Public Accounts Committee on May 15th, 2006

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

It has been mentioned that the meeting is premature.

[Sheila Fraser]

You will see tomorrow what is the true story.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

We won't know until tomorrow what relates to what.

I did want to mention that in number 5 you mention that there are safeguards in place, and that is mentioned again in number 8. Are there new safeguards in the last couple of days, or does that just refer back to number 5?

[Sheila Fraser]

These are our standard procedures, which have been in place for many years now, for dealing with the report--the physical copies, the types of briefings we do, and when we do those briefings. This has been standard practice for the office for quite a while.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I want to ask just one more thing about similarities to the last seven leaks. Other than being printed in the newspaper, what are the similarities to the past seven?

[Sheila Fraser]

Leaks that have come generally just a few days before the report is actually tabled—though there have been cases where there has been information leaked months before the tabling of a report—in most cases tend to be on issues that I guess we could call controversial, perhaps, or likely to get public attention.

I don't want to be facetious, but we don't see a lot of leaks about managing financial information, for example. I wouldn't expect that there would be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sweet.

We're near the end of the meeting now. Monsieur Nadeau, une question très courte?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mrs. Fraser, Mr. Ste-Marie, it's clear to you and to everyone assembled here today: we simply can't do an overview of the situation and say that a report will be tabled, that the situation is not that serious.

Mrs. Fraser herself said that she took the situation very seriously and that it reflected contempt of Parliament. Eight leaks occurred and while that may not be a high number, it's nonetheless eight leaks too many. We've just had a ninth leak, the first under the new government.

We're here tonight because of the gravity of the situation. We have questions to ask and we want to know how the process works. As such, we're helping the Auditor General do her job and we're helping the government, and Parliament, to operate more effectively.

Having said that, Mrs. Fraser, of the measures and systems already in place, which ones should be more closely scrutinized by the committee?

[Sheila Fraser]

It's difficult to answer that question, Mr. Chairman. All we can do is wait and see how the investigation unfolds. Based on the findings made, we'll have to see what kinds of improvements are in order.

Obviously, if this investigation reveals that changes are indeed warranted, we'll certainly take any recommendations into consideration and implement any necessary changes. May I remind you that being able to discuss the report with you is critical to our work. I would find it most unfortunate if additional procedures were put in place to restrict even further our ability to have discussions with other parties.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Nadeau.

I have just one question, and I believe you've answered, Madam Fraser. If this problem were to become systemic, you'd be looking for options. I take it you're saying that if you decided not to disclose or communicate with the government and the department involved, it really wouldn't be a satisfactory way to conduct your office's business.

[Sheila Fraser]

That's right. It is absolutely essential that we be able to discuss our audit findings with departmental officials. If it were to become recurring and really problematic, that this was happening a lot, then we would obviously have to change our procedures. I would find that very unfortunate for all of us, because I think the consultation and the exchange with departmental officials ensures that we have a quality product at the end.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Madam Auditor, on behalf of everyone on the committee, I want to thank you and Mr. Ste-Marie for coming here today on such short notice. As everyone is aware, this is a very serious issue. It's taken seriously by this committee, by Parliament, by the government, and of course by the Office of the Auditor General. We'll certainly not bury it, as Mr. Christopherson says--he didn't say to bury it; he said not to bury it. We will follow up with the steering committee and come back to the meeting. Again, we're open to suggestions through the steering committee, and it may be a problem we'll never get to the bottom of.

But again, I want to thank representatives from the Auditor General.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Is the Auditor General free to go now, so I can just speak now to the committee?

I realize you've made a reference to the steering committee, that we send the issue there. Perhaps I could just try a suggestion, because if we can get a motion here, it will save us....

I'm not going to let go of this. I've made that clear. I'm going to keep pushing it, and I'm sure others are too. But it's not a witch hunt; it really is a matter of making sure that people are at least hesitant, if not outright afraid, to do this again down the road, at the very least. So there's some action, some follow-up, required. In the interest of trying to keep it as non-partisan as it can be, recognizing what we're dealing with, could I just ask...and I'll leave it to you, Chair, whether you want to take this as a motion. I'll read it to you and leave it in your hands.

I will move “that the government provide a representative to the public accounts committee to explain the investigation process and timelines regarding the leaked Auditor General report”.

I can't think of anything less dramatic or less headline-grabbing than to just ask at this stage a similar kind of meeting. The government could pick whatever representative they want just to come in and let us know what the process is and the timeline. We can either say that's fine and we'll wait or not; that's up to us then. But that's what I would propose, as a solid step to keep this in focus but not pretend in any way that this is more important than what we're going to talk about tomorrow. It's not. I just don't want this to get lost, Chair.

So I leave that with you, and I'm in your hands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Do you want to deal with this motion of Mr. Christopherson right now?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's not a motion yet. I will provide it if you need it.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Chair, the rule is 48 hours of notice, and the reason for that is to give it some thoughtful consideration before you deal with it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

What we will do is revert back to what the chair was suggesting. I was seeking to find out if there was unanimity in agreement to deal with it as a leak issue rather than a partisan issue, but if you want to defer it to the committee and keep it alive that much longer, I'm cool.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You can bring it back to the steering committee, Mr. Christopherson. You are on the steering committee, as is Mr. Fitzpatrick, and we'll bring it back before—

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

There might be unanimity on this particular motion.

No?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, then. Again I thank you all.

The meeting is adjourned.