Evidence of meeting #32 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contract.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Deputy Minister, Department of Finance
They can't say that at all. They must not; they must be accountable for their decisions.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
What I'm trying to say here, Mr. Wright, is that you did not disagree with the minister. You just made that statement.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Therefore, you agree with the way the contract was handled?
Deputy Minister, Department of Finance
I believe that a contract of this nature does require judgment, and the person making that decision understood that, and he made a judgment.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
No, my question to you was if you agreed with him. I'm not talking about his judgment; I'm talking about your judgment, since you didn't discuss it with the minister, as you're required as an accounting officer if you have a disagreement with a contract. Since you didn't discuss it, and since you didn't go with the Treasury Board, you must have concurred with the agreement.
Deputy Minister, Department of Finance
I concurred that the person who was responsible for making a judgment made a judgment, and I didn't disagree with that.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
No, I'm talking about your responsibility under the Financial Administration Act to enforce the rules of the department to ensure that the contracting rules are followed. Since you didn't go to the minister, since you didn't go to the Treasury Board, since you agreed with the minister, you must have found the contract acceptable.
Deputy Minister, Department of Finance
I did. I thought the process followed to make this contract was acceptable.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
And because it was a political document that was to be written and because these types of documents are normally written by people outside your department—as you say, your staff does not write political documents—you agreed with the decision that was made.
Deputy Minister, Department of Finance
Well, I didn't disagree with it. It's an important distinction, Mr. Williams. I appreciate your patience on it, but certainly there was nothing in the process.... Everybody in the department followed the guidelines. The minister's office and minister's chief of staff made a decision. There was nothing egregious in it. It was a judgment. The judgment was allocated for him to make, and he made it.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Wright, as the accounting officer in charge of enforcing the rules in the department, since you did not disagree, you obviously agreed, because you didn't go to the minister, you didn't go to Treasury Board. And because it was a political document that was to be written, you certainly wouldn't go out and do a public tender and say “Okay, we'll take one NDP, one Liberal, one Bloc, and one Conservative and see who we're going to give the contract to”. It was a political decision, a political document that was to be written; therefore, communications capacity wasn't the only criterion in a public tender. Is that correct? Presumably, there were political considerations. The political mindset of the contractor would also have been part of the thinking in awarding the contract. Would that be correct?
Deputy Minister, Department of Finance
Well, I think, again, there was no disagreement with the minister or his office on what they did. They followed due process.
Conservative
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
So, Mr. Chairman, if we followed due process, I wonder why we're even here.
Secretary of the Treasury Board
Can I just clarify? I think due process has been followed, but again, under the Financial Administration Act and the guidelines provided, the minister is accountable here for the funds used in his or her office. The guidelines have stipulated that in the case of contracts, it is the minister or his designate who must ensure the right person is selected for the work, that any particular—
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
No, Mr. Wouters, I disagree. The deputy minister is an accounting officer, is accountable before Parliament for the administration of his department, as delegated specifically to him or her by the Federal Accountability Act.
Now, the process of managing these contracts falls under your responsibility, Mr. Wright, and you're now saying that because of the political nature of the document and because of the specific criteria required of the contractor, you agreed with the decision to give this contract.
Deputy Minister, Department of Finance
I'm actually not saying that. Let me just be very clear on this, Mr. Williams.
As the accounting officer for the department, I want to make sure that all the appropriate due diligence is done, but I also want to reflect the reality that this authority is delegated to the minister and from him to his chief of staff. The minister is solely accountable and answerable for that particular part of his budget. It is in a framework that I say is coherent enough for me to be the accounting officer of, but there's no way you want deputy ministers to be looking over their shoulders on every particular consideration with those offices, and, frankly, the rules and guidelines reflect that reality.
All I am saying is that I did not have disagreement with the minister, under the terms of the Federal Accountability Act, for this approach. In fact, the chief of staff made a judgment. I don't have to agree with that judgment. He made a judgment under terms that authorized him to make it, and it was not inconsistent with the sorts of judgments I make when we make a sole-source contract above $25,000, so I reflected that. And when I looked at it, I didn't have to agree with it because I didn't know everything he considered, but I did not disagree with what was going on and his judgment. He was accountable for that judgment, accountable to the minister.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Well, I'm not sure I agree with that, Mr. Chairman, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
I think it falls totally within your purview, Mr. Wright, as the accounting officer, to ensure that the rules are followed, even by the exempt staff. They have no authority to do whatever they desire outside the rules. You ensure that the rules are followed. If they decide to give a contract to someone to write a budget, a political document, I fully agree that should be beyond staff—it shouldn't be done by the department. Nonetheless, the rules should be followed, and you're saying you agreed with the way the rules were followed.
Deputy Minister, Department of Finance
I did not disagree with the way they implemented this activity.
Secretary of the Treasury Board
There could be a long debate here about the rules of the accounting officer vis-à-vis the minister's office. But I have to emphasize that under section 34, the minister or his designate must certify that the goods and services have been received. Then, on the role of the department and the accounting officer, once section 34 is signed off, under section 33 his chief financial officer must ensure that the funds flow in due course--it's not unlawful, and he's not blowing his vote.
When a minister or his designate has the authority to undertake these activities and make the determination, the role of the accounting officer is to ensure that when the services are rendered—and it must be the designate who informs the department that is so—pay must take place in an appropriate way under section 33 of the Financial Administration Act. That's basically how we see the accounting officer model working in this case.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you, Mr. Wouters.
Thank you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Christopherson is next, for seven minutes.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you both for your attendance here this morning.
Having been a minister at the provincial level, I have some idea of some of the answers you're giving and what they mean, Mr. Wright. If I'm following you correctly, you're maintaining that the process was followed appropriately, from where you sit, and the question mark is within the judgment that was made and the person who made the judgment. It was within their purview to make that judgment, and therefore you're accountable and comfortable with the parts you're accountable for. Others will decide whether or not their judgment was the right one to be made, and that will be decided by others.
Is that a fair reflection of where you are so far?