Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 9th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Merci.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I was listening very carefully to Mr. Young and his concerns.

Lynching is not Sheila Fraser's style, for starters, and it's never been the style of the committee. I understand what you're concerned about, but I don't think there's anything to this.

As for “founded” and “well founded”, that could be as simple as the Auditor General saying, “I could have put 'well' in, but didn't know it mattered to you.”

Again, I want to emphasize that I don't think the government needs to be as defensive as it would normally have to be.

Here's one of the concerns about waiting. If you look at her conclusion in paragraph 37 on page 13, it says that the commissioner's “actions were inconsistent with the spirit of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act”, and, further, the values and ethics code for the public service. Then it goes on to state, “In our view, the Commissioner’s behaviour and actions do not pass the test of public scrutiny....”

But the further issue for us as parliamentarians is that she's looking at this, determining there's a problem here, and dealing with it on the one hand; on the other, there's a governance problem. Therefore, the longer we take to start to come to grips with this, the more we may be allowing other people, other officers of Parliament, to go on about....

Apparently the lobby registrar, for instance, has been around for 20-some years, and what's the review? Where are the mechanisms?

That's what she gets at in terms of analyzing this case, but she's extrapolating from that the need to have a better check and balance, even up to and including the departmental audits.

Mr. Kramp will know that for years we've put a lot of emphasis on the departmental internal audits as the first line of defence. But it turns out that the commissioner, in the case of officers of Parliament, gets to appoint all those people, even the outside scrutineers, if you will.

So it seems to me that we could be accused of not dealing with this in a timely fashion, allowing a mechanism that needs to be in place to be delayed, and thereby allowing other infractions to go on that we wouldn't know about because there's no check and balance.

Further, on the first go-around, unless the committee has changed since I've been here, if it turns out that there needs to be more meetings, that there needs to be a different process because of what's coming forward, then we'll act accordingly.

I feel even stronger now, after we've discussed it, that it's in all our interests, government included, to at least take an initial look at this on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Ms. Faille?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Absolutely [ Inaudible--Editor] for Tuesday, Mr. Christopherson.

In fact, I just wanted to add my two cents' worth or make a comment.

I have also sat on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, where I had an opportunity to hear Ms. Ouimet's testimony. At the time, I did in fact raise the matter of governance issues at the Office of the Commissioner—namely, the turnover rate, and the lack of documentation with respect to investigations. I asked at the time what she intended to do to improve things. Recently, some work was done with respect to the impartiality of the public service. I know for a fact that Ms. Ouimet did not regularly attend those meetings.

As Mr. Christopherson was saying, we are objective in terms of the facts and what is presented in the report. We can trust the Auditor General in terms of her findings. We can question her and deal with the issue more thoroughly. As I mentioned this morning, at our meetings, we asked quite specific questions that warrant public attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay, I said I was going to close it off there, and I really do want to do that. I just want to get an indication of whether we're moving on or not. We can continue, but if we're going to get into a dialogue back and forth, it's not very productive.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I think I can bring some closure to it, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

If you're going to bring closure to it on behalf of your other colleagues, that's fine. Otherwise, then I have to make a decision on behalf of every single member.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I'll put forward an opinion that I'm hoping will shape the opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Hold on, Mr. Kramp.

I think I've given everybody a chance to speak, but you asked for an additional bit of time after I'd closed off the list. So I just asked you whether you're going to be speaking for...because I have another couple of people who also want to come on. I want to be fair to everybody, and if it's....

I really do want to close off the discussion.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Why don't we just complete the discussion, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

The point I would like to make is that I think it serves nobody to delay. I certainly have no problem bringing the Auditor General in immediately on this. I have two concerns, and I think one particularly we should bear in mind.

First, is this an operative issue by staff? Is it a governance issue? I think it's pretty clear it's not a governance issue, but if that's.... We can deal with that.

The concern I have, Chair, and I would hope that we would consider, is that there are potential civil liabilities involved here. As such, I think we should be very cautious not to move into an area that could prejudice that action either way, because if we do that, and we move precipitously prior to any potential litigation that might take place, perhaps we are complicating the issue and maybe even negating some particular testimony that could be beneficial either way.

So I just issue that caution as we move through this. No problem: let's bring it to a head. Let's deal with the Auditor General ASAP. But please bear that caution in mind. I do think that's a concern. We should have some reticence in dealing with this issue, because it could be harmful if we--

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Kramp.

I'm coming to the point of asking: those in favour of having the study...?

Yes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I have one quick point.

If it's the will of the committee to have this on Tuesday, then we will not object to that. We will go with the will of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Well, we'll ask the committee whether it is the will of the committee to have this hearing on Tuesday, and....

Yes.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Chair, before you ask the question of the committee, I'd really like to get a handle on what the parameters are going to be of this investigation or this inquiry that we conduct on Tuesday.

I'm really concerned. The lady has already lost her job, and if what's in here is true, so be it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Young, you asked--

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

But I don't want to see someone come in here and be fried by this community and have their reputation totally destroyed--to no avail. That's my concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Young, the parameters are this: you have them in front of you. And the committee always deals with what is in front of it.

In fairness to everybody around the table—I take in a collegial fashion the caution that Mr. Kramp advised for all of us, and I think we're all responsible people—I think what we try to do is bring together all the people who have an interest and a stake in this.

I thought I'd overheard you at one point saying that the chair can direct people to come. You give everybody an opportunity to speak. I think it's always the intention—at least of the chair, but I think it's reflective of the committee—to bring everybody together.

So here are the parameters of the discussion. I'm going to ask whether it is the committee's will to move forward with an attempt to have this on Tuesday. That's the way the question was framed.

We give everybody an opportunity, and if it works for Tuesday, then I think Mr. Christopherson's points about the committee and members of Parliament being seen to do their job has already been in part satisfied, because we're moving to address his concern.

So those in...?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have one more thing. It's about the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Go ahead.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do we want to extend an invitation to the former commissioner? I'd certainly be willing to give her a chair and give her a say. I have no problem with that at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I think it's a fair thing to do. I don't think we'll leave anybody out who has an issue on this. We'll even take the interim person and extend that invitation. We'll give everybody an opportunity to come forward.

So those in...?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, a quick question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

How many quick questions do you have, Mr. Saxton?