Evidence of meeting #128 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was indigenous.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Special Advisor, Métis National Council
I think he's covered it.
It's the large construction contracts, the service contracts, that are the most challenging for indigenous Canadians. There are ways around it, like providing enough time on some of these bids—if you'd prefer them for indigenous Canadians—to do joint ventures.
In many cases, it's like the hydro business. I had no idea how to put up a hydro pole, but when we got the contract and we teamed up with Forbes, we learned how to put up hydro poles.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Okay, so that's the capacity building. You are forced to go there and build the capacity and maintain it.
I think I have 30 seconds, which I give to you, Mr. Chair.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you very much.
Mr. LeClair and Mr. Card, thank you very much for your testimony. As I mentioned at the outset of this meeting, I would ask that you submit all of your suggestions or recommendations to our clerk as quickly as possible. We are currently in the process of drafting a report, so your comments and suggestions will form part of the final report.
Thank you again for your presentations. It was very much appreciated.
Colleagues, this concludes our study on federal procurement.
We will suspend for a couple of moments while we prepare the table for our next witnesses.
12:05 p.m.
Joe Friday Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be here and to see committee members again.
Today we're here to discuss the main estimates, and I'm looking forward to having the chance to update you on the work and activities of my office.
I'm joined by my General Counsel, Brian Radford, who has appeared before this committee before, and my Chief Financial Officer, Éric Trottier, who accompanied me last year for the main estimates appearance.
I know you're already familiar with our mandate, given the legislative review of last year, so I won't use my limited time to provide you with background. Our office's budget is relatively small. It's $5.5 million. I have a team of 30 employees. I anticipate increasing that to 35 in the coming year to support our core operational mandate. The bottom line is that I currently have sufficient financial resources to do my job but anticipate using the full budget allotment in this fiscal year, which will be a first for our office.
You have copies of my departmental plan, which outlines my priorities. Briefly stated, we'll continue to pursue operational efficiencies using technology, training, human resources strategies, and program evaluations, to support that goal. Also, we're going to continue to focus on a challenge I have discussed with you in the past, and that is reaching out to public servants to ensure that they are aware of, that they understand, and that they are confident in using the federal whistle-blowing regime.
When I was here last year to talk about our legislation, I spoke about the importance of changing the culture, that is, of making whistle-blowing a normalized and accepted part of the public service culture. I want to reiterate as forcefully as I possibly can that any change in culture can only be the result of a collective will and a collective effort. My office, which is referred to as a “micro-organization” within the federal public sector, has a significant role to play in this regard despite our very small size, and we're really working hard to fulfill that role.
Since my last appearance here, we have tabled three case reports in Parliament of founded cases of wrongdoing. They're really important in contributing to cultural change, but they're only one part. For example, we also produced a very significant research paper on the fear of reprisal, entitled, “The Sound of Silence”, which I believe I shared with you last year. This too advanced the discussion, and it focused attention on the need for change that is led from the top of an organization.
Mr. Chair, the Public Service Employee Survey, the results of which were recently published, is a very important indication of the current state of the culture in the public service. These results reveal clear concerns that employees have about workplace values and ethics, mental health support and the trust of public servants in the disclosure process.
These concerns are apparent in our daily work, as illustrated in my two most recent reports on founded wrongdoing, and others that I tabled in Parliament previously.
There's clearly work to do in changing the culture. For example, to the question of whether individuals feel they can initiate a formal recourse process without fear of reprisal, fewer than 50% of public servants who responded said that they could.
As a chief executive myself, one of my immediate interests was how the survey reflected on the state of my own organization. I was very pleased to see that the results indicate what I believe to be quite a healthy and well-supported workforce, comprised of people who feel that they can speak up themselves. This confirms that the talented people on my team recognize and value the very attributes of the healthy culture that our office was created to support and protect in the first place. I was further heartened to see that 96% of our employees described our workplace as being psychologically healthy.
These survey results and the fact that our own response rate in my office was over 80% tells me that my office, which itself has gone through much-publicized difficult times in its early days, is an example for the rest of the public sector, an example of the possibility of positive change. It also tells me that our employees are well-equipped and able to carry out their difficult and demanding work. In fact, 82% said they would prefer to stay with us even if a comparable job were available elsewhere. That's compared to 65% in 2014. Frankly, Mr. Chair, I couldn't be more proud of the results of the team I have the privilege of leading.
Relating these to the priorities identified in my departmental plan, I believe the survey results actually helped build confidence among public servants about coming forward to our office if they know they are dealing with people who themselves understand the importance of speaking up and of supporting psychological health in the workplace. I'm also certain that committee members would expect and want people in my office to be operating with such a perspective and approach.
Last year at this time, I appeared in the context of the review of our legislation. As you know, I tabled 16 proposals for legislative change that I felt were progressive, achievable, and necessary.
I read with interest this committee's very thorough report, and I was pleased to see that my proposals were either explicitly or implicitly reflected in that report. I also read with interest the government's response, and, as I stated publicly, I was disappointed that the government was not taking action at that time to change the legislation.
Mr. Chair, my position remains that change is required and that my proposals are relevant and necessary. My hope is that changes will be made, if not now, then in the future, and hopefully as soon as possible. For my part, I will certainly continue to speak about the need for change to support people in coming forward confidently when they think something's wrong.
Mr. Chair, in conclusion, I am pleased to share important operational statistics before the actual publication of my annual report.
Last year, we received 147 disclosures of wrongdoing, which is a significant increase over the previous year, when we received 81. In the course of our work on these files, we will see how many of them will end in investigations or founded cases.
The number of cases of reprisals increased from 31 to 38, which is comparable to previous years, but still represents a significant increase from year to year.
We are currently working on 23 investigations.
And I should say, having spoken to my director of operations on my way to this committee hearing, that I'm expecting that I will be receiving recommendations to launch three new investigations in the coming week.
In addition, my office has met and exceeded the service standards we set for dealing with cases in a timely manner. As a reminder, those standards are to complete at least 80% of initial analysis of disclosures within 90 days, and 80% of investigations within a year. We are meeting these standards in 90% and 86% of our cases, respectively, and we are in 100% compliance with the statutory requirement that we assess reprisal complaints within 15 days.
Briefly, we referred one reprisal case to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal, and most importantly, in my view, we settled six cases through conciliation, arranged and paid for by my office as the legislation contemplates. These cases were actively being investigated by my office. They could have resulted in referrals to the tribunal, but they were settled by the parties confidentially to their satisfaction, and in a timely manner with our assistance.
These conciliations, Mr. Chair, represent an unquestionable success for the parties, and indeed for our office, and for the whistle-blowing regime, and that number of conciliations, the six this year, represents a 60% increase in a single year over the total number of conciliations to date by our office.
Mr. Chair, I hope that this information will provide the committee with a useful overview of some of our key activities and achievements, and provide a clear and positive image of how my organization works.
Thank you.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you very much, Mr. Friday.
We'll go directly to questions now, starting with Mr. Peterson.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Friday, thank you for being here today.
I have lots of stuff to go through here, so I'm going to go piece by piece.
First of all, kudos on the statistics from your survey of your office. It's very good to hear that.
Was the 96% the number of your employees who were not afraid of reprisals if they were to report?
12:10 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Ninety-six per cent of the people in my office described the workplace as psychologically healthy. I didn't say this, but the percentage of people who feel that they can use a recourse mechanism without fear of reprisal is also 96%. The highest number in the entire public sector was 97%, and we were 96%.
12:10 p.m.
A voice
Who was that?
12:10 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
That was, I think, the military grievance board. The overall number for the public sector in total was in the fifties, 55%, I believe.
12:15 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
We were delighted to have a 96% positive response to that essential question.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Hopefully you weren't the only negative responder to that. We won't dwell on that.
I'd like to talk a little bit about the actual numbers, the money in the estimates. In the main estimates for 2018-19, you're looking at $40,000 in legal fees. That would, of course, be public sector employees who are eligible for reimbursements of up to, I think, $1,500 or $3,000 in extreme cases.
But at the same time, we see a significant increase in the disclosures of wrongdoing, from 81 to 147. I think the more disclosure there is, the more likely it is there will be a need to reimburse fees.
Do you see that number growing significantly in the future?
12:15 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
It's certainly a number that we keep a very close eye on. We've had to actually increase our budget forecast this year for that amount. We had underbudgeted based on previous years, so it anticipates that amount continuing.
As you know, one of my proposals for changing the legislation was to increase that number. Given that we have not changed the legislation in that regard, it has an effect on budget projections, of course. One of the conditions in obtaining that funding is that a person does not have access to legal advice free of charge from another source such as unions or something else.
12:15 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
It's a limited pool, and there are conditions within the legislation that must be met before we provide that money.
I can tell you, and Brian will contradict me in public if necessary, that the majority of grants of legal fees are in the $3,000 range, as opposed to the $1,500 range, recognizing the cost of legal services and having concerns about access to justice in Canada.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Not to dwell on it because it's a small number, but it's an important number, is there a ratio you use that if there are x number of disclosures, you know there are going to be y number of expensive legal fees?
12:15 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
I know I'll have Éric to contradict me if I'm wrong, but what we have done is based budget projections on the budget from last year, anticipating a slight increase, if you will, but we leave enough leeway in that budget item to adjust it if necessary. It's one that we do recognize has a potentially high likelihood of being changed during the course of a fiscal year.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Right, so if the number of disclosures doubled, would that number presumably double as well?
12:15 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
There's no direct correlation. It's quite interesting. We tried to analyse the data to see if we could make that correlation, and I think it's safe to say that we cannot.
Would you agree with me?
12:15 p.m.
Brian Radford General Counsel, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Yes, proportionally speaking, the higher number of requests for access to legal advice come from the reprisal files. Although we have fewer reprisal files, we can understand that the people are more directly involved. They are making complaints. They're named as having taken reprisal action. They're in investigation, so they require access to legal advice more frequently proportionally speaking.
The other large group of people, of course, are those who are themselves involved in disclosure investigations.
12:15 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
I could add that the $48,000 we spent this year is the highest we spent in any year since our creation.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
I would suggest that the more successful your office is in the sense of getting the message out that this mechanism is in place, the busier your office would be. Therefore—
12:15 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Yes, and I can confirm that the existence of a program that provides people with access to funds to obtain legal advice is included in our letters, our standard correspondence with people, and is highlighted on our website. It's certainly something that we don't hide, if I can put it that way.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Nor should you, so that's good to hear. Thank you.
You said that in your opinion right now you guys are adequately resourced based on the next fiscal year.