Evidence of meeting #25 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was office.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
You couldn't because it was anonymous.
I understand, as well, there's a five-year review in relation to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. You're at about three-quarters of the year now. Have you already identified one or two or a number of potential amendments that you might suggest when that time comes?
10 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
One specific issue was brought to our attention very early on. I made it a practice to ask that whenever there's an allegation or even a suggestion of reprisal, I and my office be advised immediately, for the very good reason that, number one, this is core to the legislation--this even goes to the title of the legislation, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act--but more importantly, we have a very tight deadline of 15 days from the time, prima facie, to decide whether an investigation should be launched. This is 15 calendar days, so it is very short. Of course the file needs to be completed, but it is a challenge, absolutely.
So this is one of the examples.
10 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
I have a two-part question. Do not blame me. It is just that people are having difficulty understanding what we are talking about.
First, I would like to explain what my colleague was referring to earlier. When an organization is waiting for a response to a request, employees of certain departments are strongly encouraged to notify their department before forwarding the response to the member for the riding where the organization is located. The department bypasses the member and gives the response to the organization. Some employees are currently under this sort of pressure.
Second, I am really going to be the devil's advocate, but do not get mad at me.
We are talking about a $6.5 million budget, yet you have been telling us for some time that a host of other organizations can answer employees' requests. What sort of answers do you give them? Is $6.5 million not too much?
10 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Those are quite legitimate questions, and I am pleased to answer them.
First of all, the budget is very important. I am going to report on how the money is used and make sure Canadians get good value for money. We do not want to compete with other specialized bodies. We want to make sure that our mandate is clear and that people know what we are and what we are not.
To make an analogy, I would say that we are like a fire hall. We need to have very highly skilled people who are ready to respond in case of emergency. If you call the fire hall every day, that may mean that things are not going very well in the community. We have a preventive role that is difficult to measure, but I do want to say that the consultations we held across Canada were a huge success. I would very much like to have the parliamentarians' support on this. It will be your responsibility to challenge me on how we have used our resources.
We are well aware that this is taxpayers' money. But as in all quasi-legal fields, and I have worked in such fields for many years, I have to balance decisions and training and make sure we make the best decisions. You will be the judges, whether in five years, when the five-year review takes place, or much earlier, whenever I appear before you. I will be happy to answer your questions and provide you with any information you need.
It is not that I do not want to answer questions about the issue you are examining, but my quasi-legal function prevents me from speculating about a particular case and saying whether it fits the definition of wrongdoing. Obviously, you are concerned about this issue, but since it has been described in general terms, I cannot comment in five minutes. It would not be fair to you or to the department if I did. In addition, I would not be complying with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
All I can say is that if the issue concerns you, we would be pleased to look at it in detail. When we refuse to take action because we are prohibited by law from doing so, or when, at our discretion, we choose not to take action for valid reasons, we put the reasons in writing. However, I could not give you whistleblower protection, because you have made a very public request. Still, that does not mean that you will be the ones who knock on our door. That is the only challenge I see.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Madam Chair, I have another point on this particular matter, a point of information for the committee members and our witnesses.
I'm sure we've all missed Mr. Kramp today, and I just wanted to inform the committee that the reason Mr. Kramp is not available today is that his mother passed away yesterday. I certainly want to extend our sympathies to the family, and our thoughts and prayers are with them.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
Mine as well. Thank you very much, Mr. Albrecht.
We thank you, Madame Ouimet, for coming before us.
We are going to adjourn for a couple of minutes and then we will move in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]