Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 30th, 2010

[Daphne Meredith]

Thank you.

We currently have an annual exercise, as I mentioned, the management accountability framework's assessment of departments on values and ethics issues. That is used as a springboard for best-practice discussions. Additionally, it can be used as a mechanism to check with departments on whether the guidance they receive from the centre is enough to support them. We don't want to be the only source of guidance. As the Auditor General's report points out, many departments have a lot of internal guidance that they provide, and we think that's healthy.

There are also collectives of departments that get together and discuss values and conflict of interest issues within their organizations. For example, there's a group of science-based departments that meets regularly on those issues. Where we fully accept and appreciate the Auditor General's advice, it's to have a more formal checking in on an annual basis, say. We'll determine with them the best frequency, but I say on an annual basis to make sure that our guidance is meeting their needs.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Do you have a brief response, Madame d'Auray?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Briefly.

I've actually just handed over to the Auditor General the changes that we have made to the values and ethics line of evidence, as we call it, in the management accountability framework for 2010-11, which takes up the recommendations that were made in her report, to make sure that we ask specifically what departments have put in place in order to deal with conflicts of interest.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Would it be fair and responsible to ask you to provide a copy of that to this committee?

[Michelle d'Auray]

We would be quite happy to do so.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine. Thank you very much.

Mr. D'Amours, please, five minutes.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. d'Auray, you provided me with an answer earlier, but since my time was over, I was not able to continue.

I would simply like you to confirm something for me, but I do not want to put any words into your mouth. Previously, when you were talking about the values and ethics code and the policy on conflict of interest, you said that this was a simple question but that its implementation was complicated. Is that in fact what you said?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Yes.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Could you refer to the document that you sent us, the one entitled “Departmental Action Plan on Conflict of Interest”? Could you take a look at it, please? It is a legal-sized document.

Mr. Chair, while we wait for Ms. d'Auray to find the document, I would ask that you stop the clock.

On the back of the cover page, you can see the word "Introduction”. Do you see that?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Yes.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Could you please read the first sentence of the third paragraph and stop at the comma?

[Michelle d'Auray]

Unfortunately, I have it in English.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

You can read it in English if you feel like it, there is no problem with that.

[Michelle d'Auray]

It is not about whether or not I feel like it, but you are asking me to read this sentence. You have it in front of you, so I am presuming that I can give you my interpretation of this sentence in French: "The new conflict of interest policy...”

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Ms. d'Auray, could you read it in English, please?

[Michelle d'Auray]

—“is expected to retain substantially the same requirements as the current policy”.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you.

In French, it says: "The new conflict of interest policy is expected to retain substantially the same requirements as the current policy [...]”

A short while ago, you said that this was a simple matter, but that its implementation was complicated. Heavens, I wouldn't want it to be really complicated for the Treasury Board Secretariat! If it must substantially retain the same requirements as the current policy, how can it be so complicated? The question is simple, but the answer also seems to be simple. You know this, it is written in your opening statement.

If I may, I am going to keep going so that I do not run out of time.

At 9:23 this morning, we were emailed your action plan by your office, the Treasury Board Secretariat. The clerk received it. The committee meeting started at 10 o'clock. Could you tell us exactly when, between 9:23 this morning and the start of this committee meeting, at 10 o'clock, you decided to extend by three months the time required to implement these new policies?

According to the first version, this was to be implemented by the end of March 2011. However, today, you decided to give yourself the entire spring to do this. This all started in 2005, and it was implemented in 2007. You will agree, everything, or nearly everything, is delayed. Certain incidents occur and put you in a situation where you no longer have any choice, but now you are extending the amount of time required to implement this.

Could you be a little bit more serious about this? Let us be clear, you have not been serious about this for years. Between 9:23 this morning and 10:00 a.m., when the committee meeting started, you gave yourself an additional three months for the implementation of these policies. Could we have some explanation? It is complicated and, at the same time, it is being dragged out. And yet you said that this was simple. That is what is written in the third paragraph.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Madame d'Auray.

[Michelle d'Auray]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to mention three things.

First of all, at the end of that paragraph, it also says that the new policy will deal with questions that will be clarified because they were raised since the implementation of the current code. As I explained, we are still discussing two or three issues with our legal counsel. It is substantially the same code, but some issues that were raised, which are different, have been developed since the advent of the 2003 code.

Secondly, with regard to the delays since 2003, 2005, 2007, when the act was adopted in 2005, the code that we have just adopted in 2003 had just barely been implemented; we were still doing that.

You must not forget that we had developed a code of values and ethics for the first time in 2003. The new act was introduced and adopted in 2005. It was supposed to be implemented in 2007 because a code had just been tabled in 2003. A code cannot be applied or integrated quickly when there are 200,000 employees.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Ms. d'Auray, I would like to be sure that you understand. You can give us all the dates you want. Let's take 2007; that was three years ago. We could take 2005, which would mean five years ago. Every time we hear from the Treasury Board Secretariat, there are delays.

In 33 minutes, you gave yourself three extra months.

[Michelle d'Auray]

First of all, the committee hearing started at 11 o'clock and not at 10 o'clock. Moreover, we amended the document because we wanted to be in a position to give you a date. We said that it would be in spring because we were not certain that we could achieve this by March.

In order to avoid choosing a date that we were not necessarily in a position to confirm, we agreed on spring 2011.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Before we go to Madame Faille for one more question, a little clarification.

The departmental action plan arrived this morning. Subsequently, the Treasury Board did send, after that, a corrected version of the French text, and this was given out. Of course the only difference in it was that the French text was marked as a draft, and it's not. That is the only clarification the chair is offering on the addition of another supplementary action plan. It was simply the one word “Draft” on the other side. It doesn't interfere, obviously, with the context of the departmental action plan as presented.

Madame Faille, you have five minutes.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I would like a clarification please.

The agenda indicates that we are to deal with my motion a little later. Would it be possible to postpone it until next Thursday? I received information from the department that I would like to go over first.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

On your motion?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Yes.