Government Operations Committee on April 17th, 2008

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you for your presentation.

You play a very important role in the preservation of our democracy. I would like to ask you about a few definitions.

At the very beginning, in response to a question, you spoke about a certain confusion between public and private interests. I would first ask you to explain what it means to act in the public interest.

Then you stated that some complaints were rejected simply because they were not within your jurisdiction, and because of this confusion between public and private interests. I would like you to explain that to me in more detail because I believe, on the contrary, that it is your mandate that gives rise to this confusion. Perhaps it is just because I do not understand it very well.

[Christiane Ouimet]

First, I must tell you that you are presenting me with a great challenge. Many experts have attempted to define the public interest, including experts at the United Nations, which has similar mandates.

The public interest can be defined in several ways. It can come into play, for example, when an issue arises and prevents us from carrying out our mandate. That is very broad. There are many factors that can affect my role as defined by the Act.

As for the distinction between public and private interests, I would say that when an individual turns to us—and the Act is very specific about this—,we must first establish that there was wrongdoing.

Furthermore, if another agency is already looking into a case, whether in the context of a grievance or a specific matter, I cannot intervene. A process is already underway. Parliament does not want us to compete with other tribunals that have specific expertise in certain areas. For example, it is not my role to take the place of the Auditor General. Nor do I rule on labour relations issues. There are agencies throughout the public sector to do that.

Our role is to deal with serious matters that affect the public service as a whole. It may be a systemic problem or a serious issue. We have to allow an individual to approach us in confidence. If the person's goal is to redress a personal wrong, that is if they were badly treated, and it is not a matter of public interest, they will be referred to the agency best able to deal with the issue.

Does this clarify things for you?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Yes, that is much clearer.

You mentioned the Auditor General. I would imagine that, in certain cases, your roles overlap. Is that right? Do you work with her office? Is there some collaboration?

[Christiane Ouimet]

My very first week in office I phoned the Auditor General. I have met with her on a few occasions to ensure that our mandates are clear and that there is no duplication and also to determine if she could provide us with her expertise in complex cases. In the end, what we want to do is to deal quickly with a complaint by using the best available resources and expertise and to find a solution, no matter the issue. Sometimes, the Auditor General is in the best position to accomplish this. I can assure you that all officers of Parliament will collaborate promptly in our informal process.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

All right. I have one last question, if you do not mind.

You touched on my other question regarding the assessment and performance criteria for your office. You spoke about quality, decisions, quickness, transparent procedures. This is very important because I believe that sometimes a commission is called into question, for example the Canadian Human Rights Commission, because of procedures that may be interminable and make it difficult for those involved.

Are these criteria in place or will they be put in place? Will they be in your report?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

These are very important questions. I took office about nine months ago. All the information required by the Act will be in the report, which is absolutely vital. With regard to analysis, I would like to say at this point that we will develop better tools. As I indicated, in the meantime we are establishing precedents because this is new legislation. I wanted to ensure that we do not make mistakes and that we re-examine even our investigative procedures in order to respect the principles of natural justice and to not overlook important elements. The criteria were established one month after my arrival. Over the next few years, we will certainly report to Parliament.

Quality must absolutely be the key factor. It is a condition sine qua non. We cannot proceed too quickly at the very beginning. I have already been on a small tour of the provinces to look at their systems and new legislation. Our processes are a little faster for various reasons. It is very difficult for me to give you exact comparisons but we will be taking a closer look. In the meantime, I can assure you that the necessary attention has been paid to each case and that our expertise has been called upon. I believe that we made good decisions that were justified in all cases.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I would like to ask two questions.

On page four of your presentation under “Establishment of the Office”, paragraph five reads:

Another challenge was to ensure this new organization was designed with the right governance and accountability structures to ensure our day-to-day activities were conducted properly. We wanted to become a model of those same internal management and accountability practices that we were created to promote—

How are the governance and accountability structures that you established for your organization different from those that already exist in other government organizations? That is my first question.

I have a second question.

I'd like to better understand your role as the Public Service Integrity Commissioner, as a means of bringing accountability to the people of Canada. Given the current Prime Minister's tight-fisted control of all aspects of government and his micro-managerial style, there is a concern being expressed by many in the public that your office could become a tool to root out experts who disagree with the government's position: for instance, scientists who call for action on Kyoto, child care experts calling for universal child care, aboriginal experts--and I'm talking about within the government--who defend Kelowna.

So I'd like to know how you as the commissioner are going to ensure that while you and your office protect the public service integrity, you do not become a tool of control and censorship for the government in place. And what powers do you have to ensure enforcing the rights of public servants whose expert opinion makes them a target by the current government?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Thank you very much. Those are very good questions indeed.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I thought so.

[Christiane Ouimet]

On the accountability front, in terms of what I thought might be needed immediately, first I had an outside party come and look at our financial controls. Whether we're talking about $1 million or $100 million, I wanted to make sure we had the financial controls.

I also set up a governance structure, including an executive committee, a committee of operations, and a case management committee, to deal specifically with the issue of case management, performance indicators, and looking at the system.

We also have a regime whereby people can actually come to either my senior officer, because Joe Friday also wears the hat of senior officer for anybody who wants to come and complain about the operations of the office....

We have to do what the law requires of everyone, without exception.

I also made sure, because I'm changing hats—I used to be a public servant for 25 years—that I understood as well the accountabilities of an agent of Parliament. I spent some time with former Auditors General, and I spent some time with experts in the field who also were critical of the legislation, to ensure that from an accountability perspective and in terms of management and financial controls, but also the approach, I understood the background to the legislation.

History, what Parliament presented and the bills themselves are also very revealing.

When I appeared before the Senate last week, it was also pointed out to me that some elements are not part of the legislation and I was asked if I would take them into account. I certainly will as part of the five-year review. I will report on how the law worked and how we implemented it. I understand that you expect us to implement a law that is very complex and that will help enhance confidence in our public institutions. And I strongly believe in that.

Finally, the Auditor General will be auditing our books. She will also look at accountability. She is very interested in the responsibility of small agencies to be accountable. Some reports have already been published. I have already been in contact with her to ensure that we actually have a model for recruitment and for our internal systems that will withstand scrutiny. This touches on the obligation to be accountable.

You spoke of the various sectors of the public service where I worked. I am thinking of the scientists, for example. I began my career at the agency then known as the Atomic Energy Control Board. I developed the science strategy or approach for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. I worked very closely with scientists.

You spoke of aboriginal affairs. I managed the aboriginal police program for five years. We had 125 agreements in Canada. Thus, I have a very good understanding and respect for the expertise found within the public service.

I also worked at crown corporations. That is what happens when you have 25 years' experience at more than nine departments.

In addition, the legislation contains a provision pertaining to “wrongdoing” that deals with the decision-making process in relation to political or operational decisions.

It is not our role to take the place of experts in these matters, but rather to ensure that a process has been developed that takes into account the expertise available and that undue influence has not been exercised. That must take place in a quasi-judicial context with respect for the principles of natural justice. We will have to ensure, once again, that we bear in mind the parameters of the Act.

That creates considerable confusion and leads to questions about who does what, who should be consulted and which organization is best equipped to deal with the request. That is part of our role. If that were not the case, if it were Mary Dawson’s responsibility, we would absolutely call her office. There is a great deal of confusion about Ms. Dawson’s role and mine. Many people have called me Ms. Dawson and I also receive correspondence addressed to her. I must say that I have the greatest respect for her.

I hope that answers your questions. Rest assured that no matter the issues referred to us, we will examine them and determine if we have a role to play. Once again, we want to find solutions and, no matter the issue, we will refer it to the colleagues or the organizations that can help that person.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Ms. Faille, you have the floor.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you very much.

Welcome to the committee, Ms. Ouimet. We have met on several occasions. Perhaps you do not remember. I was the immigration critic and I also worked at the Department of Immigration. In addition, I believe you crossed paths with members of my family in the scientists’ group at Agriculture Canada. I am pleased to have you here today.

I have some questions I would like to ask but I am not sure that you will be able to answer them. From the outset, we have tried to understand in which specific cases you have intervened to date. There seems to be a certain malaise. For almost one year we have been receiving many complaints. Public servants come to see us because they are very uneasy with the directives issued by the departments regarding communications with elected officials.

For example, when an organization’s representative comes to see us because he has not received the answer to a question or he does not know what has happened with his file, we call Service Canada and yet the information officers cannot provide us with the information even though we have a letter from the organization asking us to intervene. For some unknown reason the information that we provided to Service Canada finds its way to staff of the political candidates. Public servants are ill at ease and still do not know whether they can communicate in confidence with the people from your office. They also wonder whether or not your office can intervene in these situations.

There also seems to be a problem with respect to scientists. People from Agriculture Canada, a department where you worked, and from Statistics Canada and the Department of Foreign Affairs have raised the issue. Can you provide some details about this?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Madam Chair, I will be pleased to do so.

I would not want to mislead the committee. To date we have not intervened in a case of wrongdoing. There have been concerns in this regard but the fact remains that, had it been a case of wrongdoing, I would have to make a report to Parliament within 60 days. Therefore, you would have been the first to be informed.

As for the specific examples to which the member alluded, I would like to point out that we will intervene in situations which, according to the definition, are considered serious. I would also invite parliamentarians and all public servants who do not know if they can knock on our door to just call us. We will be pleased to provide an explanation. If it is a serious case, which we will investigate, we can also provide legal opinions. I believe that this was discussed by this committee. However, we can only provide these opinions once the investigation is launched.

The member also alluded to a very important aspect covered by the preamble to the Act, in which I truly believe. It pertains to democracy and public institutions and reads as follows:

—public servants owe a duty of loyalty to their employer and enjoy the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that this Act strives to achieve an appropriate balance between those two important principles;

There is jurisprudence in this regard. We must always try to balance the duty of loyalty and freedom of expression. As I have already said, our guide will be the Act and the powers that we can exercise. Each case will be examined on its own merits. We will have to determine if, according to the definition, it is a serious matter. It would be inappropriate for me to speak to the present case. In the event of uncertainty, I invite you to knock on our door.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

These people have before them a memo or directive concerning communications. When an elected member contacts them, they have to pass the information on to their supervisor, who forwards it to a certain number of people. Do you feel that this is loyalty to the employer?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Unfortunately, I do not know all the details, so it would be inappropriate for me to say. I am talking about general principles. Once again, we will be pleased to examine the situation once we have more detailed information.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

No.

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have just a very short question.

If your office received an anonymous complaint about a certain employer or a certain sector, how would you proceed in that case?

[Christiane Ouimet]

We deal with that very specific question in the annual report. This is a very good one.

In fact, we don't. We cannot accept anonymous complaints, because then we can't verify the good faith issue. However, we will offer the information to the chief executive where the complaint might have originated. He or she might want to take appropriate action.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

So in a general sense you'll raise the issue with the department—

[Christiane Ouimet]

Very confidentially.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

—but not identify the source.

[Christiane Ouimet]

We can't pursue it under the act.