Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 14th, 2010

[Sheila Fraser]

We met with the majority of employees at the commissioner's office, both former and current employees.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Thank you for that clarification.

I would also like to ask you some questions about paragraphs 17 to 20. You described measures taken by the former commissioner with respect to her staff. Could you tell us whether the six people who participated in those activities are still working for the commissioner's office?

[Sheila Fraser]

Some of those individuals are still employees of the commissioner's office.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Friday, I know that you have been in a very difficult situation since the commissioner resigned. What steps have you taken, within the commissioner's office, to protect staff and ensure that everything runs smoothly, given that some of the individuals who participated in the measures identified in the Auditor General's report are still working for the commissioner's office?

[Joe Friday]

Thank you for your question. If I may, I will respond in English so that I can answer as accurately as possible.

Mr. Chair, the importance of a healthy working environment can't be overstated, in my view. We are currently trying to attend, to our best abilities, to the needs of our existing employees by providing access to whatever external support services are necessary, such as the employee assistance program, for example.

We have an internal conflict management system officer who has been appointed within the office. That person carries out responsibilities under Treasury Board policy to address workplace conflict in the most informal and appropriate way possible. We have also ensured we have the necessary access to the full range of human resource services that are available.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

But clearly someone identified in your office is in charge of that responsibility. Could you provide that person's name?

You can understand that some individuals in your office are extremely reluctant to contact anyone at all in management. Could you tell us clearly and publicly the name of the person in the commissioner's office to whom these employees should be referring?

[Joe Friday]

Yes. I believe I can give that person's name.

That would be Francine St-Pierre, who is a member of our executive committee.

Mr. Chair, I would also like to clarify that if any current or former employee of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner's office wishes to come forward with concerns or issues or to pursue any avenue of recourse for any legitimate concern, or they feel they have not been able to do that, we will certainly take those seriously. We will respond to them while respecting the right to due process of all individuals.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

My other question pertains to the way the department operates. I am asking you this question because I have made several ATIP requests.

In your opinion, if the commissioner were aware of ATIP requests, would there be any system within the commissioner's office in order to identify sensitive requests? Over the past few months, we have learned that such a system exists within PWGSC and several other departments. Was the commissioner aware of ATIP requests submitted by employees who had made complaints?

[Joe Friday]

I am not aware of any outstanding ATIP requests at the moment, Mr. Chair.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

No, but does the commissioner's office have a system that identifies and brings to the commissioner's attention ATIP requests about sensitive files, such as those involving employees who have allegedly made a complaint?

Did you try to obtain those ATIP requests?

[Joe Friday]

I am not aware of any such system to red flag or identify sensitive requests, Madam.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

All right.

I am satisfied with your answer.

I have another question. I am certain that, in February, when you accepted the Department of Justice mandate to act as the general counsel, you did not expect to find yourself in a situation such as the one we have here today.

Over the past months and during the period covered by the investigation, did you participate in the analysis of the various complaints covered by the audit we are discussing today? Did you make any decisions or provide advice with respect to those investigations?

[Joe Friday]

Do you mean advice with respect to what we will do with the review?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I think it's just a straightforward question, but time's up. If you want to give an answer, that will be fine. Rather than asking her for another question, I'm going to have to get you on a second round, Mr. Friday. Otherwise we'll be here all morning just trying to get to that question.

[Joe Friday]

I'm not sure I understood the question, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Perhaps Madam Faille might rephrase it or her colleague might do so in the second round, if you don't mind.

Ms. Faille, you have already gone well over your time.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

The question was quite straightforward. He was the director general of investigations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Yes, that is why I asked him the question.

Would you like to answer now, yes or no?

[Joe Friday]

I believe the answer is yes, if I understand the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for your attendance today.

What most of us and the public at large are having trouble understanding is how we got to this point without something triggering an action. To quote from the AG report, the starting point of this was:

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada (PSIC) was created in April 2007 to provide a means for federal public servants and members of the public to disclose potential wrongdoing in the federal public sector.

The upshot of all of this is that within that office there were people who wanted to whistle-blow and who ended up being victims of the very types of actions that the office was created to give employees protection from.

Therefore, the obvious question is, how did we get to this point without something triggering a review, a red flag, something to say to someone, including politicians, somewhere within this whole system, what should have happened, what should have happened and didn't happen, and what is an area that we need to create? I know the Auditor General talked about a meeting of officers of Parliament in the new year, and I'd like to hear about that. Specifically, how did we get to this point without any flags being raised at all until we were in crisis?

You're on the time, sir.

[Joe Friday]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure I can satisfactorily answer the question of how we got to where we are within the structure that exists. The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act does provide a means for complaints or disclosures about our office to go directly to the Auditor General, and that is indeed what triggered this process. I would expect that it was anticipated to be a way of addressing any issues to ensure external review or access to external review of concerns within the office itself.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm going to go to Mr. Nelson. Are you the head of the audit committee?

[Michael Nelson, Chair, Audit Committee, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada]

I am the head of the external audit committee.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You're head of the external audit committee. For us in public accounts, one of the first lines of defence against any potential wrongdoing or inappropriate behaviour is an audit within a department. Could you tell us how it got by you?