Evidence of meeting #78 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 wrongdoing.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal
Since the beginning of the legislation.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I wanted to confirm that because I saw that in our analyst's notes. That's about one per year.
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal
It's about one per year.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Do you find it odd that it's so low? We've heard some horror stories.
Are people just that afraid or are they just getting blocked from coming to you, in your opinion?
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal
It's a difficult question for the tribunal to be able to answer. As you know, we tend to remain neutral as to what comes to our office. Our members deal with the cases that are brought before them.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal
I believe so.
We have rules of procedure that establish the disclosure. Once we receive the application from the commissioner, within a couple of days the notice goes out to all of the parties with a disclosure schedule. François may have more specifics but in past cases...again, in the principle of fairness, we often get requests to extend time from one or another party for the disclosure process. Being an open court, everybody has to agree. Motions are put before us sometimes to extend the timeline, which I think all but once was allocated.
9:40 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
For the record, never by the commissioner's office.
9:40 a.m.
Executive Director, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal
No. It's usually the party.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I want to put it on the record that it is the commissioner's office.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
On another extraneous comment, Madam Boyer, I hope your remuneration is not based on a per case basis if you've only had seven over time?
9:40 a.m.
Executive Director, Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal
No. It isn't.
Our office is quite small and I actually manage two tribunals.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Mr. Picard, thank you for being here.
Welcome to our committee.
You have five minutes.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
Thank you.
I will split my time with my colleague because I have one particular question.
I would like to go back to the issue of grievances.
My understanding is that grievances and whistleblower complaints are handled differently.
Please explain what would happen in the following scenario. Let's say that an employer decides to transfer a whistleblower to another location—this is easier to do in certain departments—and there are suspicions that this is a way to punish the employee. For example, say that the employee worked in Montreal and he or she was transferred to the Northwest Territories without a reason being given. In terms of the union or labour standards, this may not seem unreasonable. However, experience clearly shows, or at least gives cause to believe, that this is a way to punish a whistleblower. In this case, there would be no grounds for a grievance and you would not be able to intervene. It could not be proven that the transfer was a punishment; it might even seem like a promotion.
What would be your position in such a situation? Could you look into this case on the basis that a disclosure was made that warranted examination?
9:40 a.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
Mr. Radford.
9:40 a.m.
General Counsel, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
Yes, I can answer the question.
In very general terms, reprisals include all measures that adversely affect an individual's job or working conditions. This could be excluding an individual from certain meetings, which is considered a subtle reprisal; a transfer; or the employer's questionable decision to conduct an internal investigation.
The person absolutely has the right to file a reprisal complaint with the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada. First, we must determine whether the individual made a protected disclosure to the Office or to another authority in accordance with the act. As I indicated earlier, we have a liberal interpretation of what constitutes a protected disclosure. We ask the individual whether he or she has discussed a potential wrongdoing with anyone. They do not have to provide proof or establish that this is the case. If they have discussed it, we ask who they discussed it with. When an individual sounds the alarm about potential wrongdoing, he or she is protected and they can file a reprisal complaint with the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, even when this situation could have also resulted in a grievance.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
You used the term “protected” and that is important. It comes back to what my colleague said about more general and international measures. There must be some sort of unofficial procedure before an individual decides to make what is known as an official disclosure.
Let us suppose that I talk to a colleague about my concerns, and that someone gets wind of the conversation before I can make my official disclosure. I could find myself promoted to a job on Mars, when that is not what I had expected.
9:40 a.m.
General Counsel, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
We want to be very clear about this. We do not require the individual to follow the internal procedures. If that individual does not use the departmental disclosure form, but discussed the matter, we will accept their complaint. However, according to the current act, the discussion had to have taken place in the presence of a supervisor. We give this criterion a liberal interpretation. The person could be part of the chain of command and does not have to be the individual's immediate supervisor. The Commissioner is proposing that this concept be expanded. No matter, we opt for a liberal interpretation. A conversation or an email is all that is required.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Thank you very much.
We will have Mr. Weir for three minutes and that will complete our first round; and we will then go back to the second round, which will start with seven-minute interventions.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK
I think we've had some really good discussion about the interplay between grievance processes at the departmental or agency level and the more centralized process that you administer. Where we left off was Mr. Radford making the point that the commissioner does have the discretion to look at cases that have already been through the grievance process. I'm wondering if you could tell the committee how many cases the commissioner has actually looked at after that grievance process has been completed.
