Government Operations Committee on June 14th, 2007

[Christiane Ouimet]

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

In fact, I do consider it a real privilege and a real honour to be in that position. In the end, I'll be guided by the legislation, but I would like to be remembered, just as I have been for the last 25 years, as an individual who is credible and, in the simplest terms, is doing the right thing for the protection of Canadians and the public interest and is being fair in doing so.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

I'm going to go to Mr. Poilievre for a very short one and to Madame Bourgeois for a very short one after that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

There is a Supreme Court ruling from the seventies. It's the Fraser case. And I hope you have a chance to read it, because it delineates some very clear distinctions between whistle-blowing and public policy advocacy.

The Fraser case involved a public servant who did not agree with the direction of the Trudeau government and did everything he could to undermine its policy direction. And while many of us might have some sympathy for his ultimate goals—actually, I'm not sure what his ultimate goals were—they were policy objectives, and he was working against the interests of a democratically elected government.

I think he faced dismissal. He fought the case all the way up to the Supreme Court, arguing that he had the right to do what he was doing as a whistle-blower. The Supreme Court ruled that he was not in fact a whistle-blower but that he was trying to frustrate the will of a democratically elected government.

We've seen a case recently in which that occurred.

I think that ruling is very applicable. I'm sure you haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but I encourage you to. I want to know the distinctions you see between public servants who might wish to carry out some policy objectives by using the powers vested in them as public servants and those who are honestly pointing out wrongdoing as defined by the act.

[Christiane Ouimet]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I recall reading the decision way back when, because it was a landmark decision. I don't have all the details. But I think, in the end, I would revert to the actual legislation and the process and follow religiously what the legislators has entrusted the office to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Ms. Bourgeois.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Ouimet, we have highlighted numerous problems that will be requiring your attention, starting with the 60 days worth of protection provided by the act—which is far too little—and the $1,500 provided for legal fees, which is also far too little, given that, as you are probably aware, today's lawyers charge $150, $200 or even $300 an hour just to hear a case.

I would like to come back to what Mr. Poilievre was saying earlier. In 99% of cases, whistle blowers are not acting out of malice—they are not abusing the system or making frivolous complaints. When employees make complaints, it is because they are genuinely concerned about potential conflict with the code of ethics to which they are bound as public service employees. Starting from the premise that there will be huge numbers of frivolous cases is, to my mind, starting out on the wrong foot. In spite of all the problems that employees can face, there does not seem to have been much whistle blowing thus far. This is because complaints are often handled by people who do not understand what these employees are going through. Employees think twice before making a complaint. The officer who handles the complaint should be very understanding, should listen to all that the person has to say, and should be independent of the Treasury Board and the public service, because Treasury Board and the public service are the enemies of whistle blowers. Whistle blowers are putting their jobs on the line. We therefore need an ethics commissioner who is willing to go see them in their place of work and who is able to inspire trust. Yes, there may well be many legitimate complaints, but I do not think that there will be many career-damaging complaints because public service employees think these matters through first.

That is what I wanted to say, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you, Ms. Bourgeois.

Mr. Moore

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

I move that the nomination of Christiane Ouimet as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner be concurred in and that the chair report it immediately to the House.

I move that the nomination of Christiane Ouimet as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner be concurred in and that the chair report to the House of Commons immediately.

(Motion agreed to unanimously.)

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you. I will report to the House immediately, as soon as I can get there. I will ask for the unanimous consent of the House to get it done, because time is marching on.

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

Could I please ask you a question, Madam Chair? There is something that is bothering me, and it has nothing to do with Ms. Ouimet's competence. After all, I did vote in favour of the motion. I am not questioning her competence. Nonetheless, I think that it is a little too early to confirm the appointment of somebody who will be assuming such an important role. Allow me to explain myself. I think that we ought to give Ms. Ouimet the opportunity to prove herself. Although she answered our questions, she did so as somebody who has not yet held the position. She has only seen the act, that is all. I would have liked her to have spoken more extensively about her plans and priorities. I feel this needs to be raised. Do you understand? Employees will be affected. We have got the process back to front.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Allow me to answer, Ms. Bourgeois. She cannot start making plans as she does not have the job yet.

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

That is why I am saying that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

She has to be appointed before she can start her job.

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

I have no problem with that, but will we come back to... We cannot let five or seven years go by without finding out what her priorities are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

No, but remember that we can ask her to come back before the committee in September to explain what she has done since taking office. That is a decision the committee is free to make. We have been discussing this position for years, Ms. Bourgeois; some of us have been talking about it for a long time and are anxious to see somebody appointed so that the work can begin.

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

That is fine, but I do not want her to be given a blank cheque. That is what I want to avoid, and so I hope that Ms. Ouimet will send us her plans and priorities in the very near future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Ms. Bourgeois, if you had seen the act, I do not think that you would call it a blank—

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

We finished debating C-2 six months ago.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to say—

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

It has nothing to do with that. I just wanted to explain how I feel, as a member of this committee, accountable to both employees and the public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Ms. Bourgeois, this is pointless.

I just wanted to say that if we have a meeting on Tuesday, we will discuss our study, and possible report, on the public service—we will give instructions to our researchers—as well as any future business.

Meeting adjourned.