Government Operations Committee on June 14th, 2007

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

Our chair is right with respect to whistleblowers. When someone blows the whistle, the procedure is the same with the RCMP as with the public service. There is a difference when a tribunal is involved. The RCMP must follow an internal procedure before turning to a tribunal. This was changed, because the initial legislation, introduced by the former government, made no reference to a tribunal.

I remember that you worked on this. I think Mr. Dewar made some interesting suggestions. If you make some recommendations later on, I hope you will look at the RCMP's situation very carefully before suggesting how we should change things, if necessary, to increase accountability within the RCMP. I think that may become necessary. I will leave that suggestion with you.

I would now like to talk about the tribunal. How can we avoid unacceptably long delays on the part of the tribunal when people want to use this instrument to protect themselves? How can we avoid a situation in which public servants have to wait years and years before they get this protection?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think it goes without saying, and I referred to this in my remarks, that in order to be effective, an administrative tribunal must work quickly and efficiently. It is up to the Commissioner's Office to ensure that the initial part of the procedure is carried out as quickly as possible—namely, obtaining the evidence and the facts that can lead to the establishment of a tribunal.

Once it is developed, the tribunal operates independently. However, it will depend on a number of factors such as the complexity of the issues, the cooperation of the witnesses and the number of witnesses as well. In order for a system of this type to work, we must act quickly and efficiently.

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

That's true. We proposed a tribunal because we wanted something that was independent; that had order power, not the power to recommend; that had the power to fire and penalize bullies who issued reprisals against whistle-blowers, but also the power to restore those whistle-blowers. We believed it was necessary to have something with order power. But at the same time, we didn't want to just leave it to the courts, because when whistle-blowers are fighting with government in courts, the resource imbalance is enormous.

We see this with cases right now, where whistle-blowers are trying to fight the justice department and the imbalance is extraordinary. In some cases, if the union doesn't support them, the whistle-blower has to pay out of his own pocket. It can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight with a justice department that is full of lawyers who are happy to work as many hours as they're given.

The tribunal is meant to redress that imbalance. I want to make sure that at the end of the day the whistle-blower doesn't get beaten down through attrition by government bureaucrats who are resisting a final outcome. So I think it will be important for you to look to that and work to see that the whistle-blower has a fair hearing in front of these tribunals and isn't overpowered by the infinite resources of the state.

What do you think?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Duly noted. I think those are valid comments, Madam Chair.

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

I thank you for that.

I'll just conclude by saying that in these offices like the one you're taking—and this one is particularly important—in the Radwanski case, in the case now with the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, and others, we've seen that the public trust seems to have been broken by the conduct of people who fill these offices. Your office will come under immense scrutiny because of the standard it sets and the name it carries. You are the person who will personify integrity in public service. Above all, that is your job: you are it. You are meant to be the personification of ethics and integrity in government. We trust that you will honour that title and live up to its expectations.

Thank you very much for being with us today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Simard.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I have one final question, and I probably know the answer, but I'd like to verify it anyway.

There are organizations out there who get 100% or 80%, or a large majority, of their funding from the federal government. If someone sees wrongdoing in these organizations, your powers don't extend to them, do they? Are they outside your purview?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Exactly, that's not my understanding. There's annex A, which lists all of the organizations. If an organization is not in the public sector per se, my understanding is that we don't extend into the private sector, even though the organization might be the recipient of a grant.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

My recollection is that they do. In trade relations, absolutely.

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

I think it's the contrary.

Perhaps your office could look into it and write us on that.

[Christiane Ouimet]

Certainly.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Yes, I'd like clarification on that, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Monsieur Nadeau.

[Christiane Ouimet]

Just to make sure, could you rephrase the question?

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Yes, there are organizations outside of government who are sometimes fully funded by the government or receive a large majority of their funds from the federal government. I'd like to know, if somebody within those organizations sees any wrongdoing, can they report to your office, basically? Do your responsibilities extend to those organizations?

[Christiane Ouimet]

They do not fall within the definition of the public sector—

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Exactly.

[Christiane Ouimet]

—but they are the recipient of a grant or a contribution.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Of federal funds, yes.

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

Or they are contractors.

[Christiane Ouimet]

Okay, but that's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Perhaps I can add something. My understanding is that under Bill C-2, the Auditor General's powers were expanded so that she would be able to go in there and follow the money.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

So whose responsibility is it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

In that case it would be the Auditor General's.

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

No, no, the Auditor General follows the money if she's conducting an audit. But for public disclosures, I actually think it is covered under the whistle-blower protection component.