Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

What a coincidence.

[Sheila Fraser]

However, as far as I know, Royal LePage did not pay for the trip.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Ms. Fraser, why was the first contract cancelled?

[Sheila Fraser]

From what I understand, there was an appearance of a conflict of interest.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yet, the same formula was retained for the second contract, with Royal LePage still maintaining its advantage. Someone at Royal LePage must surely have been well connected.

I'm not trying to shoot the messenger. I'm merely making an observation.

Do you have the names of the people at Royal LePage who were involved in securing or managing this contract?

[Sheila Fraser]

No, I do not.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Did you investigate the matter with Royal LePage?

[Sheila Fraser]

No.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Poilievre, for five minutes.

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

I'd like to go back to chapter 11. One of the recurring themes, as has been mentioned today, in all of the major public outrages that you have unearthed in the past several years, is that no one seems to be guarding the public purse when taxpayers' money is being plundered. That's what strikes me again with the case we have here of the former correctional investigator and head of the OCI. You have what appear to be ongoing abuses that occur over a long period of time, systematically, and no one sounds an alarm bell. We saw the same in the sponsorship scandal, ongoing systematic abuses and no one sounded the alarm bell. Well, the one person who did found himself in a different job rather quickly, declared surplus.

Why is it that when we see these abuses there is no one who sounds the alarm bell and cries out in the name of the taxpayer for something to be done? Why is it that there just seems to be dead silence for years while these abuses go on? Do you have any idea why you always have to be the one to find the fire that has been burning for years?

[Sheila Fraser]

I would turn to our chapter 4, where we reviewed values and ethics programs in public safety agencies and did a survey of employees there. There were two things that I found striking in there. One is that while the vast majority said they themselves would report suspected cases of wrongdoing, they didn't think their colleagues would, and they didn't think they would be respected if they did. The second issue is that a significant number also believe that management wouldn't take action.

So I think we're saying that there really has to be a significant role for senior leaders in the public service to show that values and ethics programs are more than just policy that gets sent out and some training that's done, that it is taken seriously, that sanctions are imposed as appropriate, that cases are dealt with, and that people who report suspected cases of wrongdoing do not suffer any consequence themselves.

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

That's right. It just seems so patently obvious that if....

I'll give you a common sense example. I met with the head of the airport authority recently. My staff submitted a parking receipt to the payroll folks here. They said, “We're not going to reimburse this because we don't have a record of his flying out that day, so he couldn't have possibly parked at the airport.” Once we gave the explanation, there was no problem. But it's just a common sense measure that a public servant who works for the House of Commons took a very small precautionary step that could have stopped $20 from being expended improperly. It just seems that when there is systematic abuse over a long period of time, somebody should notice and do something about it.

You've mentioned that some folks in the public service don't feel comfortable speaking out. That's why I think we need whistle-blower protection in this country, so that people have a recourse and they can go to an independent officer of Parliament, separate from the government, to speak out.

Do you believe that would go some distance in encouraging public servants to come forward and have complaints investigated?

[Sheila Fraser]

If I could just make a comment on what you said earlier, in my experience, limited as it is, in the public service, I have found that the people who process those travel claims do a very rigorous review of things and are very diligent in what they do. I can't believe that somebody at some point didn't question some of those expenses, quite honestly. That's a personal opinion. But we have no proof of that, and we have no indication of how many questions would have been dealt with. But a lot of people knew what was going on.

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

If they had an independent watchdog they could go to, who was not part of the government but hired by Parliament, to whom they could report this alleged wrongdoing, have it investigated and the results made public, do you think we might be able to catch these things earlier on and protect taxpayers?

[Sheila Fraser]

I agree that the legislation is probably required now and that people see a need for it. I'm personally a little skeptical. I think recourse to whistle-blowing legislation is almost an indication that the system itself has failed, that people don't feel comfortable enough within their own organizations to be able to report wrongdoing.

I agree that it has to exist as a last mechanism of protection, but if an employee really believes that by reporting this they are going to suffer some personal consequence, and there's only a legal protection available to them, it takes an awful lot of courage to do that. I think a lot of people would rather say, this isn't my responsibility, I didn't sign off on those documents, and I'm not going to get involved, rather than assume the risk of having that consequence to them.

So we have to get to a place where people can bring forward suspected cases of wrongdoing with no fear of consequences, and that they know senior management will take it and deal with it confidentially and take action if warranted.

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

But how do you do that systematically? Are we just hoping they're going to start becoming—

[Sheila Fraser]

Senior managers have to. There's the expression, “tone at the top”, and senior managers have to deal with this. Senior managers saw what was going on in this case and didn't do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Poilievre. Thank you, Mrs. Fraser.

Monsieur Nadeau, cinq minutes.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Ms. Fraser, I'd like to come back to Chapter 5 in which mention is made of our friends at Royal LePage.

Three things caught my attention. Firstly, the report states that contracts were not tendered in a fair and equitable manner. Secondly, you noted that the request for proposal contained incorrect information, which gave an unfair advantage to Royal LePage, the incumbent bidder. Thirdly, the audit revealed that some of the business volumes incorporated into the request for proposal by the Treasury Board Secretariat, National Defence and the RCMP contained incorrect information. You talked about this earlier.

As we speak, does Royal LePage still have the contract?

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Minister Fortier stated on either November 28 or 29 last, if I'm not mistaken -- we're talking about very recent history -- that the contract would run out in 2009 and that in the interim, it would be business as usual, according to the terms of the contract.

Under the circumstances, would it be possible to do a follow-up to see if the public is still being taken in by Royal LePage when it comes to the relocation of National Defence and RCMP members and of government employees in general?

[Sheila Fraser]

Could you clarify the question for me? Are you talking about our doing an audit in connection with a future request for proposal?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

If Royal LePage is again awarded the contract and the realization dawns that the process was not equitable or that the business volumes quoted and information provided were incorrect, then we'll be sending the fox to mind the geese.

Could you possibly monitor transactions between Royal LePage and the Government of Canada?

[Sheila Fraser]

We could review the process again when the contract expires, if that's what the committee wants.

I also think it would be a good idea for the committee to request a follow up on the reimbursement of overpayments made by Canadian Forces members and others.