Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, all three of you.
It's nothing personal, but clearly the questions are focusing on Ms. Ouimet.
When the Accountability Act was brought in, everybody supported the concept. I know that's not your act; I raise the point specifically, though, because although it sounded very good in theory, in fact the detail of that particular act has in a number of cases been seen to almost stymie the functioning of certain aspects of the civil service. As a result of an attempt to regulate every tiny piece of everyone's activity, people stop trusting each other and stop being willing to take any kind of initiative for fear that it will be challenged or that it may break the rules.
I recognize that there is a line and that it can be a fine one, but I do remain concerned that the detail of the Accountability Act has perhaps gone too far.
I am intrigued by some of the questions we have had today, and perhaps not a really fulsome answer, in the sense that we talk about natural justice, and when somebody makes a complaint, we'd like to think it i's in the public interest, but there are two aspects to it. First, do you sense a possibility that because of this detail, people may be more concerned about doing their jobs, even if they're doing their jobs properly, but are afraid of being targeted?
That point ties in with the second piece I mentioned, which is that we like to think it's in the public interest, but I've been in the corporate sector for a long time, and it isn't always done in the public interest. The desire to not disclose the complainant would to me be very difficult for the person whose behaviour is the subject of a complaint, and the identity.... I've heard the talk, but I still don't know how you actually address those aspects in the day-to-day operations.