Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 14th, 2010

[Joe Friday]

Under the legislation, Mr. Chair, we do not have criminal law jurisdiction. If we get information or discover, during the course of an investigation, that criminal activity may have occurred, we must cease that part of the investigation and refer it to the appropriate enforcement authority, and we have done that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon everybody.

I knew Ms. Ouimet before I became an MP. I taught her children. They were excellent students, very curious and interested in learning, the type of students that every teacher would like to have in the classroom. As for Ms. Ouimet, she was a person that any teacher would like to have had as one of their student's parents. She was involved in her children's academic progress, as well as in parent-teacher meetings and follow-ups. Like Ms. Buzzetti in Le Devoir, I see that we are talking about a poorly shod shoemaker. Matters of integrity are always extremely sensitive, touchy. Not everyone is brave enough to disclose a wrongdoing and to assume responsibility.

I just about fell off my chair when I read the report. I have to set aside the cordial images that I have with respect to a given situation and think about a commissioner and an office that were given a great deal of authority when created, as a result of Bill C-2. When the Conservatives came into power, following the sponsorship scandal, we wanted to strengthen government accountability to citizens and to its own staff. Even though I feel very badly, I am compelled to continue on that path, in the wake of this report, which I trust. When I read what it says, I wonder whether it is really referring to the same individual. That is an observation.

That being said, one fundamental question remains, as far as I am concerned: Can we still put our trust in this institution, the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner? I ask that question very sincerely, knowing that Ms. Ouimet did not act alone. Within that extremely important office, there were other players, other individuals who worked with her. Mr. Friday, you were one of them. The Auditor General, Ms. Fraser, talked about investigations that were not conducted thoroughly enough. I have some numbers here. We know that, out of 228 complaints, not one was considered. God damn it, that really hurts the office!

Mr. Friday, you are a professional. You worked in this office for two-and-a-half or three years. Was there no way to sound the alarm bells, to kick this hornet's nest when things were not going well and to tell someone about the situation, knowing that you could not talk to the person concerned? The investigation was part of your duties. I am thinking about Mr. Watson, who was one of your colleagues, at least in the beginning. He spent 30 years in the RCMP, which is not negligible. And he wasn't directing traffic after Sunday mass. But he left after one year. So you have to ask some questions.

Mr. Friday, Ms. Fraser talked about some signs that may have been seen here and there. Why did you not tell anybody about the situation earlier?

[Joe Friday]

I would describe the environment of our office, when I arrived, as certainly an intensely focused one, an energized one. People were busy on a number of fronts, even though the act had been in place for almost a year. There was a new act, a new commissioner, a transition from a policy to an independent agent of Parliament, new people, and a new mandate.

The office was in a state of development. Madame Ouimet had a particular vision that she should have, or is entitled to have as Integrity Commissioner, with regard to how she wished to carry out her mandate. She was determining what personnel she wanted to help her support that mandate. It was a rather charged atmosphere.

On top of that we were a very small organization trying to create itself while having to take on files and set itself up as a new organization with all the corporate reporting, financial and human resources as well. That made for an environment in which there was certainly discussion, sometimes tension, debate, and discussion about vision, about focus, and about performance of individuals.

Madame Ouimet was carrying that out in her role as commissioner, which would be appropriate. Within that environment, I did not witness what I thought to be abusive behaviour, for example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Merci.

Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, witnesses.

I'd like to go over a couple of things.

In your report, Madam Fraser, in paragraph 13, you talked about the turnover in the office. I know we've talked about your own office and how it's so highly regarded and how everyone is just happy to be there. Well, wouldn't a red flag show up when 50% of the people are leaving an office? Shouldn't that have been one of the things caught by the office of the Public Service Commission? Shouldn't they have caught that?

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes. I think that obviously when you see an average turnover rate of 50% per year, it certainly raises red flags. Now, one could have perhaps argued it away by arguing that it's a new office, that people came in and it wasn't what they thought it would be, that it's a small organization....

But you would expect that somebody would be monitoring this kind of thing, and I think that's the issue we have to deal with as officers of Parliament: what would be the appropriate body to be doing that? Is it the Public Service Commission? I mean, Treasury Board is the employer for these people, unlike, for example, the Office of the Auditor General, where we're a separate employer. So you would expect that somebody might have asked a few questions about this, at a minimum, yes.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I guess that gets me back to the other point, when we look at the fact that five times the commissioner had come to various committees and had given reports, and when we look back at the situation that occurred with the Privacy Commissioner in 2003 and the process that was involved there, when it looked as though the committee was on top of it....

In the early part of 2003, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates held hearings. That was the time when the committee, citing their loss of confidence in Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski, requested the audits. Shortly afterwards, the Privacy Commissioner resigned. Then we had the appointment of Robert Marleau as the interim commissioner, and then the audit. The Auditor General tabled a special report on the Privacy Commissioner and the public service commissioner tabled the audit on the Privacy Commissioner. It was at that time, then, later in that year, that Madam Stoddart was put in as the Privacy Commissioner.

So here's my question: are there parallels that you see in the situation concerning Mr. Radwanski with regard to the conduct, the behaviour, the mandate, and the actions that we have seen from Madame Ouimet?

[Sheila Fraser]

There are some similarities, but I think there are also some important differences. In the case of the former Privacy Commissioner, there were issues around treatment of staff, which is similar to this case, but many of the findings, the serious findings, were related to financial improprieties, which we did not find--and we do financial audits. In fact, after the case of Mr. Radwanski, all the officers of Parliament agreed to have financial audits done every year in order, again, to give some assurance to parliamentarians that the financial management was appropriate. So I think that issue has been stemmed.

Here, I think, the issue that did not come up with the former Privacy Commissioner was the carrying out of the mandate. There was no question that Mr. Radwanski was not actively engaged in his mandate as Privacy Commissioner.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Okay.

Do I have more time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Yes.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

I was just wondering what steps, then, agents of Parliament can take to ensure that members of Parliament have a more transparent understanding of what's going on in their offices.

[Sheila Fraser]

Well, I think we have to be perhaps more consistent and provide you with information on the management of our offices--staff turnover and those sorts of things--and we need to find a way as well to give you assurance that we are carrying out our mandates according to proper procedure.

We've used the mechanism of peer reviews and internal audits to do that. That might be something the other officers could consider as well.

But we are going to be meeting, as I said, in early January, and going through that, and I think actually seeing what we already do. I think there's a fair bit of information that's already available, but maybe it's not being presented properly. Then we will come back to parliamentarians to see if you believe that is satisfactory or not and if there are other mechanisms that should be put in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Madam Fraser.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Just to pick up where I left off--and I appreciate that you answered some of my questions in there--I want to go back again. I appreciate that in January you're going to meet and come up with recommendations across the board for all the officers of Parliament, but I'm still trying to get a handle on whether any balls were dropped along the way. Were there red flags that went up that should have, as opposed to could have, been noticed?

I've heard that the Treasury Board had a role in their activities. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it would seem that's one area, and maybe you could comment again on that. There was the audit committee and the role there. I mean, this whole business of the commissioner appointing the actual people who are there to sort of provide front-line watchdog services...that may be something that needs to be looked at, not that I'm casting any aspersions on you or the calibre of the work. It's just a question of the optics and the structure. And then there was the parliamentary committee, and the commissioner did report.

I realize we're going to improve it. I'm still trying to get a handle on what went wrong that got us to this point. I still don't feel as though we've really nailed down what happened and why.

[Sheila Fraser]

One of the fundamental issues, I think, is that this is a very new office. It's been in existence now for, what, only three years? So it's perhaps understandable, or there can be an explanation given as to why there aren't a lot of investigations or why there's turnover. There can be, I think, what appear to be reasonable explanations given for some of these indicators.

As for central agencies, the employees here are all employees of the Treasury Board, but again it comes back to the fact that this is an officer of Parliament. Central agencies are very reluctant to interfere.

One question that I think no one has posed, but that might be posed, is that these people were all unionized--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I was going to ask that.

[Sheila Fraser]

Is there something--were there many unions in here? Was there one union? Why was the union not more sensitive to some of this?

On the question of parliamentary committees, there were questions asked in hearings about the lack of investigations and the fact that there were no cases of wrongdoing, but again I think it's very difficult for a parliamentary committee. What can a parliamentary committee do? They could ask, as was the case with Mr. Radwanski, for an audit to be done, but the committee probably needs a fair bit of information before they get there to do that.

So yes, I think we're going to have to really think through what kind of mechanism should exist.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

At this stage, it looks as though there may be at least three outcomes that we need from this. One, of course, is a new commissioner. We need to fix and strengthen the department itself, and then we also need to await your recommendations on further checks and balances procedures.

Are those the three outcomes that you would see: getting a new commissioner, getting the department running the way it should, making sure it's staffed properly, trying to rebuild some esprit de corps, and then, lastly, making sure we have mechanisms in place to avoid having this happen again with another officer of Parliament?

[Sheila Fraser]

I'm just being told too that another thing is the whole consideration of the act. We've noted some difficulties with the act--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, there are two recommendations that I think you're making here.

[Sheila Fraser]

--but I would suspect there are other issues with the act. These are only two that we have come across.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, thanks.

Mr. Friday, I just want to hear a little bit more about the potential for--it would seem to me, from the outside looking in, from a common sense point of view, that there's a real potential for a poisoned work environment. When this happens, people are people, and some are loyal to the leadership and others are off in other camps. So I'm asking, are you satisfied that there's absolutely no residual poisoned work environment aspect to what's gone on here?

[Joe Friday]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At this moment we are trying to ensure that we are as healthy as possible, and I wanted to reiterate the very sincere view that if there are current or former employees who feel there is an issue they could not bring forward before--and the situation has changed, obviously, with the departure of the former commissioner--that those can be brought forward. If they feel things have been brought forward and not dealt with, we are completely open to considering and working with people to ensure that is the case.

We are also, as I mentioned, undertaking certain internal processes to communicate as clearly as possible to our colleagues that we are committed to rebuilding a healthy workplace.

I would also point to the retention rate, recognizing that it's about 20% this year. I'm not saying that's the goal or the gold standard for retention, but--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's because everybody has already bailed.