:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, committee members, I am very pleased to be here with you today to talk about my candidacy for the position of Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. It was a real privilege and a great honour to be considered for this position. So I would like to talk about my career and also share my general perspective on the duties of this important position for the public service and the government, and also, I think, for all Canadians.
[English]
By way of introduction, let me tell you a bit about myself. I come from the small village of St-Albert, Ontario, where I was born on a dairy farm to Madeleine Laflèche and the late Albert Ouimet.
I finished my primary education at the local school and then went on to le village voisin at Casselman High School. I subsequently completed my honours degree in French literature at the University of Ottawa. I then completed two Bachelors of Law, one in civil law and one in common law. I articled at a local firm with a focus on general practice. Of course, I then did my bar exams.
My husband and I have been married for 26 years, and we have two wonderful daughters.
I joined the federal public service in 1982 as a recruit of the then Atomic Energy Control Board, which is now known as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. It was a regulatory and public consultation function that I was responsible for as a junior officer. This was also my first introduction to the importance of a sound regulatory framework for the benefit of the public and the industry alike.
I then moved on as chair of the Public Service Commission Appeal Board, where I conducted inquiries into the appointment and release of public servants. This involved a quasi-judicial role in ensuring that the merit principle was adhered to when an appointment was made and that employees who were demoted or released from positions had been given a fair chance to be heard. In all cases, of course, natural justice had to be respected.
A new tribunal now embodies those same principles and responsibilities today. Sound, fair, transparent, and meritorious staffing processes are the foundation of a public service that is able to provide the best services to Canadians.
After a short term heading the regulatory affairs directorate at Revenue Canada Customs, I became the first director of the merged enforcement operations section, which included commercial fraud investigations and the drug interdiction program. Because of the rigour of the processes and the diligence of officers, we had an excellent record of prosecuting cases.
In 1992, I joined the machinery of government secretariat at the Privy Council Office. I had the privilege of serving three previous prime ministers and providing advice on the economic portfolio in the context of transitions and government restructuring. Providing guidance on the roles and accountability of senior public office-holders was also part of our ongoing responsibilities. In that context, I learned about the functioning of the government and the importance of independent advice from the public service to ensure continuity and good government.
I later served in the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada for five years, where I eventually became Assistant Deputy Solicitor General, with direct responsibility for the aboriginal policing program. I will forever treasure the honorary title that the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association awarded me, as Honorary First Nations Chief of Police.
At the end of 1999, I became CEO of Consulting and Audit Canada at Public Works and Government Services Canada. On a cost recovery basis, we offered a full range of services aimed at improving effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability.
I would come back a few years later as the associate deputy minister, and I was responsible for the restructuring of a department with more than 14,000 employees. I was very much involved in the department’s new values and ethics action plan in 2004, and I was also involved in resolving a variety of operational issues.
Prior to that, I served as executive director of the Immigration and Refugee Board, post September 11. During that period, a very successful alternative dispute resolution model was developed by our immigration division.
I know this is of interest to some of the committee members. I know that alternative dispute resolution is key for the sound operation of administrative tribunals, which are set up specifically to render justice more quickly and more simply than traditional courts in specialized fields.
Finally, I have a few comments about my current position as associate deputy minister at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. My role has been to support the deputy minister as he or she sees fit on a variety of issues. I've been involved more recently in corporate issues dealing with employee unions, grievances, diversity issues, and human resources strategies. I was also charged about a month ago by the new deputy minister with the role of champion for values and ethics.
One might say that I've had an eclectic career. But I think the common thread has been a desire to serve and to make a contribution in the public interest. I believe my legal background has served me well, especially in a quasi-judicial environment that is of course similar to the office of the Integrity Commissioner. I feel very privileged to be considered for the position of Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.
I have examined the new provisions of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to assess the tasks that lie ahead. As I see it, the intent of these new provisions is to legislate a strong regime enshrined in legislation, as was important to members of this committee, to govern the disclosure of wrongdoing in the federal public service.
The key elements are, of course, the independent body that was created, the commissioner, reporting directly to Parliament with an expanded jurisdiction; the authority for the commissioner to report on investigation findings and make recommendations when wrongdoing is established and to make special reports to Parliament; and a clear prohibition against reprisal action against complainants.
There's added protection to potential complainants offered by the creation of a tribunal to which the commissioner can apply, and there are a number of other sets of legal provisions, such as legal assistance, protected disclosure. But I know the committee is well versed in the contents.
In due course, I would propose to examine carefully the relationships between the role of the commissioner and those of other oversight bodies and parliamentary agencies and even internal functions, but again, I'll be guided by the legislative framework in the act.
The position of Integrity Commissioner is one that carries with it the trust and confidence of Parliament. Simply put, the essential role of the commissioner and the office will be to give effect to an act whose purpose is to encourage employees of the public sector to come forward if they have reason to believe that serious wrongdoing has taken place and to provide protection to them against reprisal when they do so. The goal is a system that is fair, accessible, and allows justice to be served. More importantly, the goal is to protect the public interest.
[Translation]
Throughout my career, I have had the privilege to serve Canadians in very different roles. I am honoured to be considered for the position of Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. I believe it is a role that will help to enhance the reputation of the public service, by providing transparency and openness for anyone who feels they have been wrongfully treated. I may come from humble beginnings, but where I come from, honesty and sincerity really matter. I am proud to remember that my father was always seen as a man of great integrity. That was his trademark, and he was renowned for it not only in our small community but in neighbouring villages as well.
I would serve as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner in his memory, and with great humility and pride, if your committee and Parliament entrust me with that honour.
Thank you.
:
Thank you, Chair, and thank you to Madame Ouimet.
It's an interesting resumé, and I took note of your experience with Customs. My father was a career public servant with Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise, and he retired just as you began there. So it's an interesting background. I think you have some skills that are well suited for the position, and I am glad we have passed the legislation and that we're moving on, because I honestly believe there were gaps in the previous legislation.
I was wholeheartedly supportive of the changes in Bill because some things needed to be changed, and I think the tribunal was one. I think it was important to have a clear pathway for public servants to be able to go where they'll have a speedy resolution, or as quickly as possible, and I was concerned the previous legislation was putting them into a process that would have been problematic and wouldn't have a speedy resolution. Certainly when we had testimony at committee, it was clear there was a huge backlog with the previous remedy. So I'm glad to see we have the dual pathway in the present legislation, and I fully support that.
Being in Ottawa and connected to a lot of people in this community, I have had the opportunity to know many whistle-blowers. First of all, were you aware, or were you involved at any time with a case, which is well known in this town and indeed across the country, of Dr. Chopra, Dr. Hayden, and Lambert? Do you know the case they have currently, and were you involved in any way with their situation? You probably are aware they were dismissed in 2004 and currently are fighting their case. I know it doesn't have any effect or bearing on what your position would be—it wouldn't be affected by this legislation—but I'm just curious if you knew about their case or had any involvement with it at all.
I asked you that so I could move on from there, and so that there is no conflict. That was the reason for my question.
In my opinion, their case is one where they did the right thing and, sadly, were dismissed as a result.
In the case of Mr. Chopra, it was not once but a couple of times. He's like a hamster on a wheel. Every time he gets put back into his position, he is then dismissed. His case, including that of Madam Hayden and Monsieur Lambert, is worthy of looking at for your purposes. People who were doing the right thing, in this case protecting Canadians' health, spoke up, paid the price, and are still paying the price.
It would be a case for you to examine, and it would be helpful, because we still have—and I encourage my colleagues on the government side to help you with your job—to mop up the previous cases, so that we can move on and have a clean slate. That is critically important, and I encourage them to do that.
But I encourage you to look at their case because it is helpful. There's no question that it's complex, but it is a textbook case in terms of what happens when people blow the whistle—in this case, there were three people—and then are dismissed, in the most recent case without cause.
I also want to reference Mr. Jeewanjee, because he was in a similar circumstance, working for CIDA. He did some critical analysis on the program review of what CIDA was doing. He was isolated and didn't get promoted, i.e., he was set aside. He is fighting his case right now. That is another one to look at.
I want to turn to the legislation, because it is fairly prescriptive, and I think that is helpful. One of the areas, if you look at the parameters—There was a debate at committee, and I believe with the previous legislation, on what to do with the RCMP.
If your appointment is successful—and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be, from my perspective, but it has to go through Parliament, of course—it is interesting to look at the present legislation and what's happening right now with the RCMP. We have legislation that allows for members of the RCMP to come forward, but they have to go through the chain of command and the processes within the RCMP first. I would like your comment, as obviously you can't do anything other than comment.
As I see it, the dilemma is that presently we have a lack of confidence in the RCMP's chain of command. If you will, the chain is broken. Mr. Poilievre's questioning was helpful here. You will have the powers to investigate, subpoena, and bring people forward.
Have you looked at this facet of the legislation—in other words, at how the RCMP is affected, and how members of the RCMP would be able to come forward and be protected if they want to disclose? We have seen a couple of people bring forward their issues in committee—not this committee—but I'm really concerned. I happen to know that there are an awful lot of others who would like to do so, but they don't feel that they can, because they feel vulnerable.
I would like your comment on what you have observed. Vis-à-vis the legislation, how do you see it working with the RCMP—if you've had time to look at it? I appreciate the fact that you might not have had the time.
:
Certainly, Madam Chair.
I would perhaps start with the letter. First, it was a misnomer. I should have referred to the public sector as opposed to the public service. Throughout my experience, when I was dealing with crown corporations, I obtained a very good understanding of their role and the importance as well of delivering either policy or programs.
I think that the education, prevention, and training—I believe this was discussed as well in committee, if I'm not mistaken, as to who should have the role. Certainly now the newly named Canada Public Service Agency presently has a role, along with Treasury Board, with respect to education and training, and this is very important to maintain as the employer.
But like any tribunal—I mean, the Supreme Court of Canada has been reaching out through its chief justice—not that I compare myself to the Supreme Court, but general courts and general tribunals want to make known what the mandate is, what is the transparency, what is the openness, and as well, to try to reach out to a very diverse group of people who deliver services to Canadians, to try to improve the way they do so and try to come to terms with issues that may happen in the workplace.
So this is in the most general terms of making known the role and mandate of this new institution and, as well, not to work in isolation. That would be my first comment, Madam Chair.
The second one has to do with alternative dispute resolution. So it is in that context that I would have referred to a supervisor taking remedial action. In the context of a process, a mediated approach, you always look for recognition that either a wrong has been committed or a mistake has been made, and often I have found that lack of communication was definitely key, either on the part of the complainant or on the part of the respondent. Often we come to a resolution of those issues in a variety of situations that could arise.
I think I'll leave it at that.
:
There is just one last area, and I think it's important.
I recall over so many years dealing with this issue of anonymity. Anonymity is an extremely important aspect, and I think we've taken all possible steps. I remember that we recognized that in small agencies or departments, if a matter should come out, chances are it was readily apparent who would have been the whistle-blower, and that there are some reasonable and possible protections for that person, even to transfer out.
The other aspect that was an extremely sensitive matter was the issue of the confidence level of those in the public service, as defined in the legislation, that the process would work, that it would be fair, and that there would be integrity of the office. And in fact the cynicism with regard to the public service renewal process followed through with the whistle-blower. There was a tremendous amount of cynicism.
I raise that as a preamble because I note in your resumé that you are basically, and have been since the early nineties, management. The people and the cases that have come forward have not come from management, they have come from people below the positions you have held.
Do you see the positions from which you are coming being an issue in regard to whether or not the public service, as defined, will have the confidence in you, as the new commissioner, to be able to discharge the responsibilities in a fair and effective fashion?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In fact, I would refer back to, first, my oath of office with respect to being a lawyer; and secondly, that very early in my career I had the opportunity to operate in a quasi-judicial environment. I think I've established credibility as a neutral entity, because not only must justice be done but it must appear to be done.
I've also acted, as I referred to, in a lot of situations of alternative dispute resolution, and I gave a few examples. I think that, first, it would be recognized by virtue of the function of the agent of Parliament, which is an extension of Parliament, that the incumbent has to be guided by the framework of the legislation, and this is the ultimate guide.
In the end, I truly believe that the vast community of both the public sector per se and public service want to see this legislation go forward and want to raise the credibility of and confidence in the delivery of services to Canada, and this brings further transparency and openness.
I would like, as well, to leave this clear message to the committee, should they support my candidacy: I would absolutely deliver the functions of that role in a very diligent and impartial and neutral way. I think you would not expect any less.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Ouimet, we have highlighted numerous problems that will be requiring your attention, starting with the 60 days worth of protection provided by the act—which is far too little—and the $1,500 provided for legal fees, which is also far too little, given that, as you are probably aware, today's lawyers charge $150, $200 or even $300 an hour just to hear a case.
I would like to come back to what Mr. Poilievre was saying earlier. In 99% of cases, whistle blowers are not acting out of malice—they are not abusing the system or making frivolous complaints. When employees make complaints, it is because they are genuinely concerned about potential conflict with the code of ethics to which they are bound as public service employees. Starting from the premise that there will be huge numbers of frivolous cases is, to my mind, starting out on the wrong foot. In spite of all the problems that employees can face, there does not seem to have been much whistle blowing thus far. This is because complaints are often handled by people who do not understand what these employees are going through. Employees think twice before making a complaint. The officer who handles the complaint should be very understanding, should listen to all that the person has to say, and should be independent of the Treasury Board and the public service, because Treasury Board and the public service are the enemies of whistle blowers. Whistle blowers are putting their jobs on the line. We therefore need an ethics commissioner who is willing to go see them in their place of work and who is able to inspire trust. Yes, there may well be many legitimate complaints, but I do not think that there will be many career-damaging complaints because public service employees think these matters through first.
That is what I wanted to say, Madam Chair.