Government Operations Committee on Feb. 9th, 2017

[Luc Bégin]

In discussion with the employees, we provide many different options. As you know, they can come to their supervisor, me, or the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. We don't refer cases to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. It's the employee who chooses to go directly there.

It is the employee who decides in what circumstances....

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

For sure, but you must provide some kind of guidance, advice, or information.

[Luc Bégin]

We provide the options and explain the process to them.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Also in response to Mr. Clarke, you mentioned a committee of people who are doing similar jobs in different departments and agencies. I wonder just how often it meets.

[Carole Ferlatte]

I can speak to that, because I attended. It's called the interdepartmental disclosure working group, and it meets monthly. We have ad hoc meetings. There was just a meeting held for senior integrity officers, to which both managers and integrity officers were invited. At these meetings, if that's of interest, we discuss best practices, since the act is almost 10 years old—April 1, 2017. Basically, it's a kind of support, if you will, in terms of sharing information.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

That makes sense, and it sounds fruitful.

Does this group have any decision-making power, or do you feel that it has an ability to influence the decisions the Treasury Board makes?

[Carole Ferlatte]

The chairs are both senior officers, like Mr. Bégin, but in the terms of reference, there is no decision-making influence. I know that the chair sits on the PSIC—Public Sector Integrity Commissioner—advisory committee, so you may say there that.... But as far as the group is set up, it's more like a discussion or support group, but more in terms of exchanging practices.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

If your office or one of the investigations that you contracted discovered really serious wrongdoing in the department, do you feel that this would be welcomed as your doing your job well, or would you fear that you might be subject to some difficult treatment or that it might not be well received by senior management in the department?

[Luc Bégin]

Run that by me again.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Let's imagine that you played a role in uncovering some really serious wrongdoing. Do you think you'd be hailed as having done your job well and having performed the function, or do you think you might get some push-back or some kind of bad feelings from other senior management in Health Canada?

[Luc Bégin]

It doesn't matter what they feel. My job is to manage and bring forth some of these issues, whether it be through internal disclosure or as an ombudsman. That role is basically to bring to light systemic issues or organizational issues.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

It seems as though the system may not be working as well as it should be. I think Mr. Peterson mentioned the fact that the majority of Health Canada employees feel that they would suffer reprisals if they came forward. It sounds like very few are actually coming forward. I think you mentioned that in the last fiscal year there haven't been any formal cases. I wonder if you could speak to whether the system is working well, and if it isn't, what we could do to make it more open and accessible to federal public servants.

[Luc Bégin]

Having or not having disclosures, I think.... I bring it back to the creation of an office where employees come to see us in a preventative way and then look at all possible options to resolve. Not all wrongdoing needs an investigation, but wrongdoing needs to be addressed. There are a multitude of internal mechanisms within the department to address that without going through formal internal disclosure, such as labour relations or informal conflict management.

At Health Canada, we are part of the mental health in the workplace strategy. There are a multitude of opportunities to look at and address any concerns that employees have raised through my office. Hopefully, as we promote this office, employees will come and alert us to potential wrongdoing, and we will take the opportunity to raise that to management and the authorities.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

We got a similar kind of—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, Mr. Bégin. Unfortunately, we're out of time.

Madam Shanahan, you have seven minutes, please.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses.

It seems like it's very well-established and institutionalized. I use that word; it's not a negative connotation. You want to have a system in place to receive wrongdoing.

Something that caught my eye and was a concern to me the other day was the on-boarding of new employees into a new culture. Of course, we're hopefully getting young employees coming in, and it's their first time in the workforce. It's all very new, and it's a lot to absorb that there could be some possible wrongdoing and you're on the spot to report it. I was interested in the decision-making tool that is referred to in our briefing notes and is available to employees. It's “Five questions to ask yourself before making a protected disclosure of wrongdoing”.

We could also check the French version.

Already you'll agree with me that the words are like, whoa, what's this? It's trying to be helpful to the employee:

Do you think something is wrong? Check the facts. Before making a protected disclosure, ask yourself... What facts or documentation do I have to support [it]? Does the activity breach any federal, provincial or organizational codes, policies or rules?

It's putting the onus on the employee, who's not sure. I'm thinking, purely based on my experience in corporate life and so on, that it typically is the newer people who will notice something and say, “Hmm, is that right or is that wrong? What's going on here?” I would like to get your feedback. You have 12,000 employees. Talk to us about what kind of work these employees do.

How can you be sure? The machinery is there. I'm not looking for tens of thousands of cases, but it does strike me that typically when you're trying to get at something specific, you need to have a big funnel. You want people to feel comfortable talking about anything that they see. It's actually a positive thing when corrective action is able to be taken. It's not a big deal, like what's listed in the act, but it's something that's worth reporting on, looking at, and talking about.

Please comment.

[Luc Bégin]

I'll go back to the existence and the creation of this office. It is innovative in bringing together all the integrity programs, and in the idea that an employee has a safe haven to come and discuss, in confidence, some of the issues, and is given an opportunity to see what the options are, navigate through the system, and make the best choice on how to address it. That's one thing.

There's also my obligation. If I see information, I have to raise that with the authorities. I have to bring the mirror to management and let them know to take preventative action in order to minimize any potential future wrongdoing.

Again, the act looks at serious wrongdoing. Wrongdoing may be dealt with through grievances, through harassment complaints, or by the manager in his workplace. There may be some changes in the workplace where there is an increase in oversight because an employee has raised some concerns.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

But, if I may, in that initial step, somebody may just be wondering, what's going on here? Where's that safe place? When you go through this decision-making tool, it actually asks whether you think your family and friends are going to be affected by this, which could lead to, “Well, okay, I'm out of here. I'm not going to talk about this.”

Madame Ferlatte, do you see people in your office for this kind of thing?

[Carole Ferlatte]

I will add to what Mr. Bégin was saying. These are ethical situations. It's not black and white; it's zones of grey.

It wouldn't be fair for Luc or me, or anybody in that field to.... It's like a doctor. Yes, you'll be okay.

I will say it in French: it is an obligation of means, not an obligation of results.

What we do, and what I do, is all about the awareness. Luc said this, but at the orientation sessions for new employees Luc even takes time out of his busy schedule and does a presentation, so there is a portion of this but it's just part of the awareness.

To go back to your question, I know all the tools on this one. I think it's very well done and we use it. It's part of the package. It's not just giving a package to employees, but it's having the discussions. Our role is certainly not to give advice, meaning “Yes, you should do it” or “No, you shouldn't do it”. My role, and that of others in my role and Luc's role, is to give out all the information, and then they have to make the decision. We cannot take the onus or the responsibility for that decision. It's the same for someone who would think of making a complaint of any kind.

To summarize, it's giving out all the information, and those questions are very good, in my view, because they make them think. It's not all black or white and something that will go a certain way. Nobody can predict because there is.... Maybe they think in all good faith that their case is very strong, but when it is held up against the evaluation criteria that we follow, maybe it's not as strong, or maybe it is strong. This we cannot know. We haven't yet seen the evidence they will provide, so it's very difficult for us to talk about an outcome. It's the nature of the beast, if you will, to not be able to say for sure, “Yes, you should go, and this is what is going to happen”, because it's case by case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McCauley, you have five minutes, please.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks for joining us today.

Ms. Shanahan, you have had some great comments.

I'm afraid I'm going to move us away from this discussion and bring us back to the motion I introduced on Tuesday, and I'd like to move it forward now so we can discuss it.

I'm not sure if you wish to excuse, or....

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Well, Mr. McCauley, I'm not sure exactly how long you plan to take. Our next set of witnesses is scheduled to appear in about 20 minutes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay, I'll get started immediately then.

This motion, discussed on Tuesday, is just moving to have an emergency meeting on the Super Hornets.

I want to preface by acknowledging that we're scheduled to discuss the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act today, and the reason I'm bringing this motion forward to the committee is that we have new information regarding Boeing and the Super Hornets that we believe substantially changes the conditions in which the Minister of National Defence made his proposal for a sole-source contract for the interim fleet of the 18 jets.

There is also an aspect of this issue that is touched upon with regard to public service disclosures, which does make this relevant to our current discussion.

Since agreeing to the proposed studies in the committee, numerous major issues have arisen in the three large procurement projects: Phoenix, and we heard more of that today in the news; shipbuilding; and now the Super Hornet acquisition, which this committee has an obligation to study. Each of these severely impacts our country, our economy, and our taxpayers.

We believe there has not been adequate debate in the House on these issues, nor have we resumed the studies of emerging situations past the initial meeting or two on these subjects.

That's why I am proposing today that we further study the procurement details surrounding the government's decision to sole-source 18 Super Hornet jets, given that the impact of this decision would be felt by the Canadian industry, our servicemen and women, and our defence capability for decades to come, or maybe just 12 years, as the minister recently wrote in response to an Order Paper question.

The conversation has been unclear and seemingly silent, so we don't know what the full answer is to the question. The fact is that we shouldn't have to rely—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Excuse me, I think I will interject now and as it appears you may be going until the time of our next witnesses.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I will be, probably.