Government Operations Committee on Dec. 17th, 2024

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you for that.

This is my final question.

There were 308 disclosures of wrongdoing processed in 2023-2024, but there were only two files resulting in founded cases of wrongdoing. Can you explain to us that number? You received 308 disclosures, but there were only two found cases of wrongdoing. Can you explain to us that low percentage, that low number?

[Harriet Solloway]

Many of the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, but I have to interrupt.

We have only about five seconds for a response, so I suggest that you provide it to us in writing.

[Harriet Solloway]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

We'll now go to Mrs. Vignola for two and a half minutes.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since I only have two and a half minutes, I can already assume that some of my questions will have to be answered in writing at a later date.

First, Ms. Solloway, in your 2024‑25 departmental plan, you said you wanted to analyze the processes in order to improve them. So far, what aspect seems to need improvement, be it simple or in depth?

Second, are these procedural aspects addressed in Bill C‑290, which is now at second reading in the Senate?

Third, does Bill C‑290 have an impact on the budgets you are requesting? If so, have you taken that into consideration in your budget requests?

[Harriet Solloway]

Thank you for your questions.

Our budget request was not at all based on Bill C‑290, but on what is currently before us.

There are two areas where we want to see improvements, but first I'd like to talk briefly about the co‑operative aspect of our work. All kinds of things need to be put in place in the area of finance and human resources. For example, there may be access to information and privacy requests. There are all kinds of functions that are not directly related to investigations.

Until now, our office has had only one financial professional. If that person were sick, I don't know who would sign the documents, give authorizations or do the analyses. So we have to increase our financial capacity. In terms of human resources, we have an agreement with a department to provide us with expertise. However, we have no one to develop a human resources strategy or to ensure coordination. So we need to strengthen our human resources capacity. The same goes for strategic planning or the budget. To submit the budget—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are you able to finish your sentence?

[Harriet Solloway]

In terms of the budget, for example, we have no expertise. I hope the budget is well done. We need to strengthen a number of aspects of our work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney, please go ahead.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you so much, Chair.

I'd like to come back and just ask about this: During your intervention earlier, Ms. Solloway, you talked about the conflict of interest component, and it sounded like there needs to be a bit of work done there. I'm wondering if you could explain that to me a bit more so that I could better understand.

[Harriet Solloway]

Okay. Agents of Parliament are “agents” of Parliament. We are your agents, and PSIC is one of those agents. We are established to be independent, and “independent” means that we need to be protected from influence, and there needs to be the appearance that there can't be influence. The same applies to other agents of Parliament.

We have to submit budgets through a minister, and in our case, it's the President of the Treasury Board. In the case, for example, of the access to information commissioner, I believe she has to go through the Minister of Justice, if I'm not mistaken. It has to go through their office before it's passed on to Finance, where there's further vetting. It can be stopped at any level. It can be slow-walked at any level. It could be influenced at any level. That, in my view, calls into question the level of independence that we have.

I am not for a moment suggesting that anybody has manipulated the system. I want to be very clear that I do not feel that anybody has manipulated the system to the disadvantage of PSIC or has manipulated the funding of PSIC. I don't think those games are being played. Nevertheless, the process should ensure that it cannot happen. We are agents of Parliament, in my view, and we should be going to Parliament for our budget approvals.

Does that answer your question?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

That does help me understand a bit better.

What advice would you give this committee on what that process should look like?

[Harriet Solloway]

I think that processes already exist. There's one in place, for example, for the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, whereby the budget is examined by the Speaker of the House, who forwards it to the Treasury Board, which includes it in the government budget.

The only challenge would be if the Speaker chooses to challenge it. I'm given to understand that, for example, this past year, the Speaker did challenge the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to make sure that the budget being requested was reasonable.

I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be any testing, but that the testing should be done by Parliament. It could be done by this committee. There are various models that could be put in place. That's just one. I have a few different models here. However, I think the important thing would be to come directly to Parliament.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks very much.

We'll now go Mr. Genuis and then finish with Mr. Sousa.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Madam Commissioner, you are the second commissioner to come before this committee in a week or so to talk about resource problems from the government, which is really striking to me.

We had a fall fiscal update presented in Parliament yesterday that has over $60 billion in deficit. The government has no problem spending money on lots of things it wants to spend money on, but it is doing its best to starve critical accountability mechanisms of Parliament of the resources they need to investigate other spending and other decisions of government.

The Liberals suggest that we're opposed to this spending because we voted non-confidence in the government in general, which is obviously outrageous. If we had had our way in that non-confidence vote, we would have had a carbon tax election and likely a new prime minister who could actually address some of these systemic issues in government.

I want to ask you, Madam Commissioner, what the conversations you have with the government about these resource issues are like. Obviously, you present to it that we have a serious problem, and other leaders responsible for these accountability functions are presenting similar problems to the government. What does the government say back to you when you raise these resource problems?

[Harriet Solloway]

I've engaged with public servants at the Treasury Board Secretariat, as well as in Finance, and I believe they genuinely agree that we need to be resourced. I sense support.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

As the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, you are seeing a lack of resources. You're not getting the resources you need to do your job. You're talking to public servants who recognize the importance of your office and in conversation imply that they're supportive of the work you need to be doing. We have a government, on the other hand, that is eager to fund anything and everything except accountability.

Where do you think the problem lies? At what level are you getting push-back when you raise these problems?

[Harriet Solloway]

As I mentioned before, I believe part of the issue is the process. If the agents of Parliament could come directly to Parliament for their budget, there would be clarity and no possibility to even infer or wonder whether there's any interference.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

The process doesn't preclude the government from deciding to properly fund you.

I have the fiscal update here, with over $60 billion in deficits. There are a whole bunch of chapters and line items that basically just reinforce existing government messaging.

How difficult would it have been for the government to say that as part of this, it's going to satisfy the funding requests of independent officers of Parliament to allow them to do their work?

Surely the government would have had the power to announce that spending, yet it chose not to. Why do you think the government has chosen not to, at a time when it's facing all of these scandals? Why does it choose to not put the money into allowing you to do your work?

[Harriet Solloway]

I couldn't comment.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Yes. I understand the difficult position you're in, but you, the procurement commissioner and others have said you need these resources in order to do your work.

Can I ask about timelines? We have the issue of officials who were involved in the arrive scam scandal saying that they faced intimidation after they appeared before the committee. Some of those events took place a year ago. We have the very serious allegations that Mr. Hartle brought forward on abuses associated with the indigenous procurement scandal that were not referred to the RCMP. That was years ago.

How long does it take you to complete these investigations? When can we expect some responses? You mentioned you're doing some work on arrive scam, for instance. When can we expect that? What are the timelines of these various investigations?

[Harriet Solloway]

I wish I could give you a definite timeline, but I really can't. I can tell you the investigation is absolutely ongoing.

As you probably know, we report to Parliament when there are findings of wrongdoing. If there are no findings of wrongdoing, we don't report them to Parliament, which I think is an important aspect of our work.

I wish I could provide you with more clarity on it. I can tell you that it's active.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It was a year ago that we had officials testify who said that they subsequently faced reprisals.

I understand you can't give a specific timeline. It seems like the investigation is still open. Can you give an approximate timeline? We're talking about events from over a year ago, so when can we expect to hear back about these very serious issues of abuse?