Government Operations Committee on Dec. 13th, 2011

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Oh, no. We'll get into it later.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

That's very kind. Thank you for your kind wishes. I appreciate it.

Mr. Dion, we are sorry to have kept you waiting. We are very happy to welcome you here. We look forward to your opening remarks and then to asking you some questions.

You have the floor, sir.

[Mario Dion, Interim Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, Public Sector Integrity Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have prepared some opening remarks. I guess the main purpose is to situate some of the subject matter currently being looked at in the Office of Public Sector Integrity.

I am very honoured that the Prime Minister proposed appointing me to the position of Public Sector Integrity Commissioner as the result of an advertised process held this summer. As you know, the incumbent of this position is an agent of Parliament, and that is why I am here this afternoon: to give honourable members an opportunity to consider me for the position, to answer their questions and to see if they are willing to place their trust in me.

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner was created in 2007 under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. The Office provides a safe and confidential mechanism enabling public servants and members of the public to disclose wrongdoings committed in the federal public sector. The act protects from reprisal public servants who have disclosed wrongdoing and those who have cooperated in investigations.

If my appointment is approved, my allegiance will be to Parliament and I will execute my duties of implementing the act in a completely independent and objective manner. In fact, I will continue to approach my work in the same way I have since becoming the interim commissioner exactly one year ago. This is essential, not only because the act so decrees, but also to inspire trust among those who do witness wrongdoings and who must make a difficult decision as to whether to blow the whistle. I strongly believe in the objectives of the act expressed in its preamble and I fully intend to be a key actor in giving life to its provisions in the manner intended by Parliament.

In fact, it has been only four years since the office was created as a result of the Accountability Act. It has already processed a few hundred files, but its existence, its role and the inherent limitations of its powers are not yet very well known, both within the public sector and by Canadians at large. In addition, its credibility was seriously undermined last December when the Auditor General's report was published, describing the office as being inadequately organized and questioning the reliability of its decision-making processes.

As interim commissioner over the last 12 months, I think I have taken appropriate steps to increase the office's effectiveness and thus improve its image and especially its credibility. I have taken on three essential priorities in order to re-establish harmony in the office and to cultivate its credibility.

There was a lot of doubt about the validity of the work that had been done since 2007, so the first priority was to seek a third-party review of all the files--the 228 files that had been concluded by my predecessor--to have them reviewed quickly by a completely independent body to determine whether there were some deficiencies. If there were deficiencies, I would then be authorized to have a new look at the decisions made by my predecessor. We retained Deloitte to review those files and gave them a deadline of March 31 to complete the review. They did, and it had to be done not only rigorously but quickly. They confirmed to me at that time that one third of the files contained some deficiencies that needed to be rectified. We kept the complainants and disclosers informed throughout the process and clearly explained to them why their files would be or would not be the subject of a review.

Deloitte found 70 files that had some degree of deficiency, and I have now made decisions based upon which six full-fledged investigations out of these files will be conducted. Seventeen files that were previously closed without any further action will be re-evaluated for their admissibility under the act. I believe that within the next six months all of these files will be concluded one way or another: with a case report being filed if there's a case of wrongdoing, with a case being referred to a tribunal, or with the conclusion being reached that allegations are not founded.

This is what I've referred to simply as the cleanup operation, which we had to undertake a year or so ago because of the doubt that was cast by the AG report of December 2010.

The second priority was to staff in a permanent fashion. There were many vacant positions when I became the interim commissioner. Several individuals were on secondment or on temporary assignments, so I had to evaluate each and every one who was there and determine who would stay and who would go elsewhere, and then staff the positions. We did that. We also created some key management tools that until that point had not existed. We have now implemented a modern management structure defining the responsibilities of each staff member at every stage of the process. The AG had said the office was not properly organized, so I focused on organizing the office.

On March 31, 2011, we adopted a policy and procedures manual, building on the work that had been done by my predecessor but completing it, polishing it, and making sure that it was adequate to guide the staff in the execution of their duties. We also created an approach to training incoming staff. We have more than doubled within the existing budget the number of staff directly involved in case analysis and investigations by realigning resources and making full use of our salary budget.

We've also explored a number of alternative approaches to reducing red tape and streamlining our process. We're making full use of a recently revamped case management system, which allows the deputy commissioner and me to track the progress of each file in real time.

I am pleased to report that, in spite of a marked increase in incoming cases over the last year, we did not accumulate a backlog. We are constantly improving towards our goal of completing the analysis of incoming cases according to newly adopted service standards, which require that admissibility reviews be completed within 45 days in the case of disclosures of wrongdoing, in addition to meeting the statutorily mandated 15 days applicable to allegations of reprisal. So that was our second priority, which focused on solidifying the capacity to deal with cases by fully staffing the office with qualified individuals, while remaining within budget.

The third priority was to re-establish dialogue with our key partners. To that end, I have established a permanent advisory committee that includes three NGOs directly interested in the work of our office: FAIR; Accountability for Canadians; and Democracy Watch. The committee also includes the presidents of the two largest public service unions, Public Service Alliance of Canada and Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, as well as representatives from the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada, or APEX, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and the tribunal created under the act in order to review cases of reprisal.

I am convinced that the dialogue with our partners is now reopened and that the quarterly meetings will ensure ongoing consultation and feedback on a number of important issues such as the development of policies to guide decision-making. The committee will be asked to contribute to the development of these policies from start to finish.

Our greatest challenge continues to be how to respond to criticism that no case of wrongdoing has yet been the subject of a case report to Parliament and that too few cases have been referred to the tribunal.

That's the number one criticism. We have yet to file a case report in Parliament about a well-founded case of wrongdoing.

At this stage, what I can say is that we have 115 files currently active, 35 of which are the subject of an in-depth investigation as we speak, which is two and a half times more investigations than there were back in December 2010.

My role is not to prejudge, of course, the outcome of an investigation. The Commissioner of Public Sector Integrity is a decision-maker who must rely on findings as they come up in the results of an investigation. But I think, mathematically, that it is quite fair to suggest that out of those 35 investigations, something will come out in the near future.

My role, as an independent officer of Parliament, is not to achieve a certain quota, but to investigate and determine the validity of each case. I must analyze each case objectively, draw a conclusion and take the appropriate steps under the law.

As are critics, I am very impatient to be able to submit valid cases to the attention of Parliament. We have already referred two cases to the tribunal on public servant protection, and I'm very impatient to refer more, but they have to be validated under the act. This is my obligation, and I intend to carry it out if my appointment is approved.

I'm convinced that my extensive experience in the federal justice sector will continue to help me with the type of leadership I hope to provide to the office. Frankly, I completely believe in the mission conferred on us by the act. I fully appreciate the importance and the potential of the office. I know that I will be able to process cases objectively by applying a number of past experiences, including my legal training, which is quite relevant to the exercise of these duties.

I would like to assure you that there is no risk that my knowledge of the federal administration will make me partial to senior management. Rather, it has given me knowledge of the culture in which the alleged acts could have taken place. I ask you to place your trust in me and to allow me and my team to fully implement the act over the next seven years.

If Parliament approves my appointment, I intend to pursue a number of key priorities that are consistent with and in furtherance of the same objectives: accessibility--to our office, real accessibility is key; competence--and I've already addressed some of the steps we've taken to increase the competence with which we carry out our mandate; and accountability to Parliament.

I have already alluded to my determination to develop policies to guide decision-making by the commissioner in order to demystify how and why decisions are made, and to inform the general public about the act, which currently is not well known. Considering how difficult it is to come forward and blow the whistle, I will also be looking at concrete ways to better assist in a true and practical fashion public servants and members of the public who are reflecting on whether they wish to avail themselves of the avenues provided by the act.

In conclusion, I am confident that by learning the lessons of the past and implementing more concrete steps, we will finally succeed in providing what Parliament first anticipated back in 2007.

Thank you very much for your attention, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions your colleagues may have for me.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dion, for your opening remarks.

We have until 5 o'clock.

The first questioner for the NDP will be Alexandre Boulerice. Go ahead for five minutes, please, Alexandre.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dion, thank you for being here with us today.

I would first like to congratulate you on the quality of your French. It is nice to see someone appointed by the Prime Minister's Office expressing themselves so well in French. It is refreshing.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I take my comments back now.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Since it was created, your office has been through some very tough times under the disastrous management of the former commissioner, Ms. Ouimet, the subject of a scathing report by the Auditor General.

It was discovered that, of the 228 whistleblower cases she had received, only seven had been investigated. Her work was so difficult and so controversial that it undermined the public's confidence in this new office, in existence since only 2007. We think this is very serious, because confidence is probably the most important factor in ensuring the office operates smoothly and ensuring that whistleblowers are protected and feel comfortable embarking on the process. Yet, Ms. Ouimet got away with a golden parachute: $354,000 in severance pay, $53,000 in benefits she had not used, and 28 weeks of salary worth $137,000.

Did you work with Ms. Ouimet? I would like to know if you worked with her and if you had a job in the office at that time.

[Mario Dion]

No, I did not.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

When did you arrive?

[Mario Dion]

In fact, I was in my living room, surfing the web, when I saw the Auditor General's report. I read it. It is not very long, only about 12 pages.

I thought it was rather strange. It is rare to see such a negative report. I was retired, but I had expressed an interest in perhaps working on certain files. That is when I was contacted and offered the position of interim commissioner. I did not even know that the act allowed for the appointment of an interim commissioner. That is how it happened. I had had no previous contact with Ms. Ouimet or with the office, except as chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada. Ms. Ouimet once came to give a presentation to our executive committee on the new legislation. Apart from that, I had not had any connection to the office.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Dion.

You had to review 228 disclosures of wrongdoing. You had to work not only on the new files coming in, but also on the old files.

How do you view Ms. Ouimet's management? What observations can you share with us today, based on your experience?

[Mario Dion]

Of course, I had people working with me. First of all, there was Deloitte, as I mentioned earlier. I also had two special advisors who had never had any previous contact with the office. I looked at the material in each of the files. I think that many of the problems can be attributed to the learning curve. When the legislation was passed, everything had to be created from scratch. Such an office had existed in the past, but the rules of the game had changed completely. In about half of the problematic files, in about 70 of the 228 I mentioned earlier, mistakes had been made in the first two years of the office's existence, in 2007-08 and 2008-09. Over half of the problems came from the first two years.

Indeed, there was a lack of rigour. There was not enough training. Perhaps some of the staff was incompetent. That was the biggest problem, in my opinion, in light of the files I saw.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

You have already begun making some changes. What measures will you put in place to ensure the necessary rigour under your watch, to encourage public servants who have something to report? They must feel comfortable saying something and not feel like they are jumping into a process that will fall flat or like they are running straight into a brick wall. I understand that quotas are not necessarily the answer, because if there is nothing to report, there is nothing to report, and we cannot invent these things. However, if people feel like things never go anywhere, public servants will not have the confidence to sound the alarm.

[Mario Dion]

I will address this chronologically.

We will begin by using our website more in order to inform everyone, including public servants and the general public, about the steps and method to follow.

At this time, 35 people work in the office, compared to 19 when I arrived, and our budget has not changed. Indeed, our budget has not gone up. We hired people with very specific skills, through a very exacting process. There were sometimes 60 candidates for a position. There were several interviews and a reference process. It was very rigorous. These are permanent positions. It is not a question of someone coming for three months and then returning to their previous position after that time. Rigour means longevity, and longevity means training. We adopted a much more concerted approach regarding training all our staff. There are three levels of work. Accordingly, the key words are “recruitment”, “training” and “quality control”, for now there is a full-time deputy commissioner, and that is his sole responsibility. He must ensure quality control before a file gets to the commissioner. That did not exist in the past.

Those are the kinds of steps we are taking. We decided to conduct random checks. Every year, we will take a random sample of files and hand them over to someone who will be able to anticipate potential problems.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mr. Dion, I am sorry to interrupt you. Perhaps you can continue in the context of another question.

Now, for the Conservatives, we have Mr. Jacques Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dion, thank you for being here and congratulations on your appointment.

Canadians expect the person appointed to your position to be very competent. We looked at your curriculum vitae, which is quite impressive. Furthermore, as you said earlier, you agreed to come out of retirement in order to go back to work and serve Canadians. You have an impressive background. This is a relatively new position, since it has existed for only four or five years, and identifying all the issues is not easy. It is a rather tricky position. How will your extensive experience help you succeed?

[Mario Dion]

As I was saying earlier, I have always worked in the area of justice, in the broad sense. I am a lawyer by training. I chose law and I enjoy this area. The person in this position has an opportunity to enforce legal provisions. We have our own bible. This is the first time I am working in a position in which everything is written in black and white; everything that guides our decision-making comes from a single piece of legislation. It may not be the best organized piece of legislation, but we know how Parliament would like us to proceed.

My legal training is the first asset that prepared me for this position. There is also the fact that I practised law for about 10 years, at the beginning of my career. Furthermore, I also managed cases at the Department of Justice. I was responsible for the justice department's activities in the Quebec region. We dealt with thousands of files. When I became deputy minister, we had to resolve issues related to Indian residential schools. We had 16,000 active files dealing with lawsuits. Thus, I have a little experience in organizing work in a legal context and in processing files. I very much enjoy these kinds of things. I was in a similar situation as chair of the Parole Board of Canada: there were 17,000 decisions to make every year. I had to manage this stream of decisions.

As for the third and final aspect, I think I am naturally a very compassionate person. Over the course of my career, I have often worked with underprivileged clients, in particular, former students of residential schools and inmates. According to the documentation and information I have received since becoming interim commissioner, in many cases, the people involved are going through a difficult time and need to be treated with consideration and compassion. We are not dealing with just a file; we are dealing with people's lives, often people who have been made vulnerable. That was also the case with former students of residential schools, at the Parole Board, and in some cases, at the Department of Justice.

Those are three aspects that come to mind.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

When you started, a team was in place. Are you going to make any staffing changes? What skills will people working with you need to have?

[Mario Dion]

That varies according to the position. Since we are part of the federal public service, we have to follow the same rules as every federal department and agency. We have an administrative staff. Some are there to ensure that we are complying with the Financial Administration Act and all the provisions that govern the offices.

We also have analysts. An analyst has to have analytical ability and training. He or she has to know how to write and communicate. One of the problems in many of the 70 files is that the decisions were not properly documented. Shortcuts had been taken and the reasons for the decisions were not clearly written. People in that position need to know how to analyze and write and to be thorough. They are supported by a small legal team. There are currently three lawyers who work closely with the analysts to help them with the legal side of things. Diligence is essential.

As far as compassion is concerned, I intend to explore concrete avenues such as putting someone in charge of assisting people who come to the door. It would be someone who is not involved in the decision-making process. I think it is important not to mix compassion with objectivity. I am considering ways we can help people through this rather complicated process. The law is complicated. The individual or the public servant might need help filing the claim. This is nothing new. That approach was used for the Indian residential schools claims. People helped former students fill out their forms properly so that their claim would not be denied on the basis of its presentation.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I'm afraid your time is up, Jacques.

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

Now, for the NDP, we have Mathieu Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you for being here Mr. Dion.

Mr. Dion, let's be honest; you know as well as I do that Canadians' confidence in your office is shaken. It's shaken because of what happened in the Ouimet era, as we could call it. Also, I understand you've examined all cases of wrongdoing left behind by Ouimet, and you have found no instances of wrongdoing. Is that the case?

[Mario Dion]

No, it's not. Out of those 70 cases I mentioned, six will be the subject of a full-fledged investigation. They have yet to be fully investigated, and we have 17 that we will study further. It's possible that 23 cases that were closed will actually lead to a finding of wrongdoing or to a finding that reprisal has taken place.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

From the 228 that Ouimet found, we're down to six. Is that essentially what you are saying?

[Mario Dion]

We're down to 23.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

You can understand why Canadians are not.... It's difficult for them to believe there was not one instance to date, in the 228, where we have found absolutely nothing wrong in the Ouimet period.