Government Operations Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[Sheila Fraser]

This office was separate from Corrections Canada. It had its own budget, and it would have been within that budget.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

So it could be surpluses from botching or not doing investigations and not spending the money that is required to investigate. If you have a complaint from someone in Sudbury, maybe you should go see that person. If you don't spend to go see that person, the complainant, the victim, then sure, you're going to have a surplus.

[Sheila Fraser]

I don't know.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

You can't tell.

[Sheila Fraser]

No.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

But it could.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Monsieur Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Building on the report that you presented and that the environment commissioner contributed to, it was your conclusion and the environment commissioner's conclusion that we were not en route to meet the Kyoto targets?

[Sheila Fraser]

That's correct.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Even given the programs that were introduced in the dying days of the previous government, there was nothing to indicate that those targets would have been achieved.

[Sheila Fraser]

I wish I had her report with me so that I could actually quote it to you. My recollection is that her report was very clear that the targets had not been met. However, she did point to some programs that were successful and that were achieving the results. I seem to recall that the EnerGuide program was one. There were some basic elements in place to be successful going forward.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Right, and that program, of course, had administration costs in the range of 50% plus.

From the time the previous government signed Kyoto to the time it left office, greenhouse gases increased by 35% above Kyoto targets, and at twice the rate of those in the United States during the exact same time period. The environment commissioner found that the programs introduced by the Liberal environment minister at the time, Mr. Dion, did not set clear objectives or point to clear results and, according to the environment commissioner, the Kyoto objectives were not going to be met.

So I'm looking for your advice, because all of us are trying to tackle the questions of climate change, smog reduction, and other environmental objectives. How do we design programs that will produce clear results or that set, first of all, clear and attainable objectives, and then how do we ensure they actually produce the results they are intended to produce?

[Sheila Fraser]

I think this is a very political discussion—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Sheila Fraser]

—in which I would prefer not to engage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Good luck on that!

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Okay. Well, it's also a very factual one.

I see I'm eliciting some excitement from my colleagues across the way; I seem to have struck a nerve with them

But back to the question of foundations. Can you describe some of the challenges you've had in trying to examine value for money when investigating foundations?

[Sheila Fraser]

Over the years we have raised a number of concerns about foundations and the accountability of foundations. We raised concerns initially about their reporting to Parliament, which were addressed—all of them now produce annual reports.

We had concerns as well about our ability to audit, and that was modified. Our mandate was changed in the Budget Implementation Act of 2005, which gave us the right to audit foundations. We have now included Sustainable Development Technology Canada in the commissioner's report, and we have two other audits coming that will also include foundations, one on research and development, including the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and another on support to students, including the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

So our concerns are largely addressed at this point.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Good. That's excellent.

As I mentioned earlier, it's our hope that foundations will become increasingly transparent as they are added to access to information; they are among the thirty organizations added by the Federal Accountability Act to the Access to Information Act. So we're looking forward to that transparency.

Any more questions from colleagues? We have Mr. Kramp.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I think the five minutes are up. I'll get back to you afterwards.

Madame Thibault.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Fraser, I fully understand why you made an effort to reassure the public in your report. You said that there were some disappointing incidents—I agree that some of the problems make for disheartening reading. However, it is quite another matter to blame more than 300,000 people.

Chapter 11 reads like a horror story. I do not want to dishearten anybody, but regardless of the management system—be it physical assets such as cars, human resources or money—problems arise. He was not the only one involved—other people filled in documents and must have realized that they did not have the requisite proof or that the register needed redoing or that they were being asked to do something inappropriate. However, whether we like it or not, as in the army, people often say that they have to follow orders from their superiors. And that brings us to the matter of ethics.

I wondered if you had any comments you would like to make. We are waiting for Bill C-2. Irrespective of that vote, I wonder whether the situation would have been different had the Public Service Disclosure Protection Act, or another such act, been implemented?

The reason that I ask you this question, Ms. Fraser, is that during the last Parliament many senior officials and directors of organizations told this committee that the problem the bill supposedly addressed did not actually exist; they told us that the current system works well and that values and ethics were well understood. However, whenever such serious incidents arise, Canadians are left wondering what's happened to ethics in the federal government. That is of great concern to us, regardless of the size of the service.

Would the implementation of such legislation have allowed us to avoid this situation? Could it help us avoid a repetition in the future, or am I mistaken?

[Sheila Fraser]

Obviously, the law will come into force. It might offer protection to a few people, protection that they feel they require. Nonetheless, I remain skeptical.

I think that recourse to legislation is virtually a sign that the system has failed. An employee ought to feel comfortable reporting a situation he believes to be inappropriate; he should not require legal protection to do so.

What worries me most about this case, is that it lasted so long; even though something was clearly wrong, no one reported it during that lengthy period.

I think that small agencies that play a quasi-judicial or ombudsman role warrant particular attention, as central agencies and departments are reluctant to increase oversight for fear of being accused of interfering. This rather unique situation could have contributed to it having gone on for so long. All the same, I find it troubling.

If you turn to the chapter on public safety, you will see that employees do not think—

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Are you referring to chapter 4?

[Sheila Fraser]

It seems that employees are not aware, or do not believe that senior management will follow up on their complaint. They are also worried about losing their colleagues' respect. These are perhaps reasons that explain why nobody sounds the alarm.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

If I am not mistaken, you said that you were skeptical. I know that you choose your words carefully when you write a report. And in paragraph 4.15 of chapter 4 of your report, you state:

No more than half of the employees at any [...] No more than half of the employees [...] Approximately half of the employees [...]

You have been speaking about small organizations, but here you are referring to the Canadian Border Services Agency, which is near and dear to my heart. This is very worrying. You say that it is a recent study, carried out between June and October 2005.