Information & Ethics Committee on April 27th, 2009

[Christiane Ouimet]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I don't know how you define it, but do you have a backlog now?

[Christiane Ouimet]

I used to know that terminology when I was at the Immigration and Refugee Board, I must confess. But at this time we don't have a backlog. However, it does not mean that should our role or mandate be known, it won't happen. So I'm very conscious of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Has the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates reviewed your estimates yet?

[Christiane Ouimet]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

They will have all of these questions for you, so we'll pass them on to them.

Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good day, Ms. Ouimet. Good day, Mr. Molot and Mr. Friday.

There are approximately 500,000 public servants, government employees, in Canada. I may be off by a few dollars, but the figure that comes to mind for the federal budget is $228 billion. In your report, you say that there were 208 complaints filed. Are they truly complaints?

[Christiane Ouimet]

They are requests for general information.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

So there were 208 complaints from such a vast number of employees and for a budgetary envelope covering numerous purchases, services and 1001 other things, even more so because Canada is a G8 country. To my mind, the number of things that can happen in a single year throughout the federal public service is astronomical.

Since the commission is quite a recent invention, if we look at the history of Canada, is there a way, in your opinion, to invite federal employees, those receiving a paycheque from the federal government and who have responsibilities, to become more familiar with your operation so that overall—and it's not because I'm Machiavellian—people feel comfortable saying that they saw something if they have? We know that, often, people are encouraged to take action, but once they have gone about 10 steps, they turn around and see that there's no one behind them supporting them. Could we ensure that if someone does take such steps, they would in fact be protected and could then feel comfortable taking action in the face of an anomaly, be it serious or not, without being penalized? In that context, how do you think we can help honest individuals who want to ensure that public funds are properly spent?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Chair.

I will make a few brief comments. First, based on the experience in Ontario, where my colleague works and where legislation came into force at approximately the same time, the proportion is approximately the same.

Second, we must remember that the internal disclosure process within each department is working. To that end, I would invite you to consult the Public Service Agency report. In each department, there were a number of internal disclosures made.

Third, Mr. Nadeau is correct, it remains a challenge to ensure that people can ask questions and raise concerns. That is why we want to work with the stakeholders and that is why the next annual report talks about the joint responsibility of the minister and the agency to advise individuals of their rights and obligations. We will also be making increased efforts in that area in order to advise people of this. We will invest in a number of tools. If parliamentarians have suggestions to make, we would welcome them.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

On another subject but still with regard to the Office of the Commissioner, I want to make the connection with the word “tool”, which you just used. Is there a point when, without necessarily setting the order of priority in stone, you would need our help as parliamentarians? I am thinking of a written report that we could table in the House of Commons in which we could indicate that the Office of the Commissioner does this kind of work, that we want to support it, and in which we could indicate what more could be done to provide further assistance. Could you specify what kind of assistance we could provide to you?

[Christiane Ouimet]

One of the priorities that, once again, will be part of the next annual report will no doubt be—and it will certainly be appreciated if parliamentarians want to support us—supporting federal organizations commonly known as smaller agencies. Once again, I am suggesting some possible solutions. Your support and comments would be indispensable. Thank you.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mrs. Block, please.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much.

Your 2008 report states that your office is unique in the world. Is that still the case? Are there other countries following our country's lead in whistle-blower protection?

[Christiane Ouimet]

In fact, that's why I was debating whether the word “unique” was the appropriate one. It certainly is distinctive; it is certainly seen as a model. In fact, in UN circles it has been often quoted as a best practice as well as all-encompassing legislation. It is a very complex piece of legislation, with more than 54 pages, with some exceptions, with, as well, some areas in which I cannot intervene--if there's already a process ongoing or if the matter could be better resolved under another regime.

In fact, we will be publishing, in the months to come, a summary that was done. We've recruited a professor who's an expert in the analysis of the international system. In fact, he is very well known, Ken Kernaghan. He was also the head of the working group in guiding Parliament with respect to the implementation of the act. In fact, I'm having lunch with him tomorrow.

Next year we hope that members of this committee might be available and interested. We hope to have a modest international symposium, where we would bring to Canada, through video conferencing or otherwise, experts from the four key countries that look more like us, that have experienced various pieces of legislation--Australia; New Zealand; the UK, and I've had dealings with them; and of course, the United States--to look again at whether we have the best model. Do we have all of the provisions that are required? What is the value-added of our office? Does it make a difference? We will be very humbly appearing before Parliament in the context of the five-year review and sharing with you unequivocally what we found out as far as the success of our organization is concerned, the challenges, the machinery options for you to consider, and whether Canada, based on their public institution, is still a model of democracy. And again, we'll be inspired by your comments and your suggestions.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you. I also note that you make mention of prevention as a strategy. I'm wondering if you've noticed a pattern in the types of complaints that your office has been asked to deal with. If so, what are some of the commonalities?

[Christiane Ouimet]

The commonality that I share broadly, as well, with the unions is that there is still confusion about our mandate and there's a lot of private interest, performance management, staff relations issues. Again, it's not that these are not important. I'm not dismissing this; in fact, I worked in that area at one point. But we need to refer these people to the right venue, because the definition of “wrongdoing” is very different. We're talking about systemic issues, well known for a number of reasons. So that is still part of the challenge.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Okay. We've heard from other commissioners that education is key in terms of the acts and legislation. I'm wondering what proactive steps your office has taken to prevent these sorts of complaints, given that you have noticed that pattern.

[Christiane Ouimet]

I have one example, Mr. Chair, if I may. I think those who are called the middle managers, those people who are really very close to Canadians, very close to the delivery of the programs, play a pivotal role in addition to the leaders. I've reached out to them; in fact, I've spoken to hundreds of them across Canada. In the first part of my mandate, of course, you need to talk to the executive team to make sure they have a disclosure regime, that their employees know about the system. I've issued what is called a mandate letter and it is posted on my website. I would very much appreciate if members would take a look at it, offer comments. I think the next generation or the middle managers will play a pivotal role in the strength of our institution, and we really try to reach out to them.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Siksay, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner, in your last annual report you talked about anonymous allegations and how you deal with them. I wonder if you could talk to us a bit about that process and what that looks like.

[Christiane Ouimet]

Again, we have looked at what other jurisdictions do. Under the act we cannot deal with an anonymous complaint, because you can't verify good faith. But I did ask senior executives if they would like to know if there was an anonymous complaint about their organization. Everybody said unanimously yes. And you never know what this could lead to. So while we have no jurisdiction, we do not stay inactive, or as much, and we will share to the extent possible these allegations.

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

Are there any mechanisms to protect a person who may have made that complaint anonymously, given that they might be identifiable when the complaint goes forward, as you share that information?