Public Accounts Committee on May 11th, 2006

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Mr. Christopherson, eight minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's nice to see you again, Madam Fraser and team.

As you know, I take this role very seriously in this committee, in terms of holding both the government and the bureaucracy accountable, and I've been frantically trying to think of how I can make sure we're holding you accountable too, because that's our job. But you do such a great job, the fact of the matter is that most politicians on the Hill would give their right arm to have one-tenth of the credibility you have with the Canadian people. So I'm just going to push on a little. As far as I'm concerned—and I think this reflects the view of the committee, and certainly of the last committee—you do a fantastic job for the Canadian people. You really do.

I watched you closely both when things were riding high and everything was going great and also when the criticism came, and what impressed me most was that you were always the same, always having the same level of professionalism and the same approach. That speaks volumes to your professionalism and that of your department and those who work with you.

So on behalf of the people I represent, I certainly thank you for the job you do. But watch out, because we're still going to be watching you, as our job is to watch everybody.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I want to jump to an issue that's been referred to here in a front-page story in the Ottawa Citizen. Rather than talk about the substance, I'd like to talk about the process, to the extent that the most I knew of it, as a member of this committee, was exactly what's reflected in the documents in front of us, meaning the May 2006 status report and what the subject matter was.

We had a little more information at the last meeting, Mr. Chair, which just spoke to the questions you were attempting to ask and get answers to, but we had nothing at all in terms of the substance of what your department found.

Then there was a notation that there would be another matter related to Parliament's control of public spending. Of course, everybody's political antennae went up, as you'd expect, and there was some apprehension on the part of the some as to what exactly that might mean.

I'd like to know your first thoughts on the appropriateness of this and your reaction to one of your reports that's supposed to be secret until formally tabled. Either it's wrong, in which case this is the end of story and the report will have to deal with it, or could you go on about this? Is this okay, and if it's not, how do you feel about it and what are your thoughts?

[Sheila Fraser]

First of all, let me thank Mr. Christopherson for his kind words. I do very much appreciate the comments, and I also appreciate the important role this committee has in holding us to account. We try to ensure that we are accountable through various other procedures. We have the reviews that are conducted of the office, and all the rest of it. While I hope we don't get a lot of tough questions, we do welcome tough questions too, because they are part of the accountability process.

As for the article in the paper this morning, I can't comment as to whether it is true or not, because that would be divulging the report that will be coming next week, but I'm sure all of the members of this committee know that we don't always believe everything that's written in newspapers. That being said, we take this very seriously; we are very upset when we see reports being leaked to the media. I can assure you the leak did not come from my office. Our departmental security officer is conducting an investigation. This is not the first time it has happened, and unfortunately, I don't think it'll be the last time it will happen.

We will be speaking to certain people to try to encourage, perhaps, more retenue in the future and recognition that leaks such as this are really not helpful—and are an affront to Parliament, quite frankly.

I find it very unfortunate that these things occur; they make it difficult for all of us.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, I appreciate your tone and your approach.

I'm a little more on the political end of this. I take it a little more seriously, especially since the first place one goes.... I don't want to make allegations that I can't back up, but I do know who has access to this information. If it's not your shop, then it's got to be somebody in officialdom who was given an initial look at it. I don't know.

I do know that there are opportunities for ministries to receive the comments and to be able to make comments back. So let me ask you the question: where else could that information have come from if it didn't come from you?

[Sheila Fraser]

In the course of preparing our audit reports, we do have many discussions and exchanges of draft documents and reports with the departments or agencies we're auditing. It is absolutely critical to our process to do that, because we have to ensure that the facts, as we are stating them, are correct. We also have to give an opportunity to departments to respond. When we have a recommendation in our report, there is a response from the government as to whether they agree or not with the action, and that is a really important part of doing the audit. So we need to be able to share those documents with departments, and we need to have that exchange.

I would say that generally there is never a problem with government officials, because they recognize the process and the confidentiality that has to remain around it.

We also have our suspicions about where this came from. I would be very hesitant to talk about it here, because again I have no proof of who may have spoken to the journalist, and obviously the journalist isn't going to disclose the source. But we will be speaking to people about this.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

One of the sources has to be somebody in government controls—it's the first place to go to. It's troublesome, given that ethics, accountability, transparency, turning government around, and cleaning government up are supposed to be among the top priorities of the new government. If they had any role whatsoever in leaking this, then they are breaking those promises, betraying their pact with the Canadian people in terms of what they said they would do when they got here.

I take this very seriously. It's clear that it's going to hurt one particular party here more than another, and I hope there are other committee members who.... I don't want to turn this into a witch hunt, but with a brand new committee, it's a big issue loaded with politics. If we're serious as a Parliament and the government is serious about doing things differently, then it has to start here. To some degree, tracking down how this happened—or at least letting people know that when you do these things we're going to sic the dogs on you and chase you—is important. Otherwise, things aren't going to change, it's going to be business as usual, and the ethics and accountability that we all want to bring here is not going to be met in the eyes of the Canadian people.

So I hope I could hear from other members from all parties that if somebody has done something he or she shouldn't have in terms of information vis-à-vis the auditor's report, then he or she needs to be held accountable. To not chase that accountability is to betray the promise that was made to the Canadian people.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That's the time.

I'm going to call upon Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. Eight minutes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and congratulations on your election.

I won't be able to be quite as lucid as Mr. Christopherson in saying how great it is to see you here and to be able to continue this very important work, but I certainly look forward to it.

I'd like to touch on a motion I have before the House of Commons stating that the government should introduce legislation allowing your offices to conduct special examinations of all Canadian airport authorities as if they are parent crown corporations, as defined in part 10 of the Financial Administration Act, and that for the purpose of the examinations, your offices have the power of an examiner, as set out in part 10.

I'd appreciate any comments you might have on this motion.

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, what our mandate might or might not be is really a question for Parliament to decide. I don't have a comment.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to move on. Since it's our first meeting, I'd like to reflect on some of what transpired during the last session.

One thing I found astounding as a new parliamentarian who arrived during the last Parliament was that we didn't have a Comptroller General, that this office did not exist. Even though it didn't hit the front pages of newspapers, one of the most encouraging things the last government did was establish that particular office.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I just have a small point of clarification. Wasn't it re-established?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Actually, it was re-established. It was eliminated during the Mulroney era, and it was re-established by Prime Minister Martin.

Has there been a full rollout of that office into all the departments? I remember in the fall, when we were going through the Comptroller General's first report, it hadn't been fully established in all departments, in all the ministries, and so on. Has that in fact occurred? Would you be aware of the information on that?

[Sheila Fraser]

We haven't, obviously, done any work recently on how well that whole initiative is going. There was always the function of Comptroller General, but it was combined with the Treasury Board Secretariat, so there wasn't a separation of those two responsibilities. We were supportive of separating it and thought that with all the changes that were coming, be it to financial reporting, the focus on internal audit, and all the rest of it, it was good that there be a separate function established for that.

The Comptroller General indicated that he wanted to review, I think, the senior financial officers and the capacity within government. We will be making some comments on that in the report that will be coming on Tuesday, but I think on the analysis--I'm sure he would say so, too--the work is certainly not completed yet. This is not something that can be done in a matter of months, either. Looking at all of this--the qualifications, and then bringing the qualified people in to those positions--will take time, but certainly the initiative has started and we will be giving an assessment of that, again, on Tuesday.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

When Mr. St. Jean was before the committee in the fall giving his initial reports, he stated, and I'll quote: “Canada is one of three countries in the world, along with Australia and New Zealand, to have an unqualified audit opinion with regard to its financial statements. This is an achievement we can all be proud of.”

Is that a statement you would concur with?

[Sheila Fraser]

Very much so. And we have said that in fact Canada has been a world leader in its financial reporting. Canada was one of the first countries.... Only a handful of countries actually, have adopted what we call full accrual accounting, having all the assets recorded and all the liabilities. For example, environmental liabilities are recorded. There are very few countries that actually do that. And so Canada has made significant progress in that regard, not only at the federal level but also at the provincial level, and has shown great leadership in that.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Following up on Mr. Christopherson's concerns, you said that an examination is taking place in your department in regard to this leak that occurred to the press on a report that's to come in the future. When would you be able to provide us with your findings as to whether the leak could have come from your offices?

[Sheila Fraser]

I can assure you today that the leak did not come from my office. I'm absolutely convinced of that. We handle 30-some reports a year. At times some are more sensitive than others, and my staff takes great care to ensure that all the procedures around the confidentiality of reports are respected. That's sort of ingrained in the way we do business.

We have our own suspicions about how that leak occurred. Obviously I wouldn't disclose them publicly, because they have not been substantiated, and I'm not sure they could ever be substantiated, but we will be speaking to the people concerned, and hopefully it won't reoccur.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Well, I'd like to concur with Mr. Christopherson that this would be terribly unfortunate. Hopefully, these sorts of leaks.... Besides the short-term political gain that they might provide for a particular party, people cannot lose sight of what in fact this does. Especially in this committee, we're very attuned to the fact that maintaining the high regard in which your offices are held is of critical importance if we're to have accountability in government. When leaks occur from departments--they do occur--it's unfortunate. I guess it's the nature of politics sometimes here in Ottawa. But a leak that damages the Office of the Auditor General is something to be treated extremely seriously, and I would hope this committee considers how we should follow up on this, because it really undermines the work of your offices and the work we do in this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

I should point out, members, that Mr. Williams has waited nine years for his regular eight minutes. I'll now give him his eight minutes.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank you for giving me eight minutes, but I remember one time when I was the chair and everybody had run out of questions, and I think I had 35 minutes non-stop.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You don't have that today.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I don't have that today. Okay.

First let me again congratulate the Auditor General for the fine work that she does on behalf of all Canadians. We very much appreciate the work and the high credibility with which you and your office are held. While I can no longer speak on behalf of all the committee, I know that you have my assurance that my constituents really appreciate the work you do, and we look forward to that relationship with Parliament continuing. You are an officer of Parliament and you report to Parliament, and you are our eyes and ears as we keep the government focused, efficient, and productive. It's great that you're there.

I have one or two questions.

I noticed that in paragraph 12, where you report, you state: “The report on plans and priorities for 2006-07”--which is part of the government's estimates process--“will be tabled in the fall”.

Mr. Chairman, why are we having this meeting today when we don't have the documents in front of us? My question is actually to you more than to the Auditor General. Perhaps you should have the steering committee contemplate having a real hearing on the estimates when we actually have the documents before us in the fall, so that we can actually put the Auditor General on the hot seat.

Will you take that under advisement?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Again, I assume it has to do with the change in government, although the Auditor General does not speak for government nor does she intend to, but she may want to comment on why it is the fall rather than now.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

In paragraph 13 you mention that the $3 million carry-forward from last year will be in your supplementary estimates. Am I correct in saying that all carry-forwards by all departments are in the supplementary estimates?

I remember a number of years ago that I thought it would be appropriate to have a special supplementary estimate. We as parliamentarians could see exactly what was being carried forward as a single document, and we could understand which departments are running right up to the line and which are being, in Mr. Christopherson's point, frugal and allowing the carry-forward. Do you think it would be a good idea to have a special supplementary estimate as a matter of course on the carry-forwards?

[Sheila Fraser]

Let me start by saying how much we have enjoyed working with Mr. Williams as chair of the committee over many years. While he may not have had his eight minutes in the rounds, it always seemed to me that the chair always managed to ask a few questions anyway.