Public Accounts Committee on May 15th, 2006

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chairman, it's difficult to be 100 per cent certain as to who is responsible for leaking the information. Therefore, it's impossible to impose any kind of sanction.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Without naming names, because you claim to have your doubts, can you tell us if in fact the leaks occurred at the stage described in paragraph 13 of your presentation? For instance, you state the following:

13. In the last few weeks before tabling, we meet with senior officials of Treasury Board Secretariat and Privy Council Office.

Since the leaks occurred a few days before your reports were released, do you think they happened at this stage of the process? You claim that neither your Office nor likely the Printer is responsible, and perhaps not the departments either.

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to speculate about what may have happened or about the identity of the guilty party or parties. I prefer to stick to the facts. The information we have does not confirm the source of the leaks and I would rather not speculate any further.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You state the following in paragraph 14 of your presentation: “In our opinion, there has been no breach of the law that would require us to report the incident to the RCMP“. And you go on to say: “Rather, there has been a breach of the Government Security Policy.”

Would you like to see a more stringent Government Security Policy in place? In your opinion, should we adopt legislation providing for security regulations? Should more rigorous practices be adopted?

[Sheila Fraser]

The policy respecting the disclosure of information and confidentiality is quite clear. Again, I don't think we need to adopt more rules. However, we need to ensure compliance with the rules already in place. The various departments have a responsibility to adopt the necessary measures to ensure confidentiality and to see to it that their staff comply with departmental policies.

The government has assured me that it will investigate the leaks. It's now up to the government to take action.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I don't know whether or not you can comment on the new government's insistence these days on greater transparency. Witness Bill C-2, the proposed Accountability Act, that has been introduced.

In your opinion, should the government report be made public, since the government is an all out advocate of transparency?

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chairman, it's up to the government to decide if it wants to make the report public. It's not my position to venture an opinion on the subject.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The committee would therefore need to ask the Chair to recommend to the government that it make its report public, in keeping with the principle of transparency.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to share any time I have left with Mr. Nadeau. How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You have two minutes and 45 seconds...no, excuse me. Monsieur Nadeau is next, for two minutes and a half minutes.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Good day, Mrs. Fraser, Mr. Ste-Marie.

It's obvious that a leak occurred, as the Ottawa Citizen reported. Is this incident similar to the eight previous leaks mentioned in your report?

[Sheila Fraser]

I would say that it is. We believe the other leaks also stemmed from conversations between a journalist and a certain person. The source of the information was never identified. There are probably many similarities between these leaks and the incident that occurred this week.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I see.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Nadeau.

Mr. Williams is next for eight minutes.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to thank the Auditor General for her work and for the integrity and credibility with which she is held in the highest regard in the country.

Leaks are always unfortunate, but they do occur, as you have pointed out. This is the eighth one—seven under the Liberals and now this one under us. It just seems to be a fact of life, although I would rather that it wasn't this way.

I note Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's comment that he takes these things with so much seriousness, but I never heard him say anything about taking these things seriously before the last election when he was on the other side. He has a new lease on life on this seriousness thing, so we'll see how it lasts.

But you know, Mr. Chairman, under the Liberals everything in the budget was leaked weeks ahead of time, so there was no news and no surprises when we had the budgets delivered by the minister—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Do you have a question for the Auditor General?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

No. I'm speaking to you, Mr. Chairman.

Every announcement of the Liberal government was preceded by a leak so that everybody knew it was coming. Now Mr. Wrzesnewskyj seems to be quite incensed that this type of information is given to the media ahead of time. So I'm not exactly sure where he's coming from. Maybe he thinks we should be moving everything around in brown envelopes with cash attached, or something like that, to ensure that it is actually secret and nobody knows what's contained in there.

But to the Auditor General, are you confident that you have done everything you can within your office to protect the confidentiality of the report and ensure its integrity?

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes, we believe that our procedures are sound. Our departmental security officer has made a couple of recommendations that we will be putting into place coming out of this incident. But as I said earlier, our main concern is around the physical security of the actual report--the document itself.

I would just add for committee members that it is absolutely essential that we be able to discuss audits, audit findings, and recommendations with the department we are auditing, if we are to have an audit that is appropriate at the end. So this process of consultation is absolutely essential to us.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you.

We know that the gun registry is a controversial issue. As you know, when Mr. Rock was Minister of Justice he said this was only going to cost taxpayers $2 million, but in fact I understand it's closer to $2 billion.

It's been fraught with problems like waste, mismanagement, and incompetence. Computer programs ended up in the garbage half written because somebody changed their mind—throw that away and start again. Taxpayers' money was abused and misused. The litany of problems in the gun registry seems to have been unending. Then of course, we have the chiefs of police saying they would rather have police on the streets than put money into the registry. So it's no wonder this is an issue that is germane to the media, and they would want to write about this particular program.

I noted that the Auditor General talked about the fact that this leak is similar to those in the past. I'm wondering if this has maybe come from a disaffected Liberal who is embedded in the government, who we have to root out to get rid of so this doesn't happen again.

[Sheila Fraser]

I will leave that speculation up to the member, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, we have the assurance of the Auditor General that this is being managed as best it can. We have the integrity of the government. This is a government, as you know, that has tried to keep a lid on many things. I'm reasonably confident that the Conservative government is not leaking this information.

Tomorrow we're going to find out what is fact and what is fiction. As you say, everything that has been leaked is not exactly as it's written in the report. I can't imagine why we're even meeting here today, Mr. Chairman, because surely if we were to call the meeting later on, if we find out what is fact and what is fiction, what is real and what is imagined, then we would have something to deal with. The Auditor General can't tell us what's in the report today. She has to respect her confidentiality. This feigned indignation by the Liberal Party seems to be quite out of character. Maybe they have new ideas now that they're in opposition that introspection is the way to go.

We'll see how it unfolds tomorrow. We look forward with great interest to what you have to say tomorrow, how Parliament has been kept in the dark by the Liberal government. You've alluded that there's going to be a special observation on that particular issue.

All of these things are now going to be wide out in the open, Mr. Chair; therefore, I think there's a lot more to be dealt with than the Auditor General's report, a lot more substance. Let's move on and deal with these issues, fix these issues, and save taxpayers' money, rather than go on some witch hunt here trying to find out about a leak that nobody can point the finger to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I want to thank you, Mr. Williams, for your advice and comments.

Mr. Christopherson, eight minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome again, Madam Fraser and Mr. Ste-Marie.

Let me just say through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Williams that it's interesting to watch a lot of different people shifting ground and using significant talents in a different kind of way.

I want to jump straight to the meat of the matter. I understand where the intersection is between your office--the report--and the departments, the ministers. Having been a provincial minister and having gone through this, I know you do need that. It is fair. I have no problem with that as a process. But at the end of the day, either we have a process that is respected, we take action to ensure people understand it's important, and we expect it to be respected, or we change the rules so that there isn't this expectation. But what we cannot accept is that this kind of leak is taking place and we're doing nothing about it. Moaning and groaning and saying that we're not sure we're going to be able to find out who did it, wringing our hands and saying maybe there's not too much we can do--it seems to me that's not acceptable.

There needs to be some kind of action. There has to be some kind of follow-up, or we're just pretending this is important.

I've heard you, Madam Fraser. I noted what's in your report today, where you say that the premature disclosure represents a disregard for the statutory right of the House of Commons to receive that report. I believe at our previous meeting you said--and correct me if I'm wrong--that it was an affront to Parliament. And I understand that for people across the country this is inside baseball and it doesn't matter much. And that's cool. I respect that. The big issues are going to come tomorrow.

Nonetheless, if we believe that this is a new era and that government and Parliament really are going to try to be ethical, transparent, and accountable, then this just can't stand. It cannot stand as something we just live with. It's either a priority, and we respect it and treat it that way, or it's not, so let's change the rules and stop pretending. But to leave the rules the way they are and ignore them gets us nowhere.

Mr. Williams suggested it might have been a disgruntled Liberal embedded in the bureaucracy. It could very well be, but it's interesting, because when you talk to police who are looking at crimes that involve money, the first thing they ask you is, who benefits from what took place? If you take a look at what happened, you'll see it certainly didn't help the Liberals. It had nothing to do with the NDP. It had nothing to do with the Bloc. The only ones who would benefit are the Conservatives, because this is a highly charged issue, and you guys are going to get raked over the coals tomorrow.

Get ready; it's coming. And that's legitimate. But it still leaves us with this huge issue.

You've made reference, Madam Fraser, to the government security policy. I have to say that one is new to me. Can you give me a quick outline of what exactly that is? Is it applicable only to your department and only to these reports?

[Sheila Fraser]

No, in fact the government security policy applies to all departments and agencies in government.

Jean, do you want to review what it is?

[Jean Ste-Marie, Assistant Auditor General and Legal Advisor, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

It's a policy that's made under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, relating to the duties of employment of public servants and crown servants. Basically that's what it is. It's not an act of Parliament; it's merely a policy made under the Treasury Board authority that covers the issues we're dealing with.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I understand. I don't mean to be rude; I'm just worried about my time.

It covers duties that would include honouring confidentiality, much like the code of conduct for MPs is honouring confidentiality. So this is a significant issue when the new government has said that ethics, accountability, and transparency are the cornerstones of its administration. I need to ask...and of course, Madam Fraser, I respect your thinking on this. You've made the point that you don't think this is a matter for the RCMP. Fair enough. Where do we go? Do you have any ideas on how we go about taking action to send that message?