Evidence of meeting #82 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 commissioner.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Brian Radford  General Counsel, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
Raynald Lampron  Director of Operations, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Philippe Grenier-Michaud

10:10 a.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

I have a question.

I saw the Deloitte report. Are you audited every year?

10:10 a.m.

General Counsel, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada

Brian Radford

No, we are not. The Deloitte report was a special report that was made in 2010. After the resignation of the first commissioner, Madame Ouimet, interim commissioner Mario Dion ordered a review of all of our closed files. As a result of that, Deloitte identified about 70 files that needed follow-up. Then there was a further follow-up of those files by two special advisers. It was in the aftermath of the Auditor General's report of 2010.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Lampron, I would ask you, if you could, sir, to talk about a very important subject, but keep your comments as succinct as possible. We need a little bit of time for committee business following your presentation.

Please, go ahead, sir.

10:10 a.m.

Director of Operations, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada

Raynald Lampron

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to inform the committee that within the reprisal regime, once an investigation is launched, our investigation service standard foresees one year to complete it. In the case of reprisals, there is a human impact. There is a human cost to the person the reprisal is against. That is why there is a section in the act that allows for conciliation, when we launch an investigation and find that there is merit.

This means that we do not simply offer conciliation at the moment we launch an investigation, but when we begin the investigation and find that there is merit to offering conciliation, it is offered to the parties. If both parties wish to speak and possibly resolve the matter in a quick fashion, or simply sit and see whether there is a resolution, that is accepted by the commissioner and recommended. We move forward. The commission appoints a conciliator, and we pay for the conciliator and all of the services rendered. It is, therefore, at no cost to the parties. We cover the conciliation.

We have had a good number of conciliations that have been very successful early in the process. This has resulted in early return to work by some members who were either suspended or facing termination. Some measures have been rescinded, there has been financial compensation, and there has been opportunity restored.

That was done quickly when both parties had an opportunity to sit down. The settlements have been found by both parties to be very satisfactory, and we've had a great number who have returned to us saying that they appreciated the role we played in the conciliation.

The conciliation itself is confidential and the information provided to the conciliator is confidential. Should the conciliation not be successful, we will continue our investigation. That is why, during the conciliation mode, I am directly responsible for liaison with the conciliator and the party and am no longer the investigator. If it's not successful, the investigator will never know which party was responsible for the conciliation's not passing, and henceforward we continue with a very neutral and very complete investigation.

I just wanted to highlight that we have been very successful in conciliation. Many of these cases never made it to the tribunal because both parties had an opportunity to sit, discuss the matter, and come to a resolution that was both correct and enforceable. It's not a question of saying, “We're going to be nice to each other”; it's “How can we solve the situation?” The commissioner is the person who has the last say and can say, “The resolution you have come up with is a correct resolution and is in the interest of all the parties and the public.”

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

You can make a comment, Nick, and then I'll do a wrap-up.

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

Thanks. My question doesn't relate to conciliation. One thing you said was about your acting as a veil between the investigator and the conciliation process. Is there a veil between the disclosure and the investigation process, and should there be?

I'll leave that thought with you because if I, as a whistle-blower, come forward to someone, the wrongdoing that I disclose should be independent of my identity if it's truly a public interest disclosure. Then, the investigation should be able to proceed without any knowledge of me and how that type of thing...but that's for later.

10:15 a.m.

Director of Operations, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada

Raynald Lampron

There is a quick answer, if you wish. Once we launch the investigation, we meet with the discloser to get all of the information that we can to help us go forward. The discloser is never an acting player in the investigation. You do not become part of our investigation—

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

Sorry, that wasn't the question. It's the investigator. Does the investigator ever become aware of the identity of the discloser, the person making the disclosure? When is that necessary? If it's not necessary, are the protections in place to keep that—

10:15 a.m.

General Counsel, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada

Brian Radford

Under our current process, the identity of the discloser is known to PSIC and to the investigator.

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL

They are known. Tell us why that's necessary.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski

Thank you very much to both our witnesses. I apologize, Mr. Radford, if you weren't able to complete your presentation. I will not, however, apologize for the questions from my colleagues because I think it just demonstrates the level of engagement they have in this study, which is very admirable.

Should you, however, have any additional information that you weren't able to present to us here, I would invite you to please do so, sir, to our clerk and we'll have that distributed to all members of our committee. I'm sure that will assist them greatly in their deliberations.

With that, once again, thank you so much. It's been fascinating and we do appreciate your attendance here today.

We will suspend for just a couple of moments, colleagues, and then we'll go in camera to discuss future business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]