Public Accounts Committee on March 26th, 2007

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Fraser, Mr. Stewart indicated at the beginning that he was not given an opportunity to explain any of this. Is that the normal practice?

[Sheila Fraser]

I would like to make it very clear to the committee that we take exception to that statement. Mr. Stewart was interviewed by us three times, twice accompanied by his lawyer. Photocopies of all the documents on which he was to be questioned were provided to him. There was another list of additional questions that were sent to him for written responses, which we received from his lawyers. We also provided them with a draft report requesting any comments. We received a response from his lawyers indicating that Mr. Stewart was unable to respond. We sent a final report to his lawyers for any final comments they might have. We did not receive a response.

In fact, as to the documents, it is our normal practice in an audit to try to recover documents that we may have given out, as being part of our audit files. We've asked for those documents back and we have received letters from his lawyers saying they are not going to return them to us.

So we followed the normal procedure that we would follow for any audit.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Turning to the other officials, why is it that no one was paying any attention? Why is it that bills were being paid and so on, and with all of the supervision that is there from one to the other, you just continued paying and no one was questioning?

I'll leave it to whoever wants to answer. Treasury Board?

[Suzanne Hurtubise]

I'll answer if you wish, simply to say that according to the Auditor General's report, if I read it correctly, the overwhelming majority of the transactions had been dealt with properly and carefully. There were very important exceptions where there was insufficient paperwork on the file. The service providers, in fact, should have caught that and did not. That's what we have now sought to correct.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

We correct it now, afterwards.

[Suzanne Hurtubise]

I wasn't aware before the report.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Sgro.

Thank you, witnesses.

Before we go to Mr. Laforest, I should point out something I neglected to point out in my opening comments. I don't know this, but I understand from media reports that there may be a possibility of civil litigation, maybe even criminal litigation. I want to point out to all witnesses and members that whatever is said here cannot subsequently be used in a court of law.

Mr. Laforest, you have seven minutes.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is for Mr. O'Sullivan from the Privy Council Office. What were Mr. Stewart's qualifications when he was first appointed as the Correctional Investigator?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

Mr. Stewart is a lawyer by training. He studied at Queen's University and was admitted to the Ontario Bar. This was the main reason he was hired for the position.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

My question is for Mr. Stewart.

You were reappointed several times. You were appointed a first time and then reappointed three times as Correctional Investigator.

Over the years, did you ever meet or hold discussions with representatives from the Privy Council with regard to your mandate? Did you ever receive training? Did anyone monitor your management plan? Were you ever questioned about it? Have there ever been any reports on that matter?

[Ron Stewart]

I can categorically say that I never met with anybody from any of the agencies. I never got any instruction from them. I was sort of put in the office and told, “Here are the keys. You're now the Correctional Investigator.” I had no contact with the Auditor General or any other of the departments that are represented here today.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

My question is for O'Sullivan.

How is it that Mr. Stewart was reappointed three times, as he told us a few moments ago, for five-year mandates? He served as correctional officer for 26 years. If the mandate was five years, that should have been a total of 20 years. How is it that he served in that capacity for 26 years without ever having been evaluated or monitored?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

First, as far as the length of the mandates are concerned, Mr. Stewart was appointed from 1977 to 1993 under the Inquiries Act, which did not call for a fixed mandate.

In 1993, he was appointed for a five-year term under the new Corrections and Conditional Release Act. In fact, he was appointed for five years in 1993, reappointed for three years in 1998, and lastly reappointed again for a two-year period in 2001.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Stewart, you said a little earlier that every time you went to your summer residence, you brought work with you. However, when one reads the Auditor General's report, one doesn't really find any kind of paper trail which might include letters, communications, files or other such things. Nothing was found which could corroborate what you are saying. The Auditor General's report points this out at least twice.

The report also says that your executive director, whose name I would like to know, would surely have had to carry out some of the management duties you were neglecting.

What exactly did you do? You say that you brought work home with you, but we did not find any evidence of that. Can you also tell me who your executive director was?

[Ron Stewart]

The executive director's name is Mr. Ed McIsaac.

I should mention that during only certain parts of the year I commuted to the office from my summer residence. I've been denied access to the records, as has been mentioned, so I wasn't aware of any—

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Stewart, there were also indications that you were not only absent during the summer time. Your office staff told the auditors, the people who conducted the audit, that you were gone much more often than just during the summer. You were absent often, and they could not reach you.

[Ron Stewart]

Well, it really is hearsay, because I couldn't talk to anybody and there was no way of finding out what was said. So to the best of my ability I did attend meetings or did specific jobs—

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I don't understand why you say you worked to the best of your ability: this was your job. I don't understand why you say that you were doing things to the best of your ability and that you tried to be present at meetings. You had a responsibility.

[Ron Stewart]

You mentioned—

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

It was your job. You had important responsibilities which were part of your mandate, and you say that you worked to the best of your ability. This leads one to believe that you thought you really didn't have to do your job, that you were really working part-time.

Is that what you're telling us?

[Ron Stewart]

No, sir.

I did my best to be at any meetings that were called, and to my knowledge, there were never any complaints about the way the office was run. In fact, it was well run during the years I headed up the office.

I was in the office when it was necessary to be in the office. I did spend some time away from the office, but always in a working capacity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Laforest.

Thank you very much, Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Poilievre, for seven minutes.

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

Madam Fraser's report indicates, Mr. Stewart, that you were at your summer residence 258 days throughout the audit period. Is that correct?

[Ron Stewart]

I have no way of knowing because I didn't receive copies of records. So when those are—