Honourable senators, the Senate is resolved into a Committee of the Whole to receive Ms. Harriet Solloway respecting her appointment as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

Honourable senators, in a Committee of the Whole senators shall address the chair but need not stand. Under the Rules the speaking time is ten minutes, including questions and answers, but, as ordered, if a senator does not use all of his or her time, the balance can be yielded to another senator. The committee will receive Harriet Solloway, nominee for the position of Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, and I would now invite her to join us.

(Pursuant to the Order of the Senate, Harriet Solloway was escorted to a seat in the Senate chamber.)

Ms. Solloway, welcome to the Senate. I would ask you to make your opening remarks of at most five minutes.

Thank you, honourable senators, for providing me the opportunity to be here today and for your consideration of my nomination. I’m very grateful.

As a long-serving international public servant, I have consistently demonstrated my commitment to the rule of law, including due process and access to justice in a public service context that requires a safe space in which personnel can come forward and be heard when there are concerns that, if left unaddressed, could shake public confidence and cause a serious threat to the integrity of the public service, also casting a pall over the work environment for dedicated personnel and impeding the ability to deliver quality service that is owed to the people of Canada.

The role of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner is critical to earning and maintaining public trust in the organizations that fall under the purview of the act. The commissioner is the guardian of procedural fairness, including due process for whistle-blowers, the subjects of allegations of wrongdoing and other participants in the process with the overarching objectives of promoting an ethical public service culture and investigating and bringing to light wrongdoing in the federal public sector when it does occur.

This is a critical juncture for the office of the PSIC with the active consideration of Bill C-290 as well as the work of the external task force appointed notably to explore revisions to the act, including consideration of the 15 recommendations of the 2017 report issued by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I look forward to cooperating with the task force and to the faithful implementation of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, including any amendments that may emerge.

My career includes experience in the areas of labour relations, law and management, both nationally and internationally. I spent more than 22 years working as a senior executive in the international public sector, at the International Criminal Court, the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Co‑operation in Europe.

As a pioneer in the management of programs designed to rebuild and transform justice systems under difficult circumstances, I have successfully led numerous strategic and change management efforts. These skills will be invaluable in guiding the office through the implementation of any changes resulting from potential amendments to existing legislation.

Whilst in several positions, most notably as the legal adviser in conflict zones such as Kosovo and Central African Republic, and also as director of rule of law in the Democratic Republic of Congo, I oversaw human rights reports ensuring the accuracy of evidence-based allegations whilst considering other factors such as witness and informant protection and possible impact on broader regional security.

I have considerable international experience in developing and implementing investigations and strategies to fight crime and serious human rights violations.

As a legal adviser for sex crimes at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, I led the investigation that led to the first sex crimes conviction in an international court, the Akayesu case. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, I worked with national authorities, international partners, NGOs and communities to create and implement Prosecution Support Cells, an innovative program that seeks to provide international support to Congolese investigations on war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the uniformed national service.

Over the course of my career, I have investigated crimes and defended and prosecuted accused parties. I have worked to protect witnesses and participated in capacity-building for judges and investigators. As a result of all of these experiences, I am able to be truly neutral, impartial and fair to everyone.

If I am appointed, I will use my experience in leading multiple complex change management processes and my careful attention to the protection of all parties as a basis for the approaches taken by the commissioner’s office.

Lastly, our dedicated civil servants deserve a workplace where they feel safe and proud of the work they do. I commit to the unwavering objective of exposing wrongdoing and fostering trust in an ethical public sector for our personnel in the 134 government institutions subject to the act and for the Canadian people. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Solloway.

For our first block of 10 minutes, Senator Plett.

Thank you, chair, and welcome, Ms. Solloway. Congratulations on your nomination. Would you briefly be able to summarize the process by which you came to be here today? Did you apply for this position, or were you asked to put your name forward? Why did you seek this appointment? With whom did you interview, and what testing did you undergo?

Thank you for the question. The process began when I was looking at the Governor-in-Council website that posts all available positions, or, at least, that’s my understanding. I, quite frankly, had been looking for several years because I was interested in coming back to Canada to serve.

When I saw this position, I applied for it online. That was probably in November or December of last year. I was then called for a test, and I wrote a test. I don’t remember exactly when that was. Then, several weeks after the test, I was called for an interview. There was a panel. I don’t remember all of the people on the panel. I do remember that there was an ethics expert from one of the universities. Other than that, I don’t recall who the panel members were.

My timing may be off, but roughly two months ago or so, I did get a request to speak to Minister Fortier. We spoke for about 10 minutes. She was calling from the airport, and I was on vacation. I got the sense that she was seeking to test my French and get a sense of who I was. As I said, the whole conversation lasted about 10 minutes, and that’s about it.

I applied because, for several years, I had wanted to come back to Canada and was seeking a position where I thought I could contribute. This was certainly one, and I’m delighted to be considered. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that fulsome answer. As you have already said, the bulk of your career has been abroad — Kosovo, Vienna, The Hague, New York City, just to name a few places. What are your views, Ms. Solloway, on Canadian public service, and how have they been shaped by your work internationally?

Well, I guess I can only say that my view of the Canadian public service is probably similar to the view held internationally because, you are correct, that’s where I have been working since 1996. The world generally has a very favourable view of the Canadian public service and of Canada in general. In terms of my views, I would say I’m proud to be a Canadian, and, if selected, I would be proud to be part of the organization.

Thank you. I have no doubt that this meeting will go well, and I’m sure the follow-up will go well.

What will you do in your first 100 days as the new Public Sector Integrity Commissioner? What key priorities will you focus on, should your nomination be approved?

Over the course of my career, I have undertaken new positions at senior levels. One thing I have learned time and again is that it is very important to listen. I would be listening to the personnel in the commission as well as important stakeholders. I would be familiarizing myself with the ongoing review as well as the progress of the private member’s bill. I would just make sure I was well immersed.

I know that some people coming into a senior position promise that they will do X, Y or Z. I really think it is unwise to hastily do anything until one has a good understanding of an organization, so I will be devoting my first 100 days to making sure I do that.

Canada is far from perfect when it comes to protecting public servants who have disclosed wrongdoing. A study was released in January by the International Bar Association and the Government Accountability Project. Canada tied with Lebanon and Norway for last place. The very low number of cases that have been referred to the tribunal was particularly criticized. Canada’s Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act came into effect in April 2007. We’ve had 16 years to see what has and hasn’t worked.

As I’m sure you know, currently there is legislation before Parliament to amend this act. In your view, where do the deficiencies lie? What should we do better to protect whistle-blowers from reprisals?

Thank you again for the question. As I mentioned in my previous response, I don’t think that I’m now in a position to say what needs to be done, what is wrong with it or why. I really do have to spend some time learning more. I have read the reports to which you refer and I have read other commentaries, but I don’t think it would be prudent for me to make any pronouncements without having a better understanding of the workings of the commission.

Over the last three fiscal years, the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner has met or exceeded its service standards in all but one area. It has an annual target of completing 80% of investigations in one year or less. For the 2021-22 fiscal year, this number was 44%. Last year, it wasn’t much better, at 50%.

What are your plans? Do you have plans to increase the number of cases this office completes in one year? How would that fit into your first 100 days?

Well, once again, senator, I don’t think I’m in a position now to be able to say. I would have to be more enlightened from the inside to be able to understand what the issues might be. Once that happens, I would be in a better position to provide an opinion.

I really do regret that I’m unable at this stage to provide any advice or opinions on the question that you raise.

All right. Thank you. Madam Speaker, I’m fine. I will yield the rest of my time to the other groups.

The next 10 minutes goes to the Independent Senators Group — five minutes for both Senator Pate and Senator Dean.

Welcome, Ms. Solloway. In 2020, your predecessor outlined findings of alarming systemic problems of blatantly unlawful behaviour by employees of the Correctional Service Canada. These ranged from insubordination; harassment; posting of racist materials; preventing employees from administering medication to prisoners, including in at least one mental health centre; denigration of the work of other employees and correctional officer abandonment of post. Your predecessor found that these were not isolated incidents but, instead, systemic problems that amounted to gross mismanagement, resulting in a work environment in which a group of correctional officers were emboldened to be insubordinate and act with impunity with little or no consequence.

Inadequate action by the Correctional Service Canada created a substantial risk of significant adverse impact upon both staff and prisoners alike, amounting to danger to the life, health or safety of a person pursuant to paragraph 8(d) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

Your predecessor put in a series of recommendations which have seemingly done very little to address the culture of racism, misogyny, abuses of power and mismanagement within the Correctional Service Canada. We know that there are similar concerns in other departments as well. How do you anticipate ensuring the remediation of such issues within the Correctional Service Canada and other areas of government?

First, hearing what you describe is very disturbing, I think, for any Canadian and for any person. I have spent a large part of my career working on corrections in other countries.

In terms of what I would do about it, the commissioner, in this position, has a very specific mandate. Whatever the commissioner could do would necessarily be confined by that. In terms of what that could be, once again, until I’m there and until I see how things can be operationalized, it would be premature at this stage to say what I would do. I could tell you that I would absolutely do whatever would be within the purview of the commissioner, whatever would be legally allowed and what can be done. Obviously, these conditions are intolerable.

Based on your experience in other jurisdictions, what kinds of measures could you see being used to address the kinds of retaliatory responses that correctional authorities have shown toward their colleagues, their subordinates and to prisoners that Canada might learn from and that might benefit you in this position going forward?

Madam senator, every context is very different. The problems that exist in the Congo, for example, bear no resemblance to the problems in Canada. The governmental and other structures in Congo are very different from those in Canada.

I don’t think I can draw a direct parallel or lessons learned that would be necessarily applicable from what was done in the Congo and what could be done in Canada.

I know it sounds like I’m trying to avoid answering, but I think it is necessary to be cautious about getting ahead of myself before I have a good understanding of what the function is able to do in that context.

Based on your experience in other contexts, then, what do you see as the preferable approaches to dealing with retaliatory behaviour and to addressing the kinds of issues within a public service context that exist as I have described and that you will have the opportunity to address in your new capacity?

Again, I think that the role of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner is quite specific and has parameters within which the commissioner is meant to operate, which I know are currently under review.

I really cannot get out ahead of my skis, so to speak, and opine as to what I would do when I’m not yet there. Again, I hope to be — and, if confirmed, probably would be — back in front of you. I would be happy to provide some views at a future time, but at this time I just don’t think that I’m in a position to do that.

Well, in terms of two or three priorities, I mentioned some of them at the outset — namely, consulting with stakeholders and with the staff of the commission. I think it is important to get their views regarding how the commission works and include that in any plans going forward.

A second priority would be to collaborate with and try to support the work of the independent committee that has been established for the review of the act to facilitate their work in any way that I can. I guess those would be the two or three priorities that I would undertake.

In terms of the challenges, it’s been my experience in the international public sector — and I suspect that it is the same here — that once a decision is made about what must be done, there is generally impatience about how long it takes to implement. Communicating, explaining and ensuring that key stakeholders understand where we are — and why we are where we are — in accomplishing things will be critical.

I am a firm believer in creating a solid foundation — not building the house before the foundation is in place. When somebody wants to see their new house, they’re not that interested in the concrete that goes into the foundation; they want to see their new house. The challenge that I faced in the past is ensuring that people understand that things are progressing, but they may be underground, and they may not be seen, but the dividends will be paid when the house is built — and it will be on a solid foundation.

Thank you. There is, regrettably, a distinction between organizational change and a shifting in culture. Very often, organizations are in a position where they have to change to meet whatever the needs may be. In this case, there could be — depending on the result of the committee’s work and the debate on the bill — a need to change because the law may change, and that needs to happen. That is a nuts-and-bolts activity, and that is easier to manage than cultural change.

In regard to who is responsible for cultural change, in my view, it really is the responsibility of everybody in the public service — it is from the top to the bottom to the side; it’s everywhere. It’s all of our concern because the culture in the organization impacts all of us, and we’re also all accountable to the Canadian people. I don’t see this as one office being more accountable than the other. If everybody does their job, and does it honourably, generally speaking, the culture shifts.

Thank you very much for being here. Congratulations on your distinguished career, and thank you for your service.

I want to return to the issue of the 50% of cases that are resolved within the targeted time frame, and the 50% that aren’t. The outgoing commissioner attributed this to pandemic-related constraints, but he also talked about the lack of timely access to documents from government officials. We’ve seen a pattern in recent reports from various officers of Parliament — notably in this week’s report from the Information Commissioner — who simply are not disclosing requested information in a timely manner.

I would expect that you could draw on lots of experience, but I’d love to hear from you about how you will assert your role as the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner in order to ensure that officials appropriately understand your role as an agent of Parliament. What can we do to help you as you uphold this role?

Thank you. The answer, once again, isn’t what I could do once I’m the commissioner because I don’t know yet. Once in the job, I would be looking at the practices, as well as the legal parameters, to see what I could do.

In regard to your question about what you could do to help, from the standpoint of a civil servant, that’s music to ears because it is very true that the legislative basis for a mandate defines the limits of what any position can do.

I would say — and I’m sorry to say this once again — at this stage, I don’t know. I’m delighted that thought is being given to this, but right now, I would be happy to come back to you, if confirmed, and give you a more fulsome response when I have a better understanding of what the parameters are.

Could you confirm that you would not hesitate to come back here for help if you need it?

Well, absolutely — again, I’m not sure of the parameters regarding what I’m allowed to do and not do, but if that is permitted, you bet.

Thank you.

There was a recent focus group study of federal public servants which found that only half of them had ever heard of the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. Have you faced this in other roles: needing to raise the profile of your role within an organization that wasn’t aware of it? Is that something that you’ve had experience with, and could you give us an example?

Thank you. It was not so much within the organization, but, by way of example, when I was in the Congo, and I was hired to assist the Congolese in rebuilding their justice sector, they had no idea that I existed. The awareness raising occurred with my Congolese counterparts and colleagues — they became colleagues because we worked together very closely over a number of years. I’ve done that, and it’s important to make the overtures. One of the things that I helped them with — because it was important for their public to understand the work that they were doing to improve things — was supporting them in their efforts to gain press, for example, and also to gain international support by raising the awareness of the member states of the United Nations as to what the Congolese were doing.

I did help them with those efforts, but not specifically within my organization.

Are you a believer in “what gets measured, gets managed,” such as the 50% of people not knowing? Would that be something that you would want to take a sounding on annually, or during a regular period? Are you that type of manager where you try to find ways to determine if you are achieving success?

I am a great believer in two things: The first is data. These days, we have so many opportunities and tools to assist us in collecting data, and I’m very much a believer in data. I think that answers part of your question.

I’m also a believer — and forgive the paraphrase because I can’t remember the actual phrase, as I was told a long time ago that Nelson Mandela once said this — that not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. There’s also the intangible — when you’re working in an organization or as part of a public sector organization — that cannot be counted can also be very relevant. I’m a great believer in both.

My last question is as follows: Dr. Ian Bron, a professor at Carleton University, has extensively studied the whistle-blower regime in Canada, and he notes that there is a significant lack of trust between the federal public service and the Office of the Integrity Commissioner. He was so bold to note that many see the commissioner as serving the government more than protecting whistle-blowers, which probably has a lot to do with us finishing last in that survey of the 50 countries.

How do you set a better tone coming in, in your first 100 days? There will be some expectations. You say you’re going to listen, but listening doesn’t necessarily set a tone. Maybe it does. Could you elaborate?

Thank you. I think that listening is the start of the reset of a tone because where people do not trust, they generally do not feel heard. It starts with listening in the first 100 days, but it’s not enough to listen. One has to demonstrate in the period afterwards that the fact that someone listened could or did make a difference or did have an impact. The continuing communication after that is also critical. It’s not only in the first 100 days that you establish that kind of dialogue.

That is something that I would do after the first 100 days. I think it’s the beginning of setting the tone. It takes a while for people to trust. That’s understandable for any new person coming in. I believe I can, and I hope to earn the trust.

Thank you. Good luck in your role, and don’t forget that we’re here to help if you need us.

We’re moving to the next block of 10 minutes that will be shared equally between Senator Cordy and Senator Cardozo.

Welcome, Ms. Solloway, to the Senate of Canada. It’s nice to have you here.

Ms. Solloway, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner relies solely on the public servants’ and the public’s reporting of wrongdoings to initiate any investigation. Public servants won’t come forward unless protections from reprisals are ensured. The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is supposed to ensure protections are in place; however, it was reported that federal workers are feeling increasingly skeptical about reporting wrongdoings in the public service and they are becoming more likely to fear reprisals for whistle-blowing instead of receiving help because of things that are going on.

My question to you is what role, if any, you see for the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to foster confidence in the complaint process for public servants so that they will come forward with wrongdoings and will not feel that there will be reprisals against them.

I look at your comment to Senator Tannas that — I think I’m quoting you correctly — when people don’t trust, they don’t feel heard. How do you make the public servants feel heard when they’re telling you about concerns that they have?

Thank you. It’s not unusual for mistrust to exist in the face of wrongdoing, especially if the alleged wrongdoing is committed by a more senior member of the organization. I would add that wrongdoing can happen at all levels. Again, we need attention and communication. Nothing is worse than filing a complaint or raising an issue and then having no response, other than perhaps, “We received your email. Thank you very much,” and then nothing. Nothing is worse than that.

I would ensure that those people who do come forward are kept apprised at a reasonable interval. It can’t be necessarily every day, every week, but we would come to some kind of decision on what a reasonable interval would be, so they know what to expect. We could say, “We will get back to you in X period of time” — whatever period of time that is. At least in that way they would know that their issue has not just been put on a pile and forgotten about.

It may not change how rapidly it can be attended to. I don’t know yet. Again, I’m not there, but communication is critical.

Thank you very much for that answer. The same report that showed the lessening of public servants’ trust in the complaint process also showed that about half of the participants who took part in the focus groups on which the report was based were unaware of the existence of the Public Sector Integrity Commission. It’s a big job, but have you given any thought to how this issue could be addressed? I know you spoke several times in your previous answer about communication being extremely important, but I wonder if you could expand on that.

Thank you. Communication is extremely important. What would that look like in this context? It’s premature for me to be able to say. I don’t know what vehicles are used to communicate with members of the public service. There’s too much that I don’t know to be able to give you an answer as to what specifically I would do, but I would look for avenues of communication to reach as many as possible. It may take a little bit of time to implement, but that is one of the goals.

Thank you.

Congratulations, Ms. Solloway, on your nomination. I want to congratulate you for putting your name forward. These days, it’s not always a good idea or advisable to take on high-profile positions, so it’s all the more important that people of your experience do that.

I am going to start with a jurisdictional question. In your opinion, what is the dividing line between the investigations you would conduct and those of the Canadian Human Rights Commission? I’m thinking of cases where there are general issues, some of which are linked to systemic racism or sexism.

Thank you, senator. Once again, I would say that the parameters of each role should be and are defined in existing legislation. All measures adopted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada should be and are defined in the legislation. If there is an overlap, at that point it is a question of practices.

Since I’m not yet sufficiently familiar with how things work on the ground, I think it would be premature for me to comment.

My touchstone is always to go back to the letter of the law, the text and the intent, and then, where there are ambiguities, to seek clarification from the appropriate authorities.

Thank you. Can you comment on how, on the one hand, you will protect whistle-blowers — which is what we want you to do — but what if the whistle-blower has contravened Canadian law, either in matters of secrecy or otherwise, where the person is clearly doing something that appears to be illegal?

Again, my touchstone is always the law. I’ll always be guided by the law. I’ll always be guided by due process. I think that all those involved in the process, whether it be a whistle-blower or the person who may be accused of having done something wrong or any other witnesses or people who may be collaterally interested in the set of circumstances — the important thing is that everyone understands that there will be due process, that the law will be followed and that their rights will be respected, whilst at the same time respecting the application of the law to everyone. That is the best way forward.

The specific role of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner is not a law enforcement role, as I understand it. There are different roles defined for different institutions, and the responsibilities would be split accordingly.

Thank you. Are you aware of whether your commission can initiate investigations? I’m thinking of the example that Senator Pate mentioned. Are there any areas where there is an obvious issue, where you’re hearing a lot, but nobody comes to you with an actual complaint?

Thank you for the question. My knowledge is limited to what I have read, and it’s currently my understanding — and I stand to be corrected — that the commission does not do that. I don’t know whether any consideration is being given to that, but it’s my understanding — perhaps incorrectly so — that at this point in time that is not something that is done.

If you could give us your general thoughts about what parts of your past experience make you a good candidate for this position? I understand you’ve done investigations of various kinds. Would that be the key area of where you’ve had experience that relates to this position?

That is certainly one of them. Two of my strengths are that I’ve managed teams in a civil service environment and I also understand the complex dynamics in the civil service, so I think that those two things would serve me well here.

My legal background would also be very useful, as well as my background in labour relations, which I haven’t really highlighted, even though it was many years ago. I have a very broad background with many different aspects that could be pertinent to this job, and when I look at the law, the act and some of the reports that were done, I felt very comfortable applying for this job. I would not apply for a job that I didn’t think I could do handily, so I think it’s really the combination of my experience.

Honourable senators, the committee has been sitting for 45 minutes. In conformity with the order of the Senate, I am obliged to interrupt proceedings so that the committee can report to the Senate.

Ms. Solloway, on behalf of all senators, thank you for joining us today.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Honourable senators, is it agreed that I report to the Senate that the witness has been heard?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Honourable senators, the sitting of the Senate is resumed.