Government Operations Committee on June 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Hi, everyone. Today we have before us Madame Christiane Ouimet, who has been nominated for the position of Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. As you know, this position is being created to serve the public sector. She'll be there to make sure that public servants who report things that don't go well will be protected.

As you know, legislation was passed under one government, and then it was tweaked by another government. Finally we have a person who's actually going to head this commission. She will be reporting to Parliament, therefore her appointment has to be approved by Parliament.

You've read her CV.

We would invite you to make a few opening remarks, Ms. Ouimet. You have up to 10 minutes.

Welcome.

[Christiane Ouimet, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, committee members, I am very pleased to be here with you today to talk about my candidacy for the position of Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. It was a real privilege and a great honour to be considered for this position. So I would like to talk about my career and also share my general perspective on the duties of this important position for the public service and the government, and also, I think, for all Canadians.

By way of introduction, let me tell you a bit about myself. I come from the small village of St-Albert, Ontario, where I was born on a dairy farm to Madeleine Laflèche and the late Albert Ouimet.

I finished my primary education at the local school and then went on to le village voisin at Casselman High School. I subsequently completed my honours degree in French literature at the University of Ottawa. I then completed two Bachelors of Law, one in civil law and one in common law. I articled at a local firm with a focus on general practice. Of course, I then did my bar exams.

My husband and I have been married for 26 years, and we have two wonderful daughters.

I joined the federal public service in 1982 as a recruit of the then Atomic Energy Control Board, which is now known as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. It was a regulatory and public consultation function that I was responsible for as a junior officer. This was also my first introduction to the importance of a sound regulatory framework for the benefit of the public and the industry alike.

I then moved on as chair of the Public Service Commission Appeal Board, where I conducted inquiries into the appointment and release of public servants. This involved a quasi-judicial role in ensuring that the merit principle was adhered to when an appointment was made and that employees who were demoted or released from positions had been given a fair chance to be heard. In all cases, of course, natural justice had to be respected.

A new tribunal now embodies those same principles and responsibilities today. Sound, fair, transparent, and meritorious staffing processes are the foundation of a public service that is able to provide the best services to Canadians.

After a short term heading the regulatory affairs directorate at Revenue Canada Customs, I became the first director of the merged enforcement operations section, which included commercial fraud investigations and the drug interdiction program. Because of the rigour of the processes and the diligence of officers, we had an excellent record of prosecuting cases.

In 1992, I joined the machinery of government secretariat at the Privy Council Office. I had the privilege of serving three previous prime ministers and providing advice on the economic portfolio in the context of transitions and government restructuring. Providing guidance on the roles and accountability of senior public office-holders was also part of our ongoing responsibilities. In that context, I learned about the functioning of the government and the importance of independent advice from the public service to ensure continuity and good government.

I later served in the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada for five years, where I eventually became Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, with direct responsibility for the aboriginal policing program. I will forever treasure the honorary title that the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association awarded me, as Honorary First Nations Chief of Police.

At the end of 1999, I became CEO of Consulting and Audit Canada at Public Works and Government Services Canada. On a cost recovery basis, we offered a full range of services aimed at improving effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability.

I would come back a few years later as the associate deputy minister, and I was responsible for the restructuring of a department with more than 14,000 employees. I was very much involved in the department’s new values and ethics action plan in 2004, and I was also involved in resolving a variety of operational issues.

Prior to that, I served as executive director of the Immigration and Refugee Board, post September 11. During that period, a very successful alternative dispute resolution model was developed by our immigration division.

I know this is of interest to some of the committee members. I know that alternative dispute resolution is key for the sound operation of administrative tribunals, which are set up specifically to render justice more quickly and more simply than traditional courts in specialized fields.

Finally, I have a few comments about my current position as associate deputy minister at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. My role has been to support the deputy minister as he or she sees fit on a variety of issues. I've been involved more recently in corporate issues dealing with employee unions, grievances, diversity issues, and human resources strategies. I was also charged about a month ago by the new deputy minister with the role of champion for values and ethics.

One might say that I've had an eclectic career. But I think the common thread has been a desire to serve and to make a contribution in the public interest. I believe my legal background has served me well, especially in a quasi-judicial environment that is of course similar to the office of the Integrity Commissioner. I feel very privileged to be considered for the position of Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

I have examined the new provisions of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to assess the tasks that lie ahead. As I see it, the intent of these new provisions is to legislate a strong regime enshrined in legislation, as was important to members of this committee, to govern the disclosure of wrongdoing in the federal public service.

The key elements are, of course, the independent body that was created, the commissioner, reporting directly to Parliament with an expanded jurisdiction; the authority for the commissioner to report on investigation findings and make recommendations when wrongdoing is established and to make special reports to Parliament; and a clear prohibition against reprisal action against complainants.

There's added protection to potential complainants offered by the creation of a tribunal to which the commissioner can apply, and there are a number of other sets of legal provisions, such as legal assistance, protected disclosure. But I know the committee is well versed in the contents.

In due course, I would propose to examine carefully the relationships between the role of the commissioner and those of other oversight bodies and parliamentary agencies and even internal functions, but again, I'll be guided by the legislative framework in the act.

The position of Integrity Commissioner is one that carries with it the trust and confidence of Parliament. Simply put, the essential role of the commissioner and the office will be to give effect to an act whose purpose is to encourage employees of the public sector to come forward if they have reason to believe that serious wrongdoing has taken place and to provide protection to them against reprisal when they do so. The goal is a system that is fair, accessible, and allows justice to be served. More importantly, the goal is to protect the public interest.

Throughout my career, I have had the privilege to serve Canadians in very different roles. I am honoured to be considered for the position of Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. I believe it is a role that will help to enhance the reputation of the public service, by providing transparency and openness for anyone who feels they have been wrongfully treated. I may come from humble beginnings, but where I come from, honesty and sincerity really matter. I am proud to remember that my father was always seen as a man of great integrity. That was his trademark, and he was renowned for it not only in our small community but in neighbouring villages as well.

I would serve as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner in his memory, and with great humility and pride, if your committee and Parliament entrust me with that honour.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Ms. Ouimet.

We will start the questions with the Liberals.

Mr. Simard, please.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome, Ms. Ouimet.

As the chair was saying a few minutes ago, we're all very keen and very happy to see this position finally filled. I think you're obviously a very interesting candidate.

As members of Parliament, we've all had people call our offices and say they would like to report something that's happened in the federal government. I could be wrong, but I think one of the biggest challenges you'll face will be to distinguish between a whistle-blower and somebody who's upset or not happy with their boss or who's been bypassed for a promotion or that kind of thing.

So I'm curious to know what the criteria are, what you base yourself on, to actually distinguish whether or not this is a real case or this is just somebody who's upset, who's been bypassed in a promotion. Does somebody have to break the law? What kind of criteria are set up for that?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Essentially, the first thing the commissioner has to do is be guided by the parameters set out in the legislation. There are very specific steps that determine the jurisdiction and the scope. I did mention in my opening statements that one needs to look, as well, at the parameters of the responsibilities and duties of other oversight bodies, as well as internal processes.

I've definitely been involved in some of those issues as a decision-maker working in a quasi-judicial tribunal, and very similar issues were raised at the time with respect to timelines and scope.

In the end, I would like to mention that as an officer of the court I was sworn in about 25 years ago. A similar oath that was taken 25 years ago says, regarding barrister of law and solicitor: “shall not refuse causes of complaint reasonably founded, nor shall you promote suits upon frivolous pretences”. This is part of my oath as an officer of the court. This would be very much an important task as a commissioner.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Are you the person who would do that triage? Maybe you can talk to me a little bit about the structure. Does every department have a structure set up? Does somebody who wishes to report something have to report to their superior, or can they go directly to you?

Could you talk to me about that a little bit?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Very briefly, it's set out in the legislation, as I read it. There are preliminary issues that need to be decided. An investigator can be assigned once the commissioner has decided whether he or she has jurisdiction. Once an investigator has been assigned, that does not mean that the complaint is well founded. There's a series of steps that need to be involved. I referred to natural justice, but that means simply collecting evidence.

The commissioner can also decide to meet with the complainant and other people. There's a fair bit of flexibility with respect to the process. In the end, once you affect the rights of the individual, the Supreme Court has indicated quite clearly that you have to be guided by natural justice, and that would be my ultimate guide.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

In terms of process, does the person who wishes to complain go to their superiors first?

[Christiane Ouimet]

In fact, this is a very good point, Madam Chair.

There is the option of going internally to the officer responsible in each organization. But probably by the time the commissioner is seized with this issue, that is definitely one issue he would have to decide—whether the individual did go for remedial action and whether appropriate action could have been taken. Occasionally maybe the complainant would think that it would not be appropriate for him to go to his immediate supervisor or to the officer of the department. This is the process as I understand it.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

One of the problems that often happens when a new position such as this is created is that proper resources are not provided.

Are you satisfied with the resources you've been given? Have you put your structure in place? Can you tell us about the number of employees there will be and how the office will operate?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Madam Chair, just yesterday I got a courtesy call from the executive director and from the acting commissioner. It was a very brief call to inform me that he had received additional resources. I did not ask for any details. Instead, we discussed the transition period, and I told him that I was relying very much on the work that had been done by the Office of the Acting Commissioner. He told me that he was in a position to staff a number of key positions.

It is very important that we recruit highly-qualified individuals for these positions. It is very difficult to do that at this point, because we do not yet know what the needs are and what the impact of the legislation will be. It is a small office, but it will operate very professionally. One of my first obligations will be to look at the resources.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Are you the person in charge of recruitment?

[Christiane Ouimet]

I will be doing the recruitment together with my team, because the team is responsible for delivering the important reports. I imagine there will be some positions for investigators, public relations people and researchers. I do not have any details, unfortunately, but this will definitely be one of my priorities.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Often, mandates for positions such as yours are quite vague. Is your mandate clear, and what is your term of office?

[Christiane Ouimet]

The act provides that the term can be as long as seven years, but I think there is some latitude regarding the recommendation on this.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

So you would say that you are satisfied with the mandate you have been given.

[Christiane Ouimet]

First, I was very impressed with the actual wording of the act—it goes into some rather interesting detail. Some of the administrative tribunals for which I have worked had only two or three sections on them in the legislation. This act is very detailed, but it does provide the flexibility required to individuals who operate at arm's length. The objective of the legislation vis-à-vis the legislator's objective is very clear. As for the rest, each case that deserves the Commissioner's attention and recourse to the process must be dealt with individually.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Ms. Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Ms. Ouimet. I'm very pleased to meet you. Yours is an extremely important position, particularly in the context of public service restructuring. Many employees will be retiring in the next few years, and many people would like positions in the public service. I think your job will be crucial over the next five to seven years.

Since we want to get to know you, I am going to start right off with a difficult question, but please do not let it annoy you. Have you been involved at all in partisan political activities in recent years?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We do not have the right to ask that question at this point, Ms. Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I apologize. I will ask you a different question then. Do you have a lot of experience in the field of personnel management?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, as a public servant, I am very aware of what is and is not acceptable. I think I have always carried out my duties very diligently.

I have a great deal of management experience. I managed many people and also regional offices in the various positions I have held. I think this is an important aspect. On five or six occasions, I managed regional offices with different mandates. This gave me a very good overview of operations and the development of policies that would have a genuine impact and that could be implemented. In my opinion, I have considerable experience in this field.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

In your management work, have you ever been involved with whistle-blowing incidents?

[Christiane Ouimet]

There definitely were cases where employees were dissatisfied and filed complaints. I have been involved in the official procedures set up to solve such problems. I believe in them very much. I have heard a number of grievances at the third level, before they went to the administrative tribunal.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

The mandate you have been given and the related legislation have a major flaw: whistleblowers do not have enough access to proper legal services. The act provides for an amount of $1,500 for services of this type. Given that following the whistle-blowing incident, despite the 60-day period provided for in the act, the employee may be exposed to psychological harassment, what do you intend to do to provide better protection for whistleblowers?