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.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Therefore, we could not turn to you in the case of a scandal such as the sponsorship scandal.
9:25 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
It is very clear that matters pertaining to the public service fall within our mandate.
9:25 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Exactly. You are right.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
When will you be tabling your next report in Parliament?
9:25 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
We are currently completing the analysis of the most recent files. We would like to table our report in May. That will depend on availability in terms of depository services and printing.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
You said that you met with some parliamentarians and a good number of public servants while conducting your research in order to clearly define your mandate. I do not recall having heard that you met with Quebec parliamentarians. Did you meet with some?
9:25 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Yes, we met with two Senate leaders. We corresponded with Ms. Hervieux-Payette. We also met with the Speakers of both chambers. In addition, on August 6, I sent all parliamentarians from the various regions in Canada a message in which I stated that I would meet with any interested individual to talk about our role. I also met with Ms. Marleau and, on several occasions, we offered to give a presentation to the committee but I believe the committee members were too busy. I received correspondence from certain Quebec parliamentarians.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
If I have understood correctly, you have 41 employees.
9:30 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
That is what we are proposing. Right now I have a staff of 22 in addition to those people working for us under shared services agreements.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
My understanding is that you had difficulty recruiting staff.
9:30 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
It is the process in particular that is long and cumbersome. Things have to be done right. I was the chair of the Public Service Commission Appeal Board. I was the decision-maker. It is very important that the principle of merit be respected. We followed the processes to the letter and made use of the flexibility available. However, despite everyone's best intentions and the best processes, recruitment remains difficult. In addition, good talent is highly sought after. I believe we have an excellent pool. My deputy commissioner, for example, spent more than 31 years at the RCMP. He is an expert in investigations. I “stole” my principal advisor from the Department of Justice, where he was responsible for dispute resolution services. Therefore, we have solid expertise in investigation as well as concrete experience in dispute resolution.
We also had competitions and transfers. We absolutely had to recruit suitable individuals in record time because cases were being referred to us. We could not afford to make mistakes.
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
I was wondering, given that these individuals had a certain experience, if you drew employees from the pool of public servants already in place.
9:30 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Naturally. The people with me here today are a good example. Some changed careers or decided to work in other areas after working in this one for five or seven years. The fact of the matter is that I am fortunate to have with me a core group of people who are of great help to me in terms of institutional memory and interpretation of the Act. These people appeared before the committees examining the new Act.
April 17th, 2008 / 9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to Ms. Ouimet and also the witnesses who are here.
I think you've given us a very comprehensive report, so I don't imagine we'll have a lot of questions. I just want to clarify a few things.
First of all, let me say how pleased I am to see the emphasis you've placed on prevention. I think that's a very positive step for us and I think all of us around this table are interested in enhancing confidence in the public service.
The one question I had is this. There are a few times on page 2 where you talked about good faith. Earlier on in the page you say you will not accept a complaint that's not made in good faith, and then at the bottom of the page you say a complaint made in bad faith is rejected. That seems to me to be rather subjective in terms of evaluating whether you would pursue an investigation.
Could you clarify for me how you would make that decision?
9:30 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Certainly, Madam Chair.
As part of any quasi-judicial process, the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of the evidence is always absolutely critical to the credibility of the process. I think Parliament has rightfully indicated, as a key criterion for both disclosures and reprisals, that they have to be made in good faith. There are also specific provisions in section 40 and following that deal with false statements made by any party to an investigation. Again, that goes to the heart of the quality of the quasi-judicial process.
The member is quite right that there is an element of subjectivity, because you have to look at whether the evidence is reliable. But there are very specific criteria that determine if the evidence is contradicted by other witnesses or if there are some missing events. We will deal with the facts with witnesses, do it very informally, and record our proceedings so that we'll be able.... Before you actually say that somebody acts in bad faith, however, you have to be on pretty solid foundation. Often, the related questions that I get have to do with frivolous and vexatious proceedings, which is also the side coin of the issue.
All I can say is that early on, one of the first things I wanted to do was to set out guidelines of procedures to ensure that it would be clear for all people working from within, and that as we guide a person coming forward with a disclosure, we explain to them their rights and their obligations. And that will go to the heart of our mandate.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I think you've answered my concern in that you do have a system in place to make the decision. It's not just a matter of, well, this person doesn't look credible or something very superficial.
You mentioned as well in your report that your office is now fully operational. I think I heard you say you've had roughly 200 inquiries and 80 processed. Of those 200, were the other 120 in other departments, or were some of them actually rejected on the basis of this good faith, bad faith scenario?
9:35 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
In fact, I have to say that the vast majority, when they were rejected, simply had nothing to do with our mandate. There is really a lot of confusion, as I indicated, between public interest and private interest, hence the importance of clarifying our role, and we will continue to do that.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
On the issue of receiving complaints from the public sector employees, I assume most of your complaints are from that sector. You also indicated in your report, if I read it correctly, that you accept complaints from the public.
Have you received complaints from the public at this point, and what percentage of the 80 that you've dealt with have been from the public, versus the public sector employees?
9:35 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
We're still doing the analysis, but only a very small percentage come from the general public. It's very small--I'm guessing 1% or 2%--but we will be happy to take a closer look at it.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
It would seem to me that if there's a high level of confusion among public service sector employees in terms of which complaint goes where, it would be enlarged in terms of the level of confusion on the part of the public, so it will probably take a number of years for this to become more settled in and for people to become aware of the appropriate area to file their complaints.
9:35 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
The member is quite right, but I would also like to highlight the role of the Canada Public Service Agency with respect to disseminating information to clarify the role. Roles were also given specifically to chief executives of each department to set up their own systems. As well, in each organization senior officers need to be designated to receive the complaints. So in fact accountability and responsibility are shared and belong not only to my office but also to a number of key players and organizations around town.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Your points on page 3 mention the broad consultations you've entered into. Certainly they would have gone a long way in terms of reducing the level of confusion and doing a good job of informing the various sectors of the process about their rights and abilities to access this information.
Again, thanks for the good report. You've certainly answered a lot of my questions.
Thank you.
