Government Operations Committee on May 12th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Maybe it does need a bit of a work-up.

I'm interested in this field of.... I think there's a private member's bill that would protect journalistic sources. I'm wondering if, inadvertently or directly under this act, a journalist could obtain some protection for his or her sources simply by coming to your office and obtaining indirectly what apparently may not be out there in our general law, in which there's no specific privilege for journalistic sources. My question is a little off the wall, but it may come up.

I'll leave it there. I'll turn to Ms. Foote for five minutes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I won't need the entire five minutes, but I'm sure my colleague will share the time.

You talked about the number of requests and how, for some of those, it was determined that they could be better dealt with by other agencies or organizations, such as the Auditor General's office, for example. Is the same protection accorded to the individual who's bringing the complaint forward if the complaint is dealt with by the Auditor General's office and not yours?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Of course, but if it leaves our jurisdiction, then different rules will apply. From that perspective, it's a referral, but the identity of the individual is not going to be shared with the Auditor General. It's the issue or problem that needs to be looked at. So from that perspective, whether the person wants to come forward is completely, entirely up to them. Similarly, if a reporter's name becomes public, of course, then the anonymity or confidentiality has been sacrificed elsewhere. When we refer the matter to another organization, it falls under a different set of legislation.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Would that organization be inclined to, or want to, or have to have the discussion directly with the individual who brought the complaint forward?

[Christiane Ouimet]

It may not be necessary. Again, ultimately our obligation remains. Whether the person is still within our office, whether we have an active file, our obligation to protect the identity of this individual remains forever, to the extent possible, of course.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

You do not pass the identity of the individual on to the other organization. You just pass the file in terms of the issue.

[Christiane Ouimet]

That's correct.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

If a complaint is brought against another individual, that individual has the right to know where the complaint is coming from and the source of the complaint. I guess it goes to the rights of the individual. How do you draw the line there?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Again, there are specific provisions in the act that talk about an opportunity to respond to the allegations. My deputy commissioner will read it out loud.

[Henry Molot, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner]

It is not necessary for the Commissioner to hold any hearing and no person is entitled as of right to be heard by the Commissioner, but if at any time during the course of an investigation it appears to the Commissioner that there may be sufficient grounds to make a report or recommendation that may adversely affect any individual or any portion of the public sector, the Commissioner must, before completing the investigation, take every reasonable measure to give to that individual or the chief executive responsible for that portion of the public sector a full and ample opportunity to answer any allegation, and to be assisted or represented by counsel, or by any person, for that purpose.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

It doesn't deal with being able to respond to who brought the accusation or who made the complaint?

[Henry Molot]

No. In the laws of fairness or natural justice at common law, there are those few occasions where, say in cross-examination, you're allowed to cross-examine the person who made the complaint. Ordinarily, if the facts can be found in ways other than through this direct accuser approach, then the principles of natural justice don't really require that. You could go after the person who made the accusation.

[Christiane Ouimet]

I'll make two other observations.

Section 22 says that we must conduct our inquiries or our investigative process in accordance with natural justice and procedural fairness. In addition, anybody coming forward has an obligation not to make false statements and not to obstruct the process. There are some charges that could be laid if somebody misled the commissioner or their representative. There are a number of provisions throughout the act, because this has been a bit of a collage of a number of bills. That's why you really have to read the 54 sections and look at it.

But in the end, it's natural justice, opportunity to be heard, quest for the truth, and ultimately we hope to bring some practical solutions quickly and with fairness.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

I do appreciate that.

I can just imagine that if you're being targeted by an individual for whatever reason and you end up going through this terrible ordeal or being drawn into a situation where you know you're completely innocent, you'd like to think there will be justice at the end of it all.

[Christiane Ouimet]

That's a very good comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Merci.

Monsieur Roy.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have two more questions, Ms. Ouimet. I really like the aspect of prevention. But you head a small organization of 22 people. What is your approach to prevention, and what is the response from departments and agencies?

It is no easy task. When you want to make changes in organizations of that size, it can take several years before those kinds of changes, changes in culture, take hold. That is my first question because, with 22 people, I doubt that you can establish a prevention program and have regular meetings with all the responsible people in all the departments and federal agencies.

Also, knowing that the act was passed some time ago, what powers do you have when you finish dealing with a complaint and you consider that the act has been contravened? How far can you go? Do you just make a recommendation to the Solicitor General, or do you have other means at your disposal?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Thank you for the question.

You are right, we cannot guarantee the integrity of the entire public service with 22 people. That is why Parliament in its wisdom gave the minister, in this case the President of the Treasury Board through his officials, a role in education and prevention.

We feel that we have to support him in that task, but each department with a senior officer should take seriously...I know that they do because they have a lot invested in both the disclosure system and in prevention. For our part, we are going to formally remind the minister of his obligation. I know that the organization will take that seriously.

That is why we also mentioned shared responsibilities as one of our themes. We are going to continue in that direction.

As for the office's power, if there is wrongdoing, yes, we have the power to make recommendations, but we can also follow up on it a year later. I feel that that is very useful. We can go to the organization again to see what it has done. The discloser will also tell us; that is a significant indicator.

Once again, we have to be realistic. It is not going to happen overnight. But it is being taken seriously.

I must also tell you that, up to now, we have always received full and complete cooperation when we have looked into an organization. People take it seriously because no senior officer wants even the perception of wrongdoing in his organization, let alone actual wrongdoing.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Could you be more specific about prevention? You tell me that organizations look after prevention, but my question is, how do they do that?

[Christiane Ouimet]

As a practical approach, for small agencies and small organizations, it is my intention to visit colleagues formally to make sure that concrete solutions are found, such as the ones we have listed.

As for crown corporations, I repeat that we have already begun a dialogue with Treasury Board to bring some subsidiary crown corporations under the act. That is a part of prevention too.

We want to work with the Canada School of Public Service to ensure that, in basic courses...in the private sector, we have seen that reminders are necessary. It is not enough to take a course, complete it and then do nothing for 25 or 30 years. In some areas of the private sector, the practice is to sign a form as a reminder every year. The CEO of Motorola asks to be told personally if a single person, out of the hundreds that work there, does not sign it.

A number of techniques can be used. I feel that the annual report of the old Canada Public Service Agency contained good practices, and we are going to encourage the new agency to continue them.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

We'll go to Ms. Hall Findlay for one small question.

I'm sorry, you have five minutes, of course. The indication was you did have a question.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

My question actually is very small. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know if I had been able to read all of the background beforehand...my apologies, but does the mandate cover port authorities?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Port authorities, yes. Under crown corporations, yes.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

It does, okay. Thank you.

That was very short, was it? For the record, that was—