Funding Officers of Parliament.

• Author: Douglas, Kristen

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics began hearings in the fall of 2004 on the Estimates of the three Officers of Parliament who fall within its mandate--the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada, and the Ethics Commissioner. The Committee's mandate includes matters related to the reports of these three Commissioners (the Ethics Commissioner primarily with respect to his responsibilities under the Parliament of Canada Act relating to public office holders) and to reports tabled pursuant to the Lobbyists Registration Act. The details of its mandate are set out in section 108(3)(h) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. This article looks at the background to the issue of funding Officers of Parliament, the views of several parliamentary officers and others who appeared before the Committee, various funding models that were considered, the recommendations of the Committee in its report tabled in May 2005 and some reaction to that report.

**********

In the course of its first meetings with the three Commissioners, the Committee was alerted to .funding concerns that were shared by the Information and Privacy Commissioners. John Reid, Information Commissioner of Canada, described his office as being in a "financial crisis". He reported to the Committee that he was hindered in meeting his statutory obligations by inadequate resources, and indicated that both the investigatory and non-investigatory staff groups in his Office are significantly understaffed, resulting in a growing backlog of cases. Also, his Office has had to give up its public affairs, research, education and training capacities. Despite repeated pleading with Treasury Board, his Office had received only emergency and partial funding. (1)

The Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, explained that since the adoption of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), her Office has relied on two streams of funding, one under the Main Estimates, providing the Office with funding for its operations under the Privacy Act, and another relating to its responsibilities under PIPEDA. She expressed concern about the way in which these two streams of funding would be reconciled to ensure that the Office's long-term financial needs are met. This concern has been the subject of ongoing negotiations between her Office and the Treasury Board Secretariat. Ms. Stoddart indicated that her Office would make a submission to the Treasury Board Secretariat for long-term permanent funding in 2005. In this case, the funding concern was not about adequacy of funds, but the nature of the mechanism by which her Office is funded. (2)

Both Commissioners sought a new funding mechanism that would ensure their Offices' independence from government. Their functions as ombudsmen, or oversight agencies scrutinizing government performance in important areas, necessitate an appropriate degree of independence. This argument was reinforced throughout the Committee's hearings on the subject of funding of Officers of Parliament, and ultimately convinced Members to issue a report and recommend change. A summary of the content of that report, its recommendations, and some reaction to it follows below. (3)

The Committee was not the first to deal with concerns about the funding mechanism for Officers of Parliament. In June 2003, in its report on the Radwanski affair (4), the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates identified a need for a comprehensive review of the structure and functions of Officer of Parliament positions, including the accountability regime that governs their relationships with both the government and Parliament. (5) That Committee recommended that a House of Commons committee study and report back on the role and functions of Officers of Parliament, their independence, the Estimates process, and "other items in their accountability to Parliament."

In addition, concerns about funding for the operations of the Office of the Auditor General, and related matters, motivated the House Standing Committee on Public Accounts to look into this matter as well. (6) At that time, the Public Accounts Committee reported that it had been aware of issues regarding funding for the Auditor General's Office for four years. Its Report notes that discussions between the Auditor General and the Treasury Board Secretariat regarding a new funding mechanism had been prolonged far beyond what could be considered a reasonable time limit. The Committee recommended that, prior to the end of October 2005, a new funding mechanism be established for the Office of the Auditor General that "safeguards the independence of the Office and ensures that it will be able to meet the expectations of Parliament."

The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has also issued a report on Officers of Parliament. (7) After reviewing the Estimates of various Officers of Parliament, the Senate Committee identified budget determination as a common concern. As part of its Estimates hearings, the Senate Committee met with the President of the Treasury Board, Reg Alcock, who advised that the Treasury Board intends to...