold the power to act, they are the responsible and accountable officials. Accounting officers hold formidable management responsibilities in their own right. Powers delegated to them under the Public Service Employment Act and the Financial Administration Act give them, not ministers, most responsibilities for human resources management.
The Financial Administration Act assigns powers both directly and by delegation to deputy heads, the accounting officers. Neither act permits powers to be delegated to ministers, only to deputy heads. Parliament has assigned these powers to non-partisan public servants in order to maintain the neutrality of the public service and to protect the public purse from abuse by politicians.
The Financial Administration Act gives deputy heads, and deputy heads alone, statutory responsibility for ensuring that payments under contracts meet standards of compliance and propriety.
The Treasury Board's contracting policy demands that public servants who have been delegated authority to negotiate and conclude contractual arrangements on behalf of the Crown must exercise this authority with prudence and probity. The accounting officer is responsible for ensuring that these activities meet these standards, unless his or her advice has been overruled by the Secretary of the Treasury Board or the board itself. Failure of the Deputy Minister of Public Works to meet his statutory obligations and ensure that his department adhered to these standards allowed the problems in the sponsorship affair to occur.
The Privy Council Office's accounting officer document acknowledges that ministers may not give specific direction to accounting officers if they have been assigned management responsibilities or authorities by statute. But it maintains that the accounting officer is still accountable to the minister for the exercise of these authorities. The PCO misses the point here. Parliament has assigned the responsibility to accounting officers, not to ministers. The accounting officers, not the ministers, are accountable. The accounting officers appear before parliamentary committees to explain and defend their use of powers they hold in their own right. They do not appear to support the accountability of their ministers.
The Privy Council Office claims that the accounting officer is not accounting to the committee for his or her personal performance. This is not what the laws say. The provision of the relevant statutes makes it clear that the accounting officer is accountable before the committee for his or her personal performance. Where accounting officers hold the responsibility, they are responsible and accountable.
The Privy Council Office argues that former office holders should not appear before the public accounts committee because they cannot appear to commit to action. But a parliamentary committee cannot demand action of any official, minister, or accounting officer. Half the corps of deputy ministers were appointed to their current office since March 2006. If the committee were to do as the Privy Council Office instructs and only hear testimony from current office holders, much of the time it would not hear from the official who actually made the decisions under investigation. The committee would not be able to demand accountability from the officials whose actions they are examining.
Like all parliamentary committees, the public accounts committee cannot discipline or direct officials, whether those be ministers or public servants. The committee's powers are limited to hearing the testimony of witnesses, investigating issues and producing reports. The committee's work begins after something has gone wrong and has been reported on by the Auditor General. The committee's only real power is the power to examine and report. Its power is that essential component of parliamentary government to identify and expose, to enforce the deterrent effect of bad publicity. Responsible parliamentary government's great strength is that it clearly identifies who has responsibility and then holds them accountable.
Over the centuries, Parliament, against opposition by the Crown and government, insisted that it and it alone had the right to determine who was accountable before it, and how they should be held accountable for their use of the powers Parliament grants to officials. Parliament won. It still has this right. The Privy Council Office appears to have forgotten this fundamental constitutional principle.
Thank you.
