Information & Ethics Committee on April 27th, 2009

[Christiane Ouimet]

As soon as they put something in writing, of course, there is some expectation that the matter will be brought to the attention of the chief executive. In fact, the whole act has been built on the premise that you want to bring to the leader of the organization, the chief executive, potential wrongdoing and to make a recommendation. So of course there has to be some expectation that the issue will be brought forward.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Has there been a decline in the number of anonymous allegations you receive?

[Christiane Ouimet]

In fact, there are fewer, because people do understand that under the regime you have to.... In fact, we have a full questionnaire on our website that guides people about the particulars that are needed. As I said, there are rights and obligations on all parts.

So we've had a few anonymous complaints, but not that many.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Is an anonymous complaint an indication of the fear level within the public service about making this kind of disclosure? Or is it something you'd be analyzing to answer that question you raised in your presentation?

[Christiane Ouimet]

We haven't received that many to be able to make any conclusion.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Okay.

Also, in your annual report, there was a section about best practices. You mentioned the National Energy Board as one organization that you thought had best practices around this.

Can you talk a little bit about what they do, which you thought was worthy of that kind of mention?

[Christiane Ouimet]

In fact, I was invited to make a presentation to hundreds of people. The president of the National Energy Board stood in front of every employee and said, the commissioner whom we met is here, and anybody who has a concern can come to me, or you can go to her directly.

They have also held on an annual basis—and I can't remember what the title was—an integrity day or a sensitization or education day, and I happened to be there then. I understand it is an annual event at which they do talk very candidly about values and ethics.

I've been told this is what works. First, it comes from the leader—as we've heard from the private sector—who walks the talk and reaches out to employees and explains values and ethics. So it's not the amount of rules or enforcement or investigation that will change an organization; it's really the leadership.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

You also referred to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal. Can you talk about your relationship with that? I don't know what that is or its background.

[Christiane Ouimet]

Very early in the mandate, we met with the then chair, Justice Blais, who has since been given other responsibility. The three other members, Rick Mosley, Luc Martineau, and Judith Snider, of course, operate at arm's length. But very early on, they consulted us on the rules of practice required under the act.

The tribunal has a very defined role under the act. Only I can apply to the tribunal to determine if there has there been a reprisal or not. If, in fact, all efforts have failed with respect to an investigation and conciliation process—which has to be done with the consent of all the parties—they can also recommend redress if there is conciliation. The tribunal members, of course, have other responsibilities in addition to sitting as a panel, or alone. Also, one other particularity that I find very interesting is that they have ade novo role, meaning they would start the process over again.

So this is a very clear indication that Parliament was very thorough in providing all of the tools to reassure those who are concerned about reprisals, specifically, so that there are very fulsome mechanisms at their disposal.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madam Simson, please.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I'm very curious, having had some experience with similar types of departments in private corporations, if you could just take me through the process. Say that somebody has a complaint with respect to the misuse of funds, and they work for a particular agency that comes under your jurisdiction; they can't come to you and anonymously file a complaint as a public servant. Does it all have to be done out in the open?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Yes, I think probably the analogy you're making has to—

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

No. So they have to identify themselves all the way along in the process.

[Christiane Ouimet]

Yes. They have to sign their name. We have to be able to go to them, ask them to provide details, and ask them to ensure that the file is complete so we can take it to the next level.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Why would they need you to disclose an issue? It would seem to me that they would stay within their own organization. I see the merit on the reprisal, you know, to protect, but I don't understand why they would necessarily elect to go outside their particular agency right off the bat.

[Christiane Ouimet]

We do keep their identities confidential even though they have to identify themselves to us. Because if it's an anonymous letter, it means we can't verify the information with anybody, other than going to the organization, so the act says that we'll protect the identity of the discloser to the extent possible.

Number one, they might come to us because maybe they've raised the issue internally and they weren't satisfied with the results. Or they might come to us because it's a small organization and they fear being identified. Also, they might come to us as we're an independent organization. In fact, I've even had suggestions from leaders of the organizations that they might want us to investigate the matter to ensure that it is completely at arm's length and is seen as fully independent.

That's the way the act was constructed.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I'm also trying to get a sense of how, on a go-forward basis, you can actually gauge the effectiveness of this particular commission. For instance, you said you had 76 disclosers. How many of those were follow-up reprisal complainants, for instance? Do you have any sense of that? Is there perhaps a higher rate of reprisal for going outside the agency and speaking to you? If you're following up on that, I'd be interested in knowing that. If they're dealing with your office, let's say, how many then subsequently come back and say, “Guess what, I've been punished” or say that there have been reprisals?

[Christiane Ouimet]

This is a very good point, Mr. Chair, because whether the disclosure, the allegation of wrongdoing, is founded or not, the individual should not be exposed to any form of reprisal. Of course, we rely on the individual coming to us because of the protection that is offered for reprisal, which is the core jurisdiction, and the exclusive jurisdiction, that our office has. I've explained as well the role of the tribunal. We will obviously monitor very clearly and very carefully that the legislation is applied, but we have to rely on the discloser to come to us.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

But is that something that can be made available on a go-forward basis?

[Christiane Ouimet]

We're also exploring another tool, perhaps a survey, to monitor exactly the level of comfort. I don't know what the members of Parliament might think about that and whether this is something that could be pursued by the human resources agency.

I think we need to be able to find out. Our public servants know that we exist. For those who do know, what has been their perception, what is the value-added, and what are the performance indicators? In the meantime, we are conducting from within, by the deputy commissioner, an independent review of every decision that we made and the lessons learned. So we're trying to vet this, because these are very valid questions that you're raising.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

It isn't just for Parliament. In terms of the public servants who may or may not decide to utilize your office, I think part of it is that they have to know how effective it is, or that maybe there's a higher rate of reprisal for coming to you as opposed to keeping it in-house. That could all be part of the education process, not just for committees or parliamentarians, but also for the people who potentially may have to utilize the office.

[Christiane Ouimet]

It's a very good point, Mr. Chair. We'll pursue this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

I must admit that this is like walking through memory lane; I can think of a zillion questions to ask, but it's not our jurisdiction.

This act also applies to members of the public. Have you received many public complaints?

[Christiane Ouimet]

We have received some. I think we break it down, and in the next annual report we will have more details on this.