Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 11th, 2006

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

At this time, we have what could be called regional commissioners, a fact which allows citizens who want to complain to your office to do so directly. In Bill C-2, it is proposed that the citizen first go to his MP. Then, the MP must decide whether the complaint is admissible. If that is the case, the complaint is filed by the MP.

Suppose that in a given riding, someone wants to complain about an infringement of the Official Languages Act. If that person has to go to his MP first and then the MP has to come to you, is this not a rather complicated procedure?

[Dyane Adam]

Which provision of Bill C-2 are you talking about?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

In Bill C-2, this does not concern you, but it concerns the Integrity Commissioner.

[Dyane Adam]

We did miss that, but let me give you my opinion anyway.

I have taken great interest in this issue during my mandate. This mainly concerns the model of the francophonie but it also involves mediators and ombudsmen on the national level. Your colleague, Mr. Owen, knows very well what this beast that we call an ombudsman looks like, given that he has already served in that capacity.

As far as I am concerned, I maintain that in order to have fair access for francophones, citizens should be able to file complaints without having to go through this extra level of bureaucracy. I think that access should be direct, without any filters. Whoever is in charge, be it an ombudsman, an agent or a mediator, should be able to judge, according to the legislation, whether the complaint warrants an inquiry or not.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

With regard to the appointment process, you stated on page 3: “Apart from the secret ballot, the process set out in Bill C-2 is what I experienced when I was confirmed in my position over seven years ago.”

Do you think that these procedures are acceptable or would you rather change them? Do you have an opinion about this?

[Dyane Adam]

At the time, I had just left the academic world. I had no experience of the federal apparatus and the political world. I was told that my name was on the short list of candidates for the position of commissioner, but I had never applied for this position. Nonetheless, I came to the hearing. I know that the parties had been consulted. I had to appear before a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. I testified at my own nomination, and a few days later, my appointment was approved by the Senate and the House. It was an open vote, there was no roll call. I must tell you that I appreciated the fact that it was an open vote. When you set out on an adventure that will last seven years, you need to know that you have the support of the parliamentarians and the Parliament to whom you are accountable.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll have to continue with this in another round.

Monsieur Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Good morning, Ms. Adam.

[Dyane Adam]

Good morning.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I suppose that you have studied Bill C-2 on accountability. Here is the issue I would like to raise with you.

Let us take the case of an individual who denounces a given situation. Let's suppose, for instance, that his superior is not bilingual, that he feels that he is constrained in his job and that he has all kinds of reasons to complain. As provided by Bill C-2, he comes to you. Pursuant to the bill, the employee must be replaced. At the federal level, francophone and anglophone groups are not identical. How do you go about it? Have you looked into this aspect, which is quite new? To avoid harassment, where can we put him? Supposing he is working at the EDC, and that he has the necessary skills for that position. Would he be sent to any office at all, so long as he is not harassed? One way to avoid harassment is to transfer the individual. This applies both to francophones and anglophones. How are we going to go about this?

[Dyane Adam]

We did not look at this specific aspect. In fact, this is a management issue. When there is a real case of intimidation or discrimination, I think that the damage has already been done. How can we provide redress for an employee who has been subject to discrimination in an apparatus that is as vast and complicated as the administrative apparatus? I think that we can provide a remedy and offer him a job, but there will always be a wrong that is very difficult to rectify, because he will have to deal with the fact that his reputation and his credibility have been attacked. Thus, the legislation must provide for compensation. I do not know how much further we can go.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I am sure that you understand that the first criterion consists in finding another place for the individual within the government apparatus.

[Dyane Adam]

Yes.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

This is the first and most fundamental standard we have.

[Dyane Adam]

Since I arrived, I noticed that there are many opportunities, within the government apparatus, for employees. Government is a big employer, when compared to other public institutions. When an employee of a small institution is not functioning in his environment or really has problems being accepted, it is much more difficult. Here, we are dealing with a big employer. I think that jobs can be found. There are enough jobs to go around. If the administrative apparatus really wants to rectify a situation, it can certainly find the right kind of job. However, I think that it will be very difficult to provide full remedy for the injustice suffered by the individual.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I have one last question, Ms. Adam. Earlier, you mentioned what you call the protection of personal information. If I understood correctly, you are requesting that the complaint not be disclosed, to avoid, if it is unsuccessful, any penalization of the individual. Is that correct?

[Dyane Adam]

This concerns the protection of information about persons and about the identity of a specific person in the course of the investigation. We request that this information be kept...

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Perhaps I did not state my question properly. When someone denounces a situation, the Auditor General protects us because we are disclosing something. Suppose I disclose something to you. Is this the aspect that you want to protect?

[Dyane Adam]

Yes. It is as if I had interviewed you in the course of my investigation and you made statements about your employer, for instance. This kind of information should be kept confidential because it can cause many problems.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

This is what you want to protect?

[Dyane Adam]

Exactly.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I have two quick questions, Ms. Adam. One, I support what Mr. Sauvageau said in asking you to submit your proposed amendments to the committee. We're trying to find out how to strengthen the bill, and that would be much appreciated.

Do I understand, though, that after your examination of this bill, that's the only amendment you have?

[Dyane Adam]

Yes, so far, unless you amend other things, in which case we may come back.