Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 14th, 2010

[The Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

I ask the people with cameras to vacate the room, if you don't mind. Thank you very much.

This meeting is public and televised. Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, December 9, 2010, we are dealing with the report of the Auditor General of Canada on the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, referred to the committee on Thursday, December 9, 2010.

Bear with me while I go through everyone. We have with us this morning Madam Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada. With her are Mr. John Wiersema, Deputy Auditor General, and Ms. Linda Drainville, principal. We welcome the three of you.

From the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada we have Mr. Joe Friday, acting deputy commissioner, and Mr. Brian Radford, acting senior counsel. Welcome.

I understand that Madam Fraser and Mr. Friday both have opening statements.

From the audit committee of the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, we have Mr. Michael Nelson, the chair. Mr. Nelson doesn't have a statement but is here to answer questions should they arise. Welcome, sir.

I thank you very much.

We'll go immediately to Madam Fraser.

[Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We thank you for this opportunity to discuss our audit of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada. As you mentioned, I'm accompanied today by John Wiersema, Deputy Auditor General, and Linda Drainville, principal, who were responsible for this audit.

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner was established in 2007 under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. Both that office and the act are meant to provide federal public servants and members of the public with a way to disclose potential wrongdoing in the federal public sector and to protect those who make a disclosure from reprisal.

Under the act, a disclosure of wrongdoing that concerns Public Sector Integrity Canada may be made to the Auditor General of Canada. When investigating such disclosures, the Auditor General has the same duties and powers under the act as the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

Christiane Ouimet was Canada's Public Sector Integrity Commissioner during the period covered by this audit. She retired from public service on October 18, 2010.

Between November 2008 and July 2009, my office received three complaints against the former Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. The allegations we received related to her behaviour as deputy head, including her interactions with her staff, reprisals or retaliatory actions taken against former employees, performance pay decisions, and the performance of her mandated functions.

On May 11, 2009, owing to limitations in the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act--for example, the law prohibits consulting former public servants--our office ceased investigations under the act and began an audit under the Auditor General Act.

In our view, the allegations made by the complainants concerning the former commissioner's conduct and interactions with her staff, retaliatory actions by the commissioner, and the performance of her mandated functions, are founded.

Given that the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is subject to review in April 2012, I would like to mention two limitations of the act that we identified during our investigation.

In the course of an investigation, the commissioner can only obtain information from public servants. If it is necessary to obtain information from someone who is no longer in the public service, the act requires the commissioner to stop the investigation and refer it to a competent authority.

In such a case, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act no longer applies to protect from reprisal individuals who cooperate in the new process.

The second limitation we noted is the lack of an independent mechanism for addressing allegations of reprisal within the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada. Under the act, complaints of reprisal can only be filed with the commissioner. Consequently, there is no independent mechanism in place to address complaints alleging that the commissioner engaged in reprisal actions.

Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. My colleagues and I would be happy to answer any questions the committee members may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Madam Fraser.

I'll go now to Mr. Joe Friday, the acting deputy commissioner of public sector integrity.

Commissioner.

[Joe Friday, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for this opportunity to appear.

I'm here today in my capacity as acting deputy commissioner and general counsel of the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, following the departure of the previous commissioner and in the absence of an interim commissioner, until this morning. I've been fulfilling the duties of the acting deputy head of the office since October 18 of this year.

I'm here today in my position representing the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to speak to issues that affect our organization as we move forward, using the Auditor General's report as part of our strategy to do so.

I'm not here in a position to speak on behalf of the former commissioner or to comment on any findings in the report that are personal to her.

The Auditor General's report, tabled on December 9, raises a number of issues of importance and concern, not only to the Auditor General and to Parliament, but also to me, to members of our office and to Canadians. Confidence in our ability to carry out our mandate is essential if we are to succeed.

In particular, the report raises concerns with a number of our files. We are prepared to have all our closed files reviewed externally by an expert, and we will be raising this as a priority with the Interim Commissioner, Mario Dion. We want to ensure that the decisions made are fully supported, clearly analyzed and defensible.

If a review determines that further work, including reopening of a file for investigation, is warranted, we will certainly carry out that work.

Mr. Chair, I sincerely believe that our office is capable and well-equipped to carry out its mandate. One aspect of strength, in my view, is the capacity for self-assessment, self-criticism, and self-improvement. I'm confident we will demonstrate this as we continue our work.

To move forward now and to enhance confidence, not only in our office but also in federal institutions and the public service more widely, we intend to assess the work we've done to date, address any issues of concern, and build towards the future by ensuring the rigour of our work.

The audit period under review began on April 15, 2007, the date our office was created, and ended on July 31, 2009. I would like to state that, since the end of the audit period, we have made continued progress in building the capacity of our small organization.

I believe it is relevant to mention these achievements, if only briefly, to indicate that we are focused on continuing development, on refining our procedures and approaches, and on ensuring our capacity to meet the challenges of our work.

Our investigations and inquiries unit has undergone major development in the last year. We've completed a process mapping exercise to make our intake and case handling processes clearer and more streamlined. We have an experienced and dedicated staff. We've added a new director general of investigations to our office, and new investigators, who bring considerable experience and acumen to their roles. We're also in active recruitment mode to continue to build our strength.

We've continued to develop various tools and guidance for our team to carry out its mandate. We currently have 15 investigations under way across a wide range of areas within the federal public sector. We are also working diligently to ensure we are carrying out this work in a positive and mutually collaborative and professional environment. Our focus is certainly on ensuring that this is maintained.

We are also making progress in communicating a clear message to our stakeholders regarding our mandate and authority to act. We can exercise only the authority that is within our legislation. Ensuring people know who we are, and what we can and cannot do, is essential.

My message today, Mr. Chair, is that we take the report of the Auditor General very seriously and that we will respond to it responsibly by ensuring that the quality of the work we have done, the work we are doing and the work we will continue to do meets the expectations of Canadians.

This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chair. I look forward to any questions committee members may have.

Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Friday.

On a point of clarification, Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chair, I would like some clarification with respect to the witnesses. During our last meeting, I recall that there had been a request that Ms. Ouimet be present here, this morning. If my memory serves me correctly, we had also asked that someone from the Privy Council be here. However, as we can see, there is no one here to testify, and Mr. Friday stated that he was not speaking on behalf of Ms. Ouimet, which I can understand.

Could someone tell us why these two individuals are not here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

That's fair enough. As a point of clarification—

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

On the same point, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

What we did was request that Madame Ouimet be invited. There was no direction that she would be ordered to appear or anything like that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

And you're asking me...?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chair, with respect to the clarification I asked for—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

The clerk, as per our discussion, did make an effort to get in touch with Madame Ouimet. The clerk also gave an invitation to the Clerk of the Privy Council.

We were—correct me if I'm wrong, Madame—I think unable to reach Madame Ouimet. There was an indication that there was no forwarding address or coordinates where we could reach her. With respect to the Clerk, the Clerk is in cabinet committee this morning until about 12 o'clock, and in a private briefing with the Prime Minister afterwards.

If you want to pursue that, you can do so in the business part of the meeting a little later on and follow up on some of the discussions. I hope that clarifies why the people who are here are here. We appreciate their being here.

Thank you.

First question in our first round, Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for being here.

My question is to the Auditor General. The Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada cost taxpayers millions of dollars. There were 228 files of complaints lodged. Only seven were reviewed and there was no action. In your opinion, doesn't this undermine the Accountability Act and the mandate of the commissioner?

[Sheila Fraser]

Chair, as we noted in the report, we looked at a selection of files that had been received by the commission and found that either the nature of the work that was done or the documentation in the file did not adequately support the conclusion or the decision to close the file. This is obviously problematic. As well, there were some draft policies on investigations, and those need to be finalized, and there needs to be a more rigorous process put in place to ensure that any complaints that are received are dealt with seriously.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

I guess one of the points you raised in the report was with respect to the guidelines. I just want a clarification in a yes or no format. That would be very helpful, because we're a bit constrained on time.

This is for the acting commissioner. For the interpretation of the act and the mandate, who did you consult with regard to the guidelines? Did you consult with Treasury Board, yes or no?

[Joe Friday]

No.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

PCO?

[Joe Friday]

No.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

PMO?

[Joe Friday]

No.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

The justice department?

[Joe Friday]

Not to my knowledge.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Okay.

Do you have anything in written documentation on any advice you received on how those guidelines were developed?

[Joe Friday]

My understanding would be that any file material with respect to our guidelines would be internal discussion documents.