Public Accounts Committee on April 8th, 2008

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Let's pretend I'm asking a whole year ago and put the question then. How did you get to the point where you went so long, until last year, and you didn't have one?

[John Sims]

I don't remember what instruments or tools we had before we had this human resources management plan. I obviously agree that one has to be strategic in managing people. People are critical, as you said in your preamble. We have always treated them as a prized resource. This brings the strategic element to ensure we're addressing things like succession planning and so on. This is a good plan, and we're working it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I had hoped for a little more, but I accept that, deputy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.

Thank you, Mr. Sims.

Mr. Hubbard, you have four minutes.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're looking at a 35-page report, and there's hardly a page where there isn't a suggestion or a concern expressed about it. I've spent most of my life trying to evaluate things. If I were to read this report, I would have great concerns.

As the author of this report, “Managing the Delivery of Legal Service to the Government”, would you give it an A, an A-minus, a B, or a C? In all fairness, we should have some ranking of how this report rates in terms of what we should receive. Somebody back home reading it would think that the darn thing would soon be falling apart, if it hadn't already. But is it an A report in terms of the evaluation that was done, or does it get an A-minus, an A-plus, a B, a C, or a failing grade?

In all fairness, we should try to find out what an A report is, Madam Fraser, or a B.

[Sheila Fraser]

I really hate to do As and Bs. It is certainly not what we would consider a bad report. There are many areas where improvements are needed. Many of the issues we are raising are really kind of about management. As we note in one of the last conclusions, we think the department needed better professional management.

With all due regard to the lawyers in the room, I don't think lawyers are always necessarily known for being the best managers, though some are. The current deputy has certainly indicated throughout the audit and since the audit that he is concerned about good management and has taken a number of steps. That's what our audits are really about--trying to improve the management within departments.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

So maybe it's a C-minus. It's just a barely passing grade.

[Sheila Fraser]

I think it's better than a C-minus.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Is it a C-plus?

I find it somewhat difficult. The deputy has said here, “As deputy minister, I believe that the department overall is doing well”. At the same time as your report was issued he said, “My belief stems in part from the results and feedback from Treasury Board Secretariat in its annual assessment”.

Now, if Treasury Board Secretariat made an annual assessment of your department at the same time this was published, did you get an A from Treasury Board? We've seen articles in the paper about people near the top getting bonuses for doing good jobs. Did your people get bonuses to reflect that they were doing A work? I had trouble getting better than a B from what Auditor General said.

[John Sims]

I lose track of the years, but on the last year's assessment of the management accountability framework we met or exceeded government standards on 16 out of the 20 core tests. Compared to the average of all other departments, we met or exceeded other government departments 19 out of 20 times.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

So we'll give you an A-minus then.

Thank you, Mr. Sims.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hubbard.

Thank you, Mr. Sims.

The last questioner is Mr. Fitzpatrick, and I understand he's going to flow over to Mr. Sweet for a brief point of clarification.

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I want to go back to what Mr. Williams was approaching, the two different legal opinions of the appropriation of funding for the firearms registry. I'm going to be very blunt about this. We were on that committee. We saw the opinions. I'm a lawyer, I saw the opinions, and I think there's real argument about whether they were much the same.

The impression I have is that we had a group of people huddled together saying, “My goodness gracious, we're in a lot of trouble. Not only might we have violated the Treasury Board guidelines, which will get us the wet noodle treatment, but we might have actually broken the law under the public administration act. Worse yet, we might have violated the Constitution of Canada.” Within hours, they found a lawyer somewhere who came up with the legal opinion that backed up the decision they had made and got into very exotic technical points, contingent liabilities and so on. It was a very detailed report.

I guess that's the difficulty I have, what I saw happen on that. It's as though department heads can phone over to the justice department and find some lawyer to cover their tracks for them when they get themselves in difficulty.

The only further comment I have on that, sir, and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Sweet, is that a couple of lawyers, one of them a Canadian lawyer, got entangled in a very major trial in Chicago last year, and found out where that can get them if they want to walk down that line.

I guess a lot of us had concerns about this matter. I'll just register that with you. I have suspicions about the whole matter, I'll be 100% honest on that. The Auditor General's report, by the way, at the end of the whole exercise came back and reconfirmed the position given by the original lawyer.

Obviously we don't agree on that point. That's why I'm making a comment rather than asking a question. If you want to make a comment, go ahead.

[John Sims]

I think it is important that I do comment.

As I indicated in answer to the questions dealing with tabling legislation and whether or not the legislation that goes into the House of Commons is constitutional, we take our duties under the justice act very seriously. We believe fervently in the rule of law. We see it as our duty to give honest, fearless advice to the Government of Canada on all legal matters, and we do.

I think the example we're all pointing to is an isolated example of a situation where these two opinions suddenly arose. I know the lawyers in question, and I believe them to have acted in utmost good faith--each of them. We're not in the business of giving comfort opinions. We give our best advice as fearlessly and as honestly as we can.

I'm sorry that you and I disagree, but I believe very deeply what I just said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Sims.

Mr. Sweet, you have a question.

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe one of the points that Mr. Hubbard was trying to make in his last round of questioning was that in this report there is a long litany of things that play out to less than effective management.

Right at the end of the report, the Auditor General summarizes--if I'm misrepresenting, please feel free to intervene--with three specific recommendations. One is about information and workloads. One is about financial arrangements, which I questioned already. The last one is very specific: to “ensure that a senior manager with the necessary authority leads the improvement of management practices at the Department and oversees implementation of these changes”.

The response from the department is not as specific as I would like it to be. We are a committee of accountability, not management, and I understand that. But if they're not going to hire someone, or put someone in a position as suggested by the Auditor General, I would like to have more comfort than, shall I say, just a sentence saying that we're going to work on management practices that will be strengthened.

Am I representing that recommendation properly, Madam Fraser?

As well, could I get a direct answer from Mr. Sims on whether they intend to put that senior person in--that is, a professional manager and not, per se, a lawyer?

Just for your reference, the pages are 27 and 28.

[John Sims]

We take very seriously the need to professionalize management. As I have tried to indicate, we have taken a number of important steps to create a very powerful management sector that puts in place a structure that we think will allow us to manage effectively.

Mr. McAuley is not just a lawyer. He has an extensive experience in recent years managing some very significant projects for us.

Some justice department lawyers are also very good managers; it doesn't follow that because one is a lawyer, one cannot manage. I take the point that not all lawyers manage absolutely, but to say that justice department lawyers can't manage is clearly not true. Some of our best and brightest are sought out by other government departments around town to come over and run big things, and they run them very effectively.

Mr. McAuley is an excellent manager, and I have every confidence that he is doing a superb job. We have the structure, we have a good person in place, and we are taking the recommendations of Ms. Fraser very seriously.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chairman, I did not mean to denigrate the legal profession or imply that they couldn't manage, but is Mr. Sims saying that Mr. McAuley is actually fulfilling the role that was identified in the Auditor General's recommendation?

[John Sims]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Sweet.

Thank you, Mr. Sims.

That concludes the questions. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank all the witnesses for appearing here today.

I'm going to ask the Auditor General now if she has any closing comments or remarks.

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, I'd just like to thank the committee for their interest in the report. I noted throughout the hearing that several members had questions around specific actions and timelines. I'd like to suggest that perhaps you would want to ask the department for their detailed action plan, which would give you that information.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Ms. Fraser.

In following up, I'm going to turn the floor over to you, Mr. Sims. Perhaps you could address that question and perhaps also the action plan that was talked about. Could you tell us if you are prepared to file that with the committee at this point in time?

[John Sims]

Yes, I am. I'd be pleased to do that. In light of the questioning, that's a very appropriate response. I'd be pleased to do that.

Members also asked a number of other questions for which we didn't have detailed answers, and we'll give that to you quickly.