Evidence of meeting #41 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 know.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)) Liberal Joe Volpe
Colleagues, good afternoon. I want to wish each and every one of you a Happy New Year.
Even though we're now already officially into the second month, I think it's still fair to wish everybody a happy new year. Irrespective of partisan strife, it's a sincere one.
And for some of you who are going to be celebrating it twice in a couple of days, that will be okay too, right? Why not?
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Oh, I see; it's in anticipation of.
Colleagues, I thought I'd bring you up to date on the things that have happened over the course of the Christmas break.
As you can see, we do not have Madam Ouimet before us, even though, as you know....
For your consideration, I'll just review some of the facts for you.
On December 10 and December 13, the clerk made a phone call and left a message for Madame Ouimet. We did not get a response to that. We went ahead with the meeting, as you will recall, and at that meeting we had some discussion about how we were going to proceed.
Without going into the detail of these notes, I went through the Hansard again just to refresh my memory for accuracy purposes. There were members around the table who suggested that we'd do whatever we could do to direct her to appear.
What I did on your behalf is that I sent the letter by registered mail on December 16. I indicated to her that it was the committee's wish that she would appear. We sent a request to appear. I indicated to her that “It is expected that you will appear in your capacity as the former Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada.”
We gave her until January 14 to communicate that she would confirm her attendance. We left all of the appropriate coordinates--numbers, fax, e-mail, etc.
On January 12, the clerk submitted another attempt, made another attempt to speak to Madame Ouimet, and left yet another message.
The end result of all of that is a vacant chair.
So today, I guess I've been asked, on the part of some...and I've tried not to prejudge anything or anybody. But I think we're left with the same arguments that were on the table when we last left, and they are the issues that relate unfortunately personally to Madame Ouimet. She needs to be given an opportunity--I thought that was the consensus--to defend herself, so we wanted to offer her that.
Second, the issues that were raised by the Auditor General with respect to protection for--quote--“whistle-blowers” and the implementation of the Accountability Act, and the working of the commission under her guidance, are issues that needed to be addressed.
We don't have her to give us any of that indication. We don't have a response from her. We have only the Auditor General's report.
So in the interests--I thought I'd heard this as a consensus--of fairness, but also in the interests of getting to the bottom of the questions of transparency and accountability, we would have Madame Ouimet here; a suggestion was that we would move immediately to have her directed to come here. We can do that through a subpoena.
I asked the clerk to prepare the appropriate documents in the event that the committee would say that's the next step. Some people wanted us to go that step last time. I indicated that I would try this approach first, so I have.
I thought I would give you as objective a report as possible.
Mr. Saxton.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to clarify. You mentioned you had sent a registered letter, whereas I previously heard it was a priority post letter. There's a difference, I believe. Did somebody actually sign for the letter? That's the bottom line.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Normally when it's delivered they have to sign for it, if it's a registered letter.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
The post office made an effort to deliver that and was unable to deliver it. Apparently yesterday it was returned to the post office, and nobody has come to retrieve it.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
So actually we do have proof that the letter has not been delivered.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
No. Normally under those circumstances there is an indication, a document, that will be left at the resident's place saying “You have a document waiting for you at the post office”, and the person has not retrieved that document.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I don't know that we have need of a great debate. It cannot come as a surprise to her, given the attention this issue has had in the media over the last few months, that there are questions that parliamentarians would like answered here on the Hill. This does look, at first blush, like someone who is deliberately dodging and avoiding being contacted. I can't say that 100%, because I don't know, but it certainly looks like that given the circumstances and given the importance to us to ensure that whistle-blowers know they are going to be protected from whistle-blower protectors, which is sort of the “spy versus spy versus spy” aspect of this thing. I think it is quite legitimate that we would insist that she appear and answer the questions to the best of her ability, given the important public interest and, I would say, importance of the issue. If somebody can give a good reason why we shouldn't take this step, as dramatic as it is, I'm listening, but it seems to me to be pretty straightforward.
You are right, Chair. You went the extra mile, if you will, to try to be reasonable and provide an easy way for her to attend without having to go to the heavy, legal hammer of a summons, but I'm not sure, at this point, that we really have any alternative but to take that step. Hopefully she'll comply with that, and we can all get back on track.
Thanks, Chair.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Chair, at some point, things need to be clear. I cannot imagine that this woman has not, at one point or another, followed what the media is reporting or that she didn't get her messages. In my humble opinion, you really don't want to talk to us in that case. When someone holds such a senior position within government, one must answer for one's actions and answer the questions asked by parliamentarians, even if one no longer holds that position.
Earlier, I believe that you said you had asked the clerk to prepare a draft or a motion to force Ms. Ouimet to appear before the committee. I have no objection to moving that motion, if it is ready. Otherwise, we can write one, to subpoena Ms. Ouimet to come before the committee.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Thank you, Mr. D'Amours.
I wanted to give the committee members the chance to speak on this matter, before moving to a motion.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand there may be another committee that is also trying to reach the same witness. Do we know if they've had any success in approaching her?
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I spoke to the chair of the operations committee. I was reluctant to discuss it in great detail because apparently it was a steering committee, an in camera committee, and it was reported on a live blog that they decided they were not going to deal with Madame Ouimet. So I asked the chair if indeed that did transpire, since it's now in the public domain, and I asked for what reason.
The other thing I asked on behalf of the committee members here--and I hoped that he would be able to speak on behalf of his committee as well, and I was trying to be as proper as possible--I said, “Can you give me a reason why you said no?” He said because they know that our committee is dealing with it. I said okay, our committee is dealing with this--as all members will recall--because the Auditor General provided this committee with a report. We're dealing with this report and Madame Ouimet is part of that report.
If another committee is dealing with it, it must be for another reason. Their reason suggested—and I don't want to put words in anybody else's mouth—that it had to do with who appointed her and if the appointment got the appropriate vetting of the committees. They thought that because we're dealing with this, that we're trying to get hold of Madame Ouimet, they would leave it alone. Whether that committee decides at another time to revisit the issue is not something they were prepared to share with me, because, again, it was an in camera committee.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
I want to echo the comments made by my colleagues earlier with respect to the fact that the Auditor General very clearly raised some serious issues in the conduct of the commissioner. I recognize the fact that she suddenly retired, but that's no excuse. She has a clear obligation to respond to that report, particularly around the issue of the fact that there were 228 cases that were brought to her attention and no action was taken. More importantly, she clearly refuted the findings of the Auditor General in the report as well, or she disagreed with the findings as well, so it's important that we get to the bottom of this.
Millions of dollars have been spent and we've done all we can possibly do to deal with this in an appropriate manner without getting disposition. I believe Mr. D'Amours has very clearly indicated that the next step seems to be inevitable, which is that we put forward a motion to summon her to come before the committee. I think it's reasonable in the current context, because we've been very patient. It's been over a month and a half since we made those initial calls, as you alluded to earlier, and then subsequent to that we've written a letter with the intent to ask her to come before committee.
I have no desire to elevate this issue, but unfortunately it seems like we're not left with many choices. Therefore I think it's very important in terms of getting to the bottom of this and addressing some of these legitimate concerns that not only do we summons her, but we do so in a timely manner to make sure she comes before the committee and is able to address these concerns.
