Government Operations Committee on May 2nd, 2013

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you. That's interesting, Ms. Robinson.

For the NDP, we have Linda Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's a good foray into what I was about to ask.

Thank you, all of you, for appearing today.

I notice in your reports that one of the key responsibilities of the Public Service Commission is to ensure integrity and non-partisanship in staffing. If you are doing the staffing, and given that the Parliamentary Budget Officer does not report directly to Parliament but through the Public Service Commission, a number of allegations and concerns have been raised about the process of the hiring of the PBO, and suggestions made that the process may have been politicized.

I'm wondering why the interview panel has not been made public to try to bring some integrity back into that very highly contentious hiring process.

[Anne-Marie Robinson]

Thank you for the question.

I should clarify that the Public Service Commission is responsible for appointments under the Public Service Employment Act, so that would not include other Governor in Council appointments you mentioned. Any of the other GIC appointments are not governed by the regime of the Public Service Commission, so we are not responsible for the appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thanks for that clarification. So these guidelines have not been made applicable to that process.

I also noticed in there that those who have worked for a minister as political staff for a specified period of time have the right to immediately apply for internal positions. It seems like a bit of a contradiction to say it's ensuring there's no partisanship that goes into the civil service. Can you speak to that?

[Anne-Marie Robinson]

Yes. This was a change that was put in place, I think, in 2008 or 2009. My colleague, Madame Laurendeau, will clarify if I'm incorrect about that. As you said, after someone has worked as ministerial staff for a period of three years, and have ceased to remain a member of the ministerial staff, they are eligible for a period of one year to apply for internal appointments in the public service.

They must come to the commission. What we do is verify the fact that they had worked for three years and that they've ceased to work as part of ministerial staff. I can share with you the numbers. In 2011-12, the PSC received nine requests from former ministerial staff to confirm their eligibility, and of those eight were approved.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay, thanks. My final question is for Mr. Dion.

I'd like to thank you for the briefing that you provided a few months back. It was for members of Parliament and staff and it was very informative. I'd like to commend you for the fact that you made this very important point that enacting a right is of little value unless you actually inform people of the right, then support them in exercising that right. Of course, that applies to the disclosure of wrongdoing.

I'm wondering if you could speak to it, since you mentioned it may well be that the increase in the number of complaints is because people are starting to find out about the right. Is your budget right now, because you have so many cases, sufficient to actually do the outreach that is necessary to inform the large civil service?

[Mario Dion]

I believe so, because one of the things we have to guard against as well is that it would not be appropriate, in my view, to actively solicit disclosures either. It has to be done in a very professional way. There are other means of redress available as well in many of the situations involving us.

The approach we've taken of being visible is having a kiosk at events. I've started to tweet two weeks ago. I have my own professional Twitter account in which I'm gathering some followers as we speak. But I cannot write to 375,000 people every week to remind them of the existence of the office. I've also done 32 briefings of executive committees across the public sector last year, and I've had a number of staff meetings as well. The National Capital Commission, for instance, invited me, and the Library of Parliament, of which you were talking about earlier in your question.

We do what we have to do. Of course, if I had a large pot of money I could imagine other ways of reaching people within the federal public sector, but I think what we do now is probably sufficient to generate an increase that can be managed well. It's important not to have 1,000 cases tomorrow morning, because we would not be able to manage that.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I've answered the question.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Braid]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Duncan, your timing is impeccable.

Next we have the Honourable Ron Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Good afternoon. We're working together.

Similar to my colleague, I believe that public servants have the right to be protected and to bring notices of wrongdoing and to be protected from peer reprisals.

I guess my first question would be to Mr. Dion. You say in your opening comments that there's a greater sense of confidence, and as Mr. McCallum said, more people coming forward. Maybe you can share what measures you've implemented to provide greater confidence for the public sector, for those who have come forward with their observations of wrongdoing.

[Mario Dion]

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chairman, actions speak much louder than words. The best publicity we will ever generate for the effectiveness of the office is the case reports we table in Parliament. Two and a half years ago we had tabled no case reports in Parliament, ever. We have done five in the last 13 months and we have several in the pipeline as we speak. I think actions speak louder than words.

Second, in our daily dealings with the people who come to us, it's important that a professional approach be taken. We have recruited staff who are appropriate for taking that approach. Word of mouth will work.

A third step I've taken is to create an advisory committee, which meets periodically, to demystify. Within the confines of confidentiality there is very little I can say about a case closed, of course. The contents of a case are completely confidential. But three of the major unions within the public sector have joined the advisory committee as well. My hope is that they will better understand our mandate and will do some outreach also on behalf of the office. These are PSAC, PIPS, and APEX , which is not a union—it's the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada—but it has been attending each meeting of the advisory committee.

It's to demystify, to have an ongoing communication, and hopefully to become known for what we can do—and also to explain what we cannot do, because there are limits to our mandate as well.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

In the private sector, companies always have a little suggestion box and look at rewards. You don't want to have people squealing on each other, but you want to have a workplace that is productive and in which you find efficiencies.

Is there any discussion about compensation, if people notice that there are significant savings to be had, or some wrongdoings? Have you ever had that discussion with the minister or in respect to reform of the act?

[Mario Dion]

In fact, Mr. Chairman, there was a discussion several years ago in Parliament. There was a bill tabled, if I'm not mistaken, back in 2005 that included such a provision, but it was not in the form of the final bill as adopted. So there is no reward at this point in time. The policy has not been the subject of any discussion, to my knowledge. I have not been involved in any discussion with anyone about the concept of a reward for making a disclosure since taking over two and a half years ago.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I came here in 2006, so I appreciate that information. I'll have to look into this.

From your perspective, do you feel that you have the tools and sufficient investigative powers to fulfill your mandate?

[Mario Dion]

Yes.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

From your perspective, do you think the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is balanced and effective as is, or are there any changes that you recommend?

[Mario Dion]

When the review that the act calls for is initiated, I will have a number of proposals to make vis-à-vis improving our reach. For instance, there is a section in the act that clearly says that the commissioner shall not do anything to obtain information outside of the federal public sector. That's a bar, which in practice has been a problem, though only in a few cases. I'm sure there are good reasons for the bar, but the bar is frustrating when it happens. It is absolute. I cannot go beyond the boundaries of the federal public sector. This is one example of an area in which I might make a proposal in the course of the parliamentary review of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

A second one, which I'll mention very briefly, is that we have an anomaly as well. In several institutions we have people who are appointed by the Governor in Council. We have no jurisdiction over Governor in Council appointees, except insofar as they are the head of their institutions. We've had one or two instances of a GIC appointee who is governed by our act and another GIC appointee who isn't being involved in the same disclosure involving the same alleged wrongdoing. That's another anomaly that I will raise when the review takes place.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I only have a couple of seconds left. I have one last question, on the limitation period for any public servant who claims to be a victim of reprisal.

They have 60 days. Is that sufficient, from your perspective?

[Mario Dion]

It has been sufficient, and I guess my predecessor and I have been quite generous in interpreting a provision that gives the commissioner the power to extend the period, when there are reasons to do so. It's a very vague wording.

I think it's important for the stability of the workplace that it be done as quickly as possible, but the statute is generous enough to allow the commissioner to proceed when there is a good reason to go beyond the 60 days.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Braid]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

We now move to Mr. Ravignat.

You have five minutes.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to follow up on some of my colleague's comments, I would argue that many public servants who have been put in a situation in which they are whistle-blowing would disagree that 60 days is sufficient. When talking with the Public Service Alliance of Canada as well, and others within the public service, I find that they have concerns respecting that delay.

It has been six years plus, and in other jurisdictions research shows—for example, in the U.S. and Australia—that about 12% to 23% of public servants observe wrongdoing that they consider serious. We're still at a very low number, and I know that you're making efforts to reach out and to raise awareness and that you need more resources to do so. Perhaps part of the problem is with respect to public servants' level of confidence, given cases in the past, that they will be protected if they indeed decide to bring up wrongdoing. Perhaps that is the issue here.

You don't really have a lot of power to do something. You can refer them to a tribunal, if there are reprisals. Only three cases have been to the tribunal, and to my knowledge no one has ever been sanctioned. Your American counterpart has taken more proactive measures; for example, injunctions against employers to prevent dismissal of whistle-blowers while investigations are under way.

What more can you do? Do you think, first of all, that whistle-blowers are really protected?

What more could you, or the law, be doing to protect them, in your opinion?

[Mario Dion]

I think whistle-blowers are adequately protected at this point in time. The tribunal has been set up, and the chair of the tribunal is taking his mandate very seriously. There have been cases resolved. Three have been referred to the tribunal; two have been sectorally resolved through a settlement—discussions between the parties endorsed by the commissioner and approved by the tribunal, in one instance.

It's too early to conclude that it doesn't work. I think it does work. Of course, we live under the rule of law, so people have rights. The alleged repriser also has rights. So it takes time, when a matter goes to the tribunal.

On a couple of occasions we have communicated with the deputy minister in the department involved, as we have the authority to do under the act, to suggest that the alleged victim be separated from the alleged repriser while this is going on.

So there are tools available, which we have yet to fully exploit.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Great. Thank you for that answer. I have something else that I'd like....

You'll be happy to know that I tabled a private member's bill today that proposes to extend your powers, with regard to getting documents that are outside the public service as well as to your ability to investigate those who have left the public service.

Could you speak to what it will allow you to do, if in fact the law is amended in this way?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mr. Dion.

[Mario Dion]

First of all, Mr. Chair, I only heard of the honourable member's private member's bill as I was walking into the room, so I haven't seen it.

There have been a few instances in which we were prevented from acting in a case involving a former public servant, so of course, if the bill does what you say it will, it will give us an additional avenue to forcing someone to come and testify in spite of the fact that they have left the public sector.

From a policy point of view, I believe this is important. It's too easy to retire or to accept employment in the private sector to escape a situation, and I for one would certainly welcome an extension of those powers.