Evidence of meeting #50 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was every.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
The amounts have already been sent to my accountants.
No, I was not in a good condition. I was exhausted, madam. I had to rebuild my health. I am sure that you can obtain all this information.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
All right.
In 2007, you were questioned by the Committee on Government Operations and Estimates about your knowledge regarding your mandate. I was present.
3:50 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
Yes, exactly, madam. I remember.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
You answered that you were anxious to begin the investigations. I think that you also remember that.
What happened that made you abandon this objective to conduct the investigation quickly?
3:50 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
First of all, in the Canadian context, we are very similar to any new organization attempting to enforce new legislation.
Madam, as a new parliamentary officer, there was no advantage to my not going ahead with the investigations. To the contrary, my reputation as well as my office's reputation—and I was well aware of that, because I had directed investigation teams—was related to our work on the large files. The team that I had set up was not going to botch the work. After only three years, there were 15 investigations. If you get a copy of a letter addressed to the Senate clerk, Mr. O'Brien, you will notice that we were getting ready to table our first investigation reports. I tried to explain—and I am sorry if I was not clear—that we were conducting preliminary investigations, that they were very exhaustive and that they helped us to decide if we could carry on with the following phase of the investigation.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Wait, let me interrupt you here. What do you mean by exhaustive?
I heard and I read that your investigations were botched up and that they were prejudicial to the whistleblowers. In many cases, the whistleblowers did not even have the opportunity of an interview with your department.
As far as we are concerned, we heard that you had filtered the complaints and that you had been prejudicial to whistleblowers. The Auditor General was clear about this. I do not understand what made you so reticent to do your job.
3:55 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
With regard to the observations made by the Auditor General, I basically disagree with them. I have never seen the least analysis or the least detail. These people reviewed 120 files and they kept 86 of them. During my interview, they referred to 7 or 8 of them, and then they kept 4.
Madam, in August 2009, I met people from the Auditor General's office. The investigation had already been going on for some time. I asked them if anything needed improvement and if our procedures were causing them any problems. This meeting was documented. The auditors had spent the summer in our office. However, they never told us about any problems whatsoever. I personally consulted the Office of the Auditor General regarding specific files. I personally sent one back. I assure you, madam, that in my professional work, I consider it to be my duty to study every complaint that is submitted. Our team has never disagreed. This is perfectly in keeping with the experience of many organizations.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I will interrupt you at this precise point. You are painting a brilliant portrait of your career, but things did not always happen in that way, especially during your time with Public Works and Government Services Canada. In fact, several cases are currently being reviewed by the Department of Justice. Millions of dollars are at stake and there is litigation going on.
3:55 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
I do not know what you are talking about, madam. I have no idea.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I'll have to ask you to pursue that in the next round.
Mr. Christopherson.
March 10th, 2011 / 3:55 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
And thank you very much for your attendance today. Notwithstanding where we end up on the issues, I can't imagine this is easy, as an individual. This is not going to be fun today, but I do hope you leave here at least feeling you've been treated fairly--that's important--and if not, I know that Mr. Whitehall is here to help you assert your rights. But I do hope that, as tough as it is, you do feel that it's fair.
Having said that, I do have some tough questions. The first one is to set the stage, if you will. My late father, Leonard George Christopherson, taught me that money talks, even if it just says, “hush”.
So the issue here on the one side is that it looks like, or at least an argument can be made.... The political allegation is that the storyline goes like this: you were selected specifically by the government to go into this position, and the secret directive was, make sure nothing gets out that hurts us. That would explain why there were so few investigations, why there were so few--in fact, zero--findings of any problems. And when it looked like the AG was onto this gig, then suddenly the government and you got together and decided you needed to get out of there. To make sure that the government's wish was achieved that everything that happened during the interim time didn't come out, there was a document signed that said you wouldn't talk about anything, and here is close to a half a million dollars to encourage you to honour that. That's the picture on the one side of it.
I have questions about the AG's report, but I'd like to ask you questions about your earlier answers, when you said that, yes, they--meaning the government--wanted you to leave. Can you tell me how that was conveyed to you?
4 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
This is a non-negotiable offer.
4 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'm sorry, so there was one meeting? You were asked to come to a meeting?
4 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
No. I was never part of any meeting. Everything was done through counsel, and I have to say that I was very surprised. I sincerely thought I could continue to make a contribution, like I had done in my 28 years. Sir, I've never...this is part of who I am. It is also part of every member of the team that has worked with me, the majority of whom worked for between a year and three years, as opposed to a handful of discontented employees who worked merely a few weeks or a few months. And that happens. It was to be expected.
So, sir, when I accepted that job, just like I accepted any position across the government...I have always been known to be fair, to do what is right. I was told that I had a 100% batting average in the quality of my advice. I spoke truth to power, and I spoke truth to parliamentarians when I appeared before you.
4 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Because time is constrained, could you please just move to the issue around how you were approached? You were suggesting to me that you just got contacted out of the blue. You were sent documents, a package, you met with someone, a phone call, an e-mail?
4 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
It was my lawyer who phoned me and said, I just got the call and there is going to be a non-negotiable offer coming.
4 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
But at that point, then, prior to that, there had been no discussion by you with anyone about your possibly leaving.
4 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
None whatsoever.
4 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
And the chair of my audit committee can confirm this, because he's the one who I approached, saying, I think it's time that I move on and I'd like to have another position.
4 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Did it ever occur to you, as an option, to say no to a non-negotiable deal? They can't physically force you to sign the document to go. But given your background, and clearly you're a strong individual, why didn't you just stand and fight as the commissioner within...especially since you reject the whole report? Why not utilize all the powers and tools available in your department and the other central agencies to stand and fight if you've been wronged? Your whole department is about standing up for people who have been wronged. If you were wronged, why didn't you stand up for yourself?
4 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
In fact, I'd like to make a correction, because it was not after I was approached that the Auditor General started to look at my office. My office had been looked at for two years. And in fact the Auditor General has had contact with the Privy Council Office throughout this process. I don't know what was the nature of those discussions, but I explained, sir, that I took all of my energy to continue to do the job I had to do. But the process had to come to an end.
4 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I understand. I'm sorry. I know the audit was already under way.
Let me ask you another question tied to your looking at the audit. Back when I was a provincial minister, having dealt with the Auditor General, I would be given a draft report some months before for accuracy and any response on things. Did that ever come about? The AG makes the comment on page 13 of her report that she did offer you a chance to comment but you declined. I'm not sure of the timing of that, but it looks like it definitely came, if I'm reading this right, at least after. During the process there's usually a draft. So you knew what was going on. You knew you were having the interviews. Did you have any idea of the conclusions they were reaching along the way?
4 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
In fact, along the way I never knew what the issues were and what the allegations were.