PACP Committee Report

Parliamentary Agencies play a role in strengthening the deepest values of public service: respect for the authority of elected office holders, respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the institutions of Parliament and the courts ¹.

In March and May of 2003, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates met to review the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

As a consequence of this review and subsequent meetings on issues related to it, the Committee reported to the House of Commons that it had lost confidence in the then? Privacy Commissioner, Mr. George Radwankski, because the Committee was “no longer able to believe that information provided by [Mr. Radwankski] about his activities [could] be assumed to be accurate and complete.” Citing concerns about financial practices in the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the Committee requested that the Auditor General of Canada conduct a comprehensive audit of those practices ². The Auditor General agreed to this request, indicating in a letter to the Committee Chair that she would submit a special report to the House of Commons by the end of September 2003 ³.

During the summer of 2003, the Office of the Auditor General conducted an intense audit of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner with the full support and co-operation of the Interim Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Robert Marleau, and the staff of his Office. On 30 September 2003, the Auditor General fulfilled her commitment and tabled her Report on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada with the Speaker of the House of Commons.

Under Standing Order 108 (1)(g) of the House of Commons, all reports of the Auditor General are automatically referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Consequently, the special report was sent immediately upon tabling to this committee.

There are areas in which the intersection between Canadian citizens, their government, and the bureaucracy that serves it are of such importance that Parliament has assigned independent agents to watch over them and report concerns directly to it. These agents are referred to as officers of Parliament and their work is crucial to the integrity of our democratic system. Thus, the Chief Electoral Officer ensures that our electoral system is fair and unbiased, the Commissioner of Official Languages safeguards the status of our two official languages, the Auditor General verifies the accuracy of our government’s financial statements, and the Access to Information Commissioner guarantees that there is reasonable transparency surrounding information held by government agencies.

A fifth officer of Parliament, the Privacy Commissioner, is given the responsibility of making sure that confidential information regarding our personal lives is adequately protected from unwarranted public release and abuse. At a time when issues such as identity theft and a multiplying array of means of gaining access to personal information are of increasing concern, the integrity, autonomy, and ability of this Officer of Parliament are more important than ever before.

Because this officer of Parliament, as well as the others, is of such enormous significance, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts decided to review the special audit report produced by the Auditor General. To assist it with its review, the Committee met with Auditor General Sheila Fraser and Interim Privacy Commissioner Robert Marleau on 2 October 2003. Mr. Hugh McRoberts, Assistant Auditor General, and Ms. Kathryn Elliott, Principal, Audit Operations, accompanied Mrs. Fraser. On 9 October 2003, the Committee met with Mr. Scott Serson, the President of the Public Service Commission. Ms. Andrée Dubois (Vice-President, Recourse Branch), Mr. Greg Gauld (Vice-President, Merit Policy and Accountability Branch) and Mr. Michael Corber (Director, Information Management and Review Directorate) of the Public Service Commission appeared with Mr. Serson. Mrs. Fraser and Ms. Eliott also attended the meeting. A third meeting was held on 23 October 2003. Mr. Jim Judd (Secretary of the Treasury Board Secretariat and Comptroller General of Canada) represented the Treasury Board Secretariat. Ms. Michelle Chartrand (Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, Senior Personnel and Special Projects Secretariat) and Mr. Wayne McCutcheon (Director General, Senior Personnel and Special Projects Secretariat) appeared on behalf of the Privy Council Office. Mr. John M. Reid, Information Commissioner of Canada also appeared as a witness. Mrs. Fraser also attended, accompanied by Mr. Bruce Sloan (Principal, Audit Operations, Office of the Auditor General of Canada).

The Auditor General found that the former Privacy Commissioner “abdicated his responsibilities” and that under his stewardship, rules and even basic standards of decent behaviour were routinely and flagrantly ignored and broken. These facts are by now widely known and, with one notable exception, universally accepted.

In the wake of Mr. Radwanski’s departure, corrective measures are being taken. In particular, the Committee acknowledges and welcomes the positive reaction of the Interim Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Robert Marleau, to the Auditor General’s recommendations. The Committee fully endorses these recommendations which, it is confident, will help repair the damage done to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, its reputation, and in particular, its employees.

There are, however, serious concerns that extend beyond the Office of the Privacy Commissioner itself, and involve the governance framework for officers of Parliament collectively and, indeed, the entire Public Service. It is those concerns in particular that the Committee wished to address.

In her report, Mrs. Fraser observed that the

Oversight mechanisms of central agencies — the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission — were insufficient or, …, not used to either prevent abuse and wrongdoing or deal with them when they occurred. (Paragraph 5)

During its hearings with witnesses, the Committee sought to explore the reasons for the failure of the governance framework surrounding the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and to find ways to avert such a failure in the future.