Evidence of meeting #16 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was complaints.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
How much time would you require to deal with the average inquiry? I know there will be a range, but on average?
3:50 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
On average, we try to deal with issues within a three- or four- month period. Again, this fluctuates. In the case of reprisal--
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
So three or four months, and actual time spent. So there is time waiting for information, etc. But as for actual investigative time spent on a complaint file, if you were to determine the person hours, what would your estimate be?
3:50 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
It's still a bit early to tell, because when I arrived in August we did not have a measurement system in place, which we just implemented. We are starting to document the time being spent, and again there is the full range. At this point some of the cases have required very intensive work--some, in fact, years. We don't have the specific data.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Okay, I see that you don't have the data on that. Per employee, we've had four complaints of various types per year in your department.
Now I'm going to a different topic. You've said that one of the pillars is protection. You're limited to $1,500 for legal fees for someone who comes forward, a whistle-blower. Do you think that acts as a disincentive? You may not be hearing this, but people look at the details, you provide information, and they say “Oh. It's only $1,500.”
A run-of-the-mill lawyer is about $250. Mr. Dechert would probably know these rates better than I would. A good lawyer would be $500 or perhaps more. You're looking at serious issues, especially if you're dealing with senior levels within the civil service for a complaint. So you're protected for up to three hours of legal advice. Why is it capped at this low level? Does it in fact provide—if that's one of the pillars—the protection that whistle-blowers need?
They're putting their futures in jeopardy. Some of these cases, as you said, are very complex. How is it that we provide all of three hours of legal support?
3:50 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
In fact, this legislation included the $1,500 limit, but it also provides the discretion to take it up to $3,000.
The reality is that we have had only one case where in fact legal advice was required. Under the act, we can actually offer that legal advice directly from our office, which is exactly what happened. The person who made the disclosure was very happy with the result and indicated that he had received very good, neutral, and objective advice on the process.
In addition, we are also seeking the help of other organizations, such as the unions, to provide general advice on the best venue in which to deal with people who have complaints. In addition, there is an obligation within each department to provide information. I'll definitely be recording your concern and examining it closely.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Good afternoon, Commissioner. You said earlier that you had received 200 inquiries, including 70 complaints. You also said in your presentation that you had discretionary authority to accept or reject complaints.
How many of the 200 were rejected?
3:50 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
First of all, we have what we call the admissibility stage. This is when we decide whether we can refer the individual and the complaint somewhere else. The matter may not come under our jurisdiction, for example, if the individual is complaining about an organization that does not fall within our mandate. I should mention that 59 of the 206 inquiries received further consideration. We dealt with 49 of them at the preliminary level, but the others advanced to various stages. It is very important that all issues be considered on their merits. There may be referrals to other organizations, such as Mary Dawson's office—and she has appeared before this committee—or the Human Rights Commission.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Are your findings made public or do they remain confidential?
3:55 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
We provide as many details as we can in order to inform Parliament about the type of work we have done and the issues we have dealt with. This is a very delicate issue, particularly with respect to unfounded cases, to ensure neither the whistleblower nor the people who are part of the process are identified.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
From what you said earlier, I understand that the public administration does the investigation. My colleague asked you a question about the turnaround time for investigations, and you said it was about four months. Does the four-month period apply just to the work done by your office, or does it include a general investigation done by the public administration?
3:55 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Let me clarify, I think I've caused some confusion. When I talk about the general mandate of my office, I am talking about public administration. In the preamble, there is reference to serious cases of mismanagement, violations of the code of conduct, and the poor management of public funds. Generally speaking, I spoke about the turnaround time for complaints, which varies a great deal. I should mention that the act has been in force for only a year and a half or two years. On average, the turnaround time, from the time we receive the complaint until the time the file is closed, is about four months. But those are very preliminary figures.
The act provides for some timelines in the case of reprisals. We have 15 days to rule on the admissibility of the complaint. Within a year or two, we will definitely have more details about the type of issues we will have to deal with. Since people will understand our mandate a little better, they will not come to us for issues we do not cover. If they do, we will refer them to the right place.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
You talk about disclosures. Last year, when I was on the agriculture committee, we heard about a researcher who had told his union about a document that was going around and that talked about possible budget cuts at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This employee had lost his job. He had not stolen the document in question, he just happened to receive it.
Is that the type of complaint your office can investigate?
3:55 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
It would be difficult to comment on a specific case. However, I invite any member of Parliament or any individual to feel free to ask questions and to speak in confidence to a representative from our legal service or someone else in our office. We would be pleased to deal with any concerns.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
You said that your office had been established quite recently. What difficulties have you encountered since the office opened? What steps have been taken to correct these problems?
3:55 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
That is an excellent question. The establishment of small agencies is in fact one of the important themes in my upcoming annual report. We are still facing challenges, in particular staff turnover, and in having the right people in the right place with the right training. We want to ensure that at all times the office meets its commitment to Parliament to deal with every issue in accordance with the act and to make the necessary decisions. The rest has to do with infrastructure issues, such as a telephone system that works well, and proper case management.
I am very proud of my team, which includes experts in all fields. We have managed to process all the cases. We support these people in the decisions they make, even though it is difficult to establish a small agency. Once you have read the annual report and the chapter on federal organizations, I will be pleased to discuss these issues with you again. Committee members could really be helpful to this community in finding all sorts of practical solutions.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
A number of commissioners have appeared before the committee since the beginning of this session. One of the things we have heard the most often is that is it very difficult to recruit staff.
Why are you having so much trouble recruiting people? Do the people you recruit stay, or is there a high staff turnover?
4 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
That is an excellent question, Mr. Chair.
Sometimes, people who start working for a small organization expect to be promoted rapidly and need to follow very specific ongoing training. Sometimes too they are offered something better elsewhere; it's a matter of supply and demand. A combination of factors allows people to ensure that they have the right people at the right time. Once again, the committee members can help us find solutions. There are many practical solutions and I will suggest some of them in my next annual report.
April 27th, 2009 / 4 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being with us today, Commissioner, with your colleagues.
In your remarks earlier, in the protection section, you posed the question, are people afraid of coming forward, and if so, why? Can you try to answer for us?
4 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
In fact, we have a whole chapter in the next annual report on this that is entitled “Why People Are Afraid to Come Forward”. We've extended an invitation to former disclosers to share with us their concern about what has happened. We've also spoken to top researchers in the areas. Certainly there's a cost. There's a cost for people who come forward with issues and concerns. We want to protect confidentiality, but as I've explained, there's a delicate balance as well. Our objective is not to shut down an institution. It's not to shut down organizations that need to continue to provide services and programs. Our objective is to zero in on what the problem is. As a new organization, we must be able to reassure them that we'll do the utmost to find solutions.
This is universal. This is not typical to Canada. In Canada, in fact, we have very progressive legislation. We are doing an analysis with what is called the “quads”, the four countries that are most like us. That is also something we're going to pursue with disclosers. We've met with a number of organizations, and we want to continue to work with them to find out how we can attenuate the concerns and make the system work for everybody.
4 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Is Canada still one of the only countries that link both disclosures and reprisals in this legislation?
4 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Yes. Not only linking reprisal and reprisals—that's a very good question—but as well having the power to investigate. Occasionally you have those links, but the power to investigate rests elsewhere. I hesitate to use the word “unique”. There has been that debate among my deputy commissioner and my general counsel as to whether Canada is really unique. I think it's very innovative in its approach, it's very complete. To a certain extent we remain a model in many, many ways.
