Evidence of meeting #40 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
It is a reduction. And people are coming and people are staying. There have been a number of people who have been with the organization for more than two years and three years.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I know my time is up.
Thank you, Mr. Friday.
Thank you, Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Thank you.
I think maybe it's time for Madam Fraser and/or Mr. Friday to just clarify something for the committee.
I think on a couple of occasions, and just recently, Madam Fraser, you indicated that there didn't seem to be a clear process for establishing a mandate. Mr. Friday, I think, in responding to a particular question, talked about an informal process. Madam Fraser, on three separate occasions, indicated that agents of Parliament value their independence and sometimes defend it, and rightly so. But they operate under a mandate that's pretty clear and that people can understand.
Mr. Friday, give us a little bit of confidence that such a mandate does exist formally.
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The mandate is set out in our legislation. We exist as one body with two arms of operation. One is the acceptance, review, investigation, and reporting to Parliament of founded cases of wrongdoing. The other is the acceptance, review, and investigation of complaints of reprisal, which can then be referred to the tribunal I mentioned earlier.
That mandate, I think, is clearly set out in the legislation. There are specific practical issues also set out in the legislation. For example, if another process is already under way, we are barred from acting on it. If, for example, in a reprisal case, a complainant has filed a grievance, we cannot act on it. So there's a structure, certainly, within the act, that goes to what we can and can't do, and there are certain procedural issues as well. Also, there are indications in the act, for example, that we are to conduct all our investigations on both reprisals and disclosures as expeditiously and as informally as possible.
That has resulted, in my view, and based on my experience, in a very high number of cases that we do not deal with for any of those reasons. For example, if we feel that the Human Rights Tribunal or the Human Rights Commission would be more appropriate, we would not seek to duplicate the Human Rights Commission's process. Rather, we would respect that and try to avoid duplication of process, expense, and the possibility of conflicting decisions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
That would be even though the intent of the legislation was essentially to protect employees of government as they would come forward with respect to any wrongdoing within government.
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
Yes, it is wrongdoing as defined in the act. But the commissioner is given discretion to determine whether another more appropriate process is available. And she is, as I say, prohibited from acting if another process is actually engaged. That, plus the definition of wrongdoing, as it exists, and the size of our office, could support the argument that we weren't created to be all things to all people. Rather, we exist to deal with those rare cases of serious wrongdoing, in the public interest, that we investigate and report on in the public interest.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Thank you.
And thank you, witnesses, for being a part of today's forum.
Mr. Friday, I'm going to go back to an earlier discussion. Actually I've worked in a small municipal office, and when one has 22 employees, it actually just amazes me, because I can tell you that in an office of 22, very much is known about a lot of things, about a lot of people. It's just the way it is.
What I'm hearing now is that actually that didn't happen. You had 50% of your people quitting for whatever the reason, and flags didn't seem to be flying up. One person is carrying the load here, quite honestly--the commissioner. But having had access to those types of situations...a little more responsibility usually falls beyond just the one person. Did no one speak?
And secondly, though it was a union environment for the employees--to follow up on the Auditor General's comments, did they go to the union? Was the union non-responsive in terms of their queries? If they didn't go to the internal people to say, “Mr. Friday, we've got a problem here, and these are the issues that are coming up”, then did they go to their union? Unions are actually supposed to be there to help support them and to carry on their issues and take their grievances, and all that sort of thing. But quite honestly, in this report I'm not reading about any of that. There has to be some sort of a tie-in. I need to understand whether this person had such an iron thumb or was so dictatorial that actually people were just afraid and they didn't speak.
Secondly, in terms of the guidelines, the three years--and this may go back to the Auditor General, Madam Fraser. We have drafts. Those likely are thought of being in place in some way on a daily basis. Do those guidelines have to be invented? Can the guidelines be brought from other areas within...concerns of departments in terms of how we're going to treat people, how the process is going to work? Would they have had to be invented? Or can they be incorporated and brought in?
Three years, to me, is another issue. I just don't understand that long timeline.
I'll leave those questions because I want to get an answer to them.
I'll start with Mr. Friday, and then to you, Auditor General.
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not aware of any formal grievance that was filed in our office.
I can't really speak on behalf of the unions, of the role of the unions. I can say that the unions are a community that we have reached out to and made presentations to. And I can tell you that in some of our investigative work, it is not uncommon for us to have someone who we would be talking to--either making a disclosure or even in the course of an investigation--having union representation.
With respect to internal guidelines on human resources and human resources management, we do have our human resource services provided externally because we are such a small office. We don't have internal capacity. We pay for that and we get good service and we do have access to labour relations experts. We have, for example, the internal conflict management system policy in place that is government-wide and someone who is occupying the role of officer in that regard.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Chair, just briefly, the guidance we were looking at was with relation to the allegation concerning the carrying out of the mandate. So we were looking to see if there was guidance to staff on how to conduct investigations and that sort of thing.
We didn't get into the broader guidance that may have existed for human resource management.
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Auditor General, I believe you said you're going to be meeting with officers in January. Do you see, coming from that, some direction, recommendation, proposal that could be brought forward, obviously before the six months, in terms of the selection process?
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
No. We would be looking more at our accountability to Parliament and how we can provide assurance to parliamentarians and the public around the management of our office and around the conduct of carrying out our mandate.
I really think the whole question of appointments and the process that goes to that should go to senior personnel at Privy Council Office. They are the ones who do the vetting and the process there.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Friday, earlier you said that you were hired in February 2008. I would like to know the percentage of files that you may have worked on, in order to do evaluations or make recommendations.
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
Are you asking how many files I have personally given advice on?
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
I would have to review the numbers carefully.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
It could be between 0% and 10% or between 10% and 20%. We could even simplify the matter and say that it was somewhere between 0% and 25% or between 25% and 50%. You must have some idea of the percentage involved. We are not talking about 25,000 files here. I am asking you to express the number as a percentage rather than in units in order to make things easier for you.
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
I'd estimate about half the files.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
You made recommendations or assessed the process in 50% of the cases?
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
If I can explain--
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Just a moment. You are talking about 50% of the files. Subsequently, were all those recommendations or suggestions, however you refer to them, respected?
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
I cannot think of a case in which the recommendation was not accepted. The process of coming up with a recommendation, as I tried to explain earlier, involves a number of stages and steps, debate, discussion--
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Friday, given that you are still acting and that you are appearing today, I would like you to send us an exact list indicating the date that each complaint was received by the commission, from the beginning, the nature of the complaint, the name of the person at the office who determined the validity of the complaint, the date on which the decision was sent out, the date when and the reason why the complaint was dismissed, as well as the repercussions of the decision, if applicable. We are talking about 6 questions, at least with regard to the 228 files. No case has been specifically named.