PACP Committee Report

RESPONSIBILITY

Responsibility identifies the field within which a public office holder (whether elected or unelected) can act; it is defined by the specific authority given to an office holder (by law or delegation).

Deputy Minister Task Force on Public Service Values and Ethics

Responsibility is the “authority and power to act.”

C.E.S. Franks, Ministerial and Deputy Ministerial Responsibility and Accountability in Canada.

Being responsible does not mean that you are required to know and control everything that is happening at all times.

Arthur Kroeger

ACCOUNTABILITY

Accountability is the means of enforcing or explaining responsibility. It involves rendering an account of how responsibilities have been carried out and problems corrected and, depending on the circumstances, accepting personal consequences for problems the office holder caused or problems that could have been avoided or corrected if the office holder had acted appropriately.

Deputy Minister Task Force on Public Service Values and Ethics

A relationship in which an individual or agency is held to answer for performance that involves some delegation of authority to act.

International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration

ANSWERABILITY

Answerability is the duty to inform and explain, but does not include the personal consequences associated with accountability.

Deputy Minister Task Force on Public Service Values and Ethics

Answerability requires that an account be tendered by those to whom an account is due.

Thomas S. Axworthy ^[1]

AN EFFCTIVE SYSTEM OF RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

The three stages in an effective system of responsibility and accountability are:

1. Responsibility for duties or tasks must be assigned to specific persons,
2. These persons must be made to answer or give an account to the appropriate authorities for their use of the powers and responsibilities assigned to them,
3. There must be a process that imposes sanctions — rewards or punishment as is appropriate — on the responsible persons for their use of powers.

C.E.S. Franks

INTRODUCTION

From February to May 2004, during its inquiry into the Sponsorship Program, a central objective of the work of the Committee was to hold government decision-makers accountable, in a public forum, for the practices that the Auditor General identified in her November 2003 report. This objective implied two major tasks. The Committee needed to explore the accuracy of the Auditor General’s report, and it needed to identify the individuals responsible and hold them accountable for their decisions and actions.

Although some witnesses questioned the Auditor General’s November report, primarily on matters of interpretation, none of these questions left the Committee with serious doubts concerning the accuracy of the findings of fact presented in that report. On the contrary, as testimony accumulated, the picture of the Sponsorship Program and its antecedents drawn by the Auditor General was repeatedly validated.

The second accountability challenge — identifying the individuals responsible — proved to be much more difficult. As Canadians who have observed the Committee hearings will be aware, no individual stepped forward and accepted responsibility for the decisions and actions drawn to the attention of Parliament and Canadians by the Auditor General. As the Committee was reminded by Dr. C.E.S. Franks (Professor Emeritus, Queen’s University) toward the end of its public hearings, this breakdown in the practice of responsibility has both a negative and a positive side:

… the investigation by the Public Accounts Committee into the sponsorship affairs has been successful and useful, although perhaps in an unexpected way. It has identified the crucial factor which allows such problems to happen. Not one of the many witnesses who have come before the committee, neither ex-ministers nor public servants, has stated “Yes, managing this program was my responsibility, and I am responsible and accountable for what went wrong with it.” Ours is a system of responsible government. Constitutionally, someone must be responsible and accountable to Parliament for what the government does or fails to do. … The breakdown of responsibility and accountability disclosed by an investigation of the public accounts committee shows that something is seriously wrong with the way the principle of responsibility is construed and practiced in Canada. (43:1110) [*]

The principles of accountability and responsibility reside at the core of our parliamentary system of government and the assertion that there is something “seriously wrong” with the way these principles are put into practice is of grave concern. One thing is certain: The events surrounding the Sponsorship Program have revealed the flaws in the doctrine of ministerial accountability as it has been interpreted and practiced in Canada since Confederation.

Because this testimony on ministerial accountability came at the end of the Committee’s review of the Sponsorship Program, and because the issue is both complex and highly important, the Committee determined that it would be best to focus exclusively on ministerial and deputy ministerial accountability and to state its conclusions after the release of its report on the Sponsorship Program. That report has now been tabled ^[2].

The Committee received its first testimony with regard to ministerial accountability from the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Alex Himelfarb, on 3 May 2004. To obtain a better understanding of the interaction between ministerial staff and public servants in the context of responsibility and accountability, the Committee spoke to two panels of witnesses. The first panel was composed of three former special assistants in the office the Hon. Alfonso Gagliano while he was Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada: Mr. Patrick Lebrun, Ms. Joanne Bouvier, and Ms. Ghislaine Ippersiel. The Committee heard from these witnesses on 2 December 2004. The second panel was composed of former employees with the Communications Coordination Services Branch (CCSB) at Public Works and Government Services Canada: Mr. Mario Parent (former coordinator, Advertising Program) and Ms. Hugette Tremblay (former chief, Special Projects). The Committee met with this second panel on 7 December 2004. The Committee met initially with Dr. C.E.S. Franks on 6 May 2004, and met with him a second time on 14 December 2004. As well, the Committee received several written submissions from him, some of which are cited below. Lastly, the Committee met with Mr. Arthur Kroeger, a well respected and knowledgeable former deputy minister, on 21 February 2005.

The Committee wishes to thank these witnesses for sharing their knowledge and understanding of both the principles and practice of accountability and responsibility in the Canadian system of government. The Committee is especially grateful for the generous assistance provided it by Dr. Franks, a long time student of Canada’s Parliament.