Government Operations Committee on March 23rd, 2017

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Sorry, I'm going to stop you there, Mr. Trottier, because “wrongdoing” is defined in the act as “a contravention of any Act of Parliament”, “a misuse of public funds”, “a gross mismanagement in the public sector”, “an act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life...”. This isn't about prevention when the whistle-blower is coming forward. It's about actual, identified wrongdoing of an extremely serious nature. To circle the wagons and protect— we don't want to be too tough on the wrongdoer—boggles the mind of normal Canadians, who think that if this happened in the public sector someone would go to the police, and the police would investigate, and there would be a public hearing, and, rightfully, the people would be named. And they should be shamed because they have specifically endangered the lives and the health of persons or they have grossly mismanaged the public sector funds or they've contravened an Act of Parliament. These are criminal offences. Why should public servants have more protections than the average Canadian with respect to this type of malfeasance?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Whalen has obviously asked a very interesting question. Unfortunately, because of the time constraints we have, we're going to have to see if you can get the answer in with one of the other questions.

Mr. Clarke, you have five minutes.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Madam Smart, if you want to answer, I'll let you answer this question.

[Anne Marie Smart]

Go ahead.

[Carl Trottier]

We entirely agree with the seriousness of the acts, but the issue is that discipline needs to be imposed. The action is corrected through the discipline and not necessarily through the shaming. The reason I say not through the shaming is that most of the situations are probably not as clear as the ones you describe. In some situations some people can be wrongly accused, and then shamed. So it becomes very grey. The individual might still be there tomorrow and having to be rehabilitated, as the CHRO mentioned, and having to work in an environment. But you're looking at an extreme situation. You're saying that something terrible happened. We probably would be firing that individual if it was a situation that warranted it. There needs to be some way to rehabilitate individuals who have to work in the environment again.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Once again, it's about protecting the wrongdoer.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Ms. Smart, do you speak French?

[Anne Marie Smart]

Yes.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Okay.

In the document you sent us in February to share your view of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, on the second last page, in the first paragraph of your conclusion, you said,

“I believe that the Act is largely working as it was intended.”

[Anne Marie Smart]

Yes.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

In the past two months, we've heard from representatives of the Whistleblowing International Network, from the Integrity Commissioner, from representatives of different government departments and agencies, and from foreign experts, in particular at the beginning of this week. Most of these people said that the act didn't work very well, that it wasn't well written, that it had many shortcomings, and so on.

How do you explain this discrepancy between your confidence in the act and what we've heard from other witnesses?

[Anne Marie Smart]

I read the testimony as well, but from my perspective of where I sit I think that we have quite a robust integrity regime. We have the code. I make sure that through the code employees sign their letters of offer. They get the code, and they have to go for training at the Canada school. All departments, all agencies, all organizations, have to have senior disclosure officers. They have to do their own code. They have to do some awareness throughout the department. They submit the annual reports to me, I roll them up, we put them in Parliament.

When situations arise, they have the choice of channels. They can disclose internally. They can go to the commissioner.

I think it's pretty solid. Do I worry? I think Mr. McCauley pointed to some of the survey results from a few years ago where employees were worried about reprisal, which was one of the areas. I take that seriously. I think that when you find that, you need to redouble your efforts to have a healthy, respectful workplace where people don't fear—

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

You do say that the act works well.

[Anne Marie Smart]

Right.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

You say it's “working as it was intended.”

I was wondering whether that was a Freudian slip. One of our experts on Monday evening said he felt that this act was created to protect senior bureaucrats and ministers. I am saying this in good faith, Ms. Smart.

You say that it works

“as it was intended.”

However, according to those experts, it protects

high wrongdoers.

Your analysis of the act is very different from what the experts we heard from said about it. They don't agree with that conclusion.

[Anne Marie Smart]

All I can tell you is that from the Treasury Board, from where I sit as the chief human resources officer, I think it can always be improved but I wouldn't scrap it and start again. It would be something of a process of continuous improvement. If there are departments or areas where—

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

You would scrap it and start again?

[Anne Marie Smart]

I said I would not.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Okay.

[Anne Marie Smart]

Obviously, if the committee recommends that, we'll look at it, but in my experience the fact that it exists, the fact that organizations have to go through these steps, employees go through steps, and the fact that people do come forward, speaks to the fact that it's good that it's there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I think we'll have to end it there.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

[Anne Marie Smart]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Drouin, five minutes, please.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the witnesses for coming here today.

I want to just go back to a few things that Mr. McCauley touched on about public service culture. You mentioned that you require public servants to read the values and ethics code, and there's online training that you have to do. What else is done within the public service to ensure that there is that good working environment?