Public Accounts Committee on June 12th, 2018

[Michael Wernick]

It was January 22, roughly—yes.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

You were the Clerk prior to the implementation of the Phoenix payroll system, which happened on February 24, 2016, right?

Mr. Wernick, you would have been around the cabinet tables. You would have gone to the deputy ministers' breakfasts. You would have been part of the committees that had oversight of it. You were really there, and you were the link from what was being told to you by your deputy ministers on the one hand, and the cabinet and the Prime Minister on the other. As is stated on your website, you are not only the head of the federal public service; you are also the secretary to the cabinet and the deputy minister to the Prime Minister.

Having read everything that the Auditor General reported on the facts of how the process unfolded, at any point did you inform the cabinet or the Prime Minister about the difficulties on decision-making over going ahead with the Phoenix implementation?

[Michael Wernick]

I'm trying to get the chronology right. The new government was sworn in on November 4. I don't believe that the pay system was discussed at any cabinet meetings in the period prior to launch. It may have been discussed at Treasury Board ministers. I would have to get back to you on that.

So no, I didn't have any conversations. I was relying on the assurances from the deputy committee that was overseeing the project. I think I was on the job getting ready for the first budget of the new government and dealing with other issues around that time.

I accept entirely that Phoenix was launched on my watch.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

The federal cabinet had a retreat in Saint Andrews, New Brunswick, during the time that the decisions were being made around the Phoenix payroll system. Do you know whether or not Phoenix was an issue that was brought up? Of course, Madame Charette was the Clerk at the time, but you were deputy clerk. You were the second in command.

Do you have any knowledge about whether or not, in those 36 hours of deliberations about delivering to Canadians, the cabinet had a briefing on the Phoenix payroll system?

[Michael Wernick]

Not the full cabinet. That would have been considered an issue for the Treasury Board committee ministers.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Do you know if the Treasury Board committee ministers received a briefing on Phoenix?

[Michael Wernick]

I don't know.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

It could be the reason the Treasury Board decided to get independent advice on whether or not the system was ready to go, but I guess we would have to ask the Treasury Board ministers about that.

Mr. Wernick, was this decision for implementation of the Phoenix payroll system a delegated power from the Minister of Public Works?

[Michael Wernick]

I don't know if it was formally, legally delegated. It was a matter that I think was the prerogative of the deputy ministers who were involved. One would have been Treasury Board as the employer, and the other would be Public Services, I think as it was called by then, as the project manager and deliverer of the service.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

What's interesting to me, for those of you who have not been a minister before, is that you receive a pretty lengthy document at the beginning when you meet with your deputy. In it are all the things on which you agree that, as minister, you're not going to have a decision over. Absent that, as the minister you are responsible for every single decision that every single official within the public sector makes in your portfolio.

Do you have the same kind of delegated power with respect to deputy ministers? Are there certain things as the head of the federal public service that you let the deputy make the decision on only?

[Michael Wernick]

No, because I have no executive authority over deputy ministers—none, zero.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Is there anything you wouldn't tell the Prime Minister in terms of having the Prime Minister in a position to make a decision to ensure oversight?

Here is my problem with all of this. Fourteen deputy ministers decided in late January that the Phoenix payroll system was not ready to go, and they brought it to someone, somewhere.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Go ahead, Mr. Massé, on a point of order.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

The Clerk of the Privy Council is with us. We had agreed that we would focus our interventions on the chapter, the general message by the Auditor General. We're going to have an opportunity to discuss the Phoenix report, so if you might....

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I agree, and that's why I said, in my opening comment, that it's not specifically on Phoenix, not specifically on indigenous issues. I think what Ms. Raitt is driving at is the culture of information being passed on, and she is using Phoenix as an example of that.

Maybe, Ms. Raitt, just as a suggestion, driving down to the culture, you can even—

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You can even refer to the culture.

The point is taken. It's not necessarily a point of order. As you know, there is a lot of latitude given.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

I used it more as illustrative of how the decision-making happened, in a concrete kind of way, because my concern is not only about what happens within the public service. The mantra of the federal public service is to fearlessly advise and to faithfully implement, and I want to make sure that there is fearless advice given to the decision-makers in that cabinet room.

That's why I was asking Mr. Wernick those kinds of questions around what kinds of processes were in place. For me it's important to know that 14 deputy ministers, potentially 14 ministers, should have known that there was a problem, because taking a stance against Treasury Board is a pretty bold thing to do in a government, having been on the wrong side of Treasury Board on a few issues.

I'm just curious to know, when you get to that stalemate, what you do and how we prevent that stalemate from happening again. What are the assurances that when we go on this brand new program, which is going to be even more complex, we get it right?

[Michael Wernick]

Very quickly, I don't think there is a stalemate. I commend to you the document “Open and Accountable Government”, which is the software of Westminster government on the roles of ministers, deputy heads, and elsewhere. There was a version that Prime Minister Harper issued at the beginning of his government, which you'd be familiar with. It was revised in some areas and reissued by Prime Minister Trudeau at the beginning of his government. That is the play book, and it makes the roles very clear.

I think you may have formed an impression from the Auditor General's chapter—because he alludes to this in a sort of sideways way—that officials should have spoken up at certain intervals and asked for more resources. Well, you'd be aware that there is no way for officials to ask for resources—there isn't.

You go to Treasury Board with a submission signed by a minister. If a minister will not sign a request for resources, it doesn't happen. If a minister will not make a request to the Minister of Finance for a budget submission, it won't happen. There is no channel by which senior officials can ask for resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Do you think that is proper? Is that something that may be in the culture? Given the acceptable culture, is that acceptable?

[Michael Wernick]

Well, there are different models, but I think ours rests on ministerial answerability for resources. Ministers request resources of Treasury Board, and Treasury Board ministers grant them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

[Michael Wernick]

They are granted on the advice of ministers, and parliamentarians appropriate supply and appropriations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Wernick.

Go ahead, Mr. Lefebvre, please.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On that point, with respect to resources—the idea today was to talk about the culture, and I have more questions, but just to start off—can you give us a bit of the timeline that you're aware of when 700 or more professional payroll individuals were let go? Do you know what the timelines were? Was that in 2014–15?