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.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Mr. Friday, Monsieur D'Amours must be looking for a matrix. I know you're probably going to say we have to respect the Privacy Act, and everybody expects you to do that, but is there some way to get a matrix that reflects his request?
12:25 p.m.
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
I think it's essential to respect the confidentiality requirements of our work. The very nature of our work depends on confidentiality. People will only come forward if they feel comfortable doing so confidentially.
I can look at producing a breakdown of the types of cases and the types of--
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Friday, I'll make life easier for you. There are six questions, and the name of the person who determined the validity of the complain is the only piece of information that could be more sensitive. Tell us what level the person is at, or if it is really a problem, just disregard that question and answer only the five others, which do not raise any confidentiality issues since they do not involve disclosing any names. Only the dates and the nature of the complaints need to be disclosed. They can be described in general terms. It does not have to be very specific. It is important for us to have that information.
In conclusion, let me address the Auditor General.
Ms. Fraser, the Canadian population and the public service are currently—
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
I'm trying to understand how this helps the committee in our current consideration--and it doesn't.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I'm not going to rule it out of order just yet. I think Mr. Friday can probably give us an indication. I've given him an opening already. If it can't be done under the privacy regulations, that's fine.
I think it's okay for Mr. D'Amours to ask a question. It's up to Mr. Friday to give him a response that he can or cannot use.
Mr. Friday.
12:30 p.m.
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We can provide the information we have that does not involve violating our confidentiality provisions or the legislative provisions respecting personal or confidential information.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
I cannot imagine that providing the date when a complaint was submitted could raise a confidentiality problem. So I am asking you to send us that information, Mr. Friday. If I am not satisfied, we will discuss it again.
Mr. Chair, let me finish with a question for the Auditor General.
We know that the people, as well as the public service, may have serious concerns about the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. At the Canada Revenue Agency, there are also incidents that have to do with companies such as construction firms and so forth.
Considering the way in which things developed with regard to your report, do you agree with me that even today, any employee of the public service would still hesitate to call on the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to indicate things are not working well in the system?
12:30 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Mr. Chair, I find that to be a very harsh judgment.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
She's just giving the answer. Let her. She just says it's a
very harsh judgment.
She can stop there, no problem.
12:30 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
We see that an acting commissioner was appointed today and that he will begin on Monday. Mr. Friday has already said that there would be an external review. We therefore note that measures have been taken to restore the credibility of the office. It is my hope that people will continue respecting the mandate of the office and submitting complaints or allegations, if they have any.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
The least we can say is that the perception is bad.
12:30 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
I cannot answer that.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.
I'd like to follow up on that one just a little bit. Obviously, when something goes wrong, you try to fix it. I commend you for the actions you've taken, because it is all about people having confidence in public institutions, and you're taking strong action in that direction. I commend you for that.
Moving forward, Mr. Friday, are there clear criteria for what constitutes grounds for an investigation when you get a complaint? Are there clear criteria for that? How many people would look at that to make that judgment? How much objectivity or subjectivity is applied, and do you see changes as a result of what's happened, or just changes to your normal process to what those criteria might be?
12:30 p.m.
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
We would be guided, Mr. Chair, by the provisions of the act, first and foremost. For example, the wrongdoing must occur within the public sector as defined. The public sector has particular inclusions and exclusions in that definition. For example, the Canadian Forces are not included in the definition, nor is the Canadian Security Establishment or CSIS.
A wrongdoing can come from a member of the public as well. It still must be within the public sector. A reprisal can be made only by a public servant or a former public servant.
The definition of wrongdoing in the act is also a filter, if you will, for us to determine where we can act. Our guidance comes from the act itself. We then have the review function that I explained earlier, including opinions, other information, and guidance that we've developed to guide people through that process.
On the file management and documentation front, which the Auditor General's report has clearly indicated is problematic, we have begun to take steps as well in that regard. Prior to the issuance of the report, we do have documentation standards, timeframes, and clearly defined roles and responsibilities.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
So it's a pretty objective process rather than being subjective?
12:35 p.m.
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
I think it's objective, and it has also, Mr. Chair, contributed to a number of different levels. It's not that one person has a file next to another person who has a file and they undergo two different processes. The tracking and review process is consistent.
Mr. Chair, if I can add, this past summer we actually went through a rather extensive process mapping exercise to ensure that the number of times a file is touched by any given person in any given role is both appropriate and adequate, but also will result in as efficient a process as possible.
It's very important for us to do that, as the number of complex investigations increases. We do have some very complex and lengthy investigations under way right now, involving multiple allegations, multiple disclosures, and different types of wrongdoing sometimes within the same file.
The processes are designed to support a timely review, keeping in mind, of course, that we're directed by our act to be as informal and expeditious as possible.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I understand.
Madam Fraser, you talked about a couple of changes that you would see in the act. I know you're not in the business of writing legislation, but would you see those as relatively straightforward and simple or complex? And you said you were looking at others. Do you have any hint of what some of those others might be, or the scope of the situation?
12:35 p.m.
Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Just to clarify, Chair, we have not done a review of the act. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to do that. I think the office and others, obviously, have commented. There have been comments in newspapers and elsewhere about issues within the act.
We started to do the investigation under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and realized, first of all, we could not deal with allegations of reprisal, because only the commissioner can do that. Secondly, it precluded us from speaking to former public servants, which of course was very important. So those were two issues that we saw in doing this work. I'm sure the office may already have a list of things they would like to see reviewed in this.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Friday is smiling. Could I ask if you're developing a list of those, and do you think they'll be fairly straightforward, or are they going to be fairly complex?
12:35 p.m.
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
Mr. Chair, we are working on a list. We have actually a leading expert in the administrative law field in Canada who is an adviser and member of our team, and who is spearheading that from a technical legislative amendment perspective. We also have a project under way to assess and measure performance under the act from more of a policy perspective. So we do have a review project under way.
That review will not be ours, of course. Under the act, it will be an independent review under the direction of the Treasury Board Secretariat. But we do have a working list of amendments that we are putting together and discussing.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I know you can't be very definitive, but is there any kind of a timeline on that?
12:35 p.m.
Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada
We are aiming, Mr. Chair, to support the five-year review. It's a five-year review defined by the act. So that would be April of 2012. We are I think well under way in at least putting together our more technical amendment issues at this time. Some of the other issues going to performance measurement are more difficult to do in a shorter period of time because they don't allow you to have the same window, if you will, to take that measurement. But we are looking at being as ready as we possibly can be to support the five-year review exercise.