Evidence of meeting #50 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 every.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)) Liberal Joe Volpe
Order. Thank you, colleagues.
Monsieur Plamondon seeks the floor on a point of order.
3:30 p.m.
Bloc
Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC
With the consent of the committee, I would like the witness to be sworn in before she makes her statement, please.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Is that normal practice? We should follow normal practice.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
If the committee agrees, we'll go ahead and do it.
Do I see a consensus?
3:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:30 p.m.
Christiane Ouimet Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
I, Christiane Ouimet, do swear that the evidence I shall give in this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me God.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Chairman, I believe there are some members of the press in the room.
3:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
We agreed that they would be there for just a minute or two.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g) and a motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, December 9, 2010 regarding the report of the Auditor General of Canada on the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, we have appearing before us today Ms. Christiane Ouimet.
She is the former commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada.
By agreement of the committee, she is accompanied at the table by her counsel, Mr. Whitehall, but Mr. Whitehall is not a witness and is not going to be answering any questions. Madame Ouimet may consult with him as she feels the need to do so, but he is not answering any questions.
Secondly, I remind all colleagues around the table that the witnesses enjoy the same immunities that we would enjoy in Parliament. I think both Madame Ouimet and Mr. Whitehall understand what that means. There are no legal consequences to what Madame Ouimet may say.
Madame Ouimet, since the Auditor General delivered a rather harsh report in respect of the Public Sector Integrity Commission last December, Canadians have been waiting for about three and a half months to hear your side of the story. Please start.
3:30 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Parliament appears to have accepted outright, without any dispute, the Auditor General's report. The simple act of my being here today to express my serious reservations may perhaps be viewed as being inappropriate, but the purpose of my statement today is specifically to point out the significant flaws and mistaken observations that undermined my reputation personally and that of my office.
I am pleased to be here to discuss a report that, essentially, deals with labour relations and four of my decisions. I will focus specifically on the four decisions mentioned in the report. I would also like to talk to you about the rigorous approach, control measures and very detailed procedures that were implemented under my leadership.
To the members of the committee, I would explain that I have spent eight years serving Canadian public institutions. I myself have made decisions as part of an administrative tribunal, I have managed commercial fraud programs throughout Canada and I have led audit teams to improve organizations. When I was with the Immigration and Refugee Board, I developed the chair's plan to eliminate a backlog of 55,000 files. I received the honorary title of chief of aboriginal police in acknowledgement of my leadership. As the Associate Deputy Minister for Public Works, I reorganized a department of 14,000 employees at a time when the sponsorship file was an issue. I went back to my roots, at Agriculture Canada, to help needy farmers.
In 2007, with the support of the two Houses, I accepted the position of integrity commissioner. Today I am very proud to say that I have left behind a professional institution that has expertise in administrative investigations that is unique in Canada and has a staff of very high calibre individuals. When I left my position, 15 serious investigations were under way.
I must say, unequivocally, that I have serious problems with the report, which must be read bearing in mind the terms of reference that I will explain to you.
We took the legislation the way Parliament has given it to us. We took a very complex piece of legislation, and I had to institute an organization able to deliver the very complex mandate and have the procedures and the level of controls in place. I have produced a document at l'Université Laval that gives the genesis of the office, the complexity, the challenges.
Essentially, the act prohibited us from intervening if there was another process ongoing. We weren't there as a replacement of another organization or to implement court decisions. We were also limited in our action if there was a venue more appropriate. We had official languages complaints, we had privacy complaints, but we sat down with the appropriate jurisdictions—and rightfully so—if they said this was their jurisdiction.
We also had a long list of criteria to examine—good faith, whether it was sufficiently important—but in the end, we dealt with the disclosures that came to us, the reprisals, in addition to more than 100 disclosure regimes across Canada.
I should add as well that I think there's a profound misunderstanding of the work we were doing. The roughly 200 cases that keep being referred to were in fact subject to very extensive probes, what is called pre-investigations. In fact, my former deputy commissioner, who is an expert in administrative law, looked at the legislation. We had a duty of fairness to ensure that we did not prematurely launch an investigation and affect the reputation of people who are accused and raise expectations.
Essentially those probes involved interviews, documentary evidence, analysis of facts. We spent weeks, months, and occasionally years to look at those probes, and every one was documented thoroughly. At the end of the day, I am proud to say that there was consensus in all of the cases brought forward. I never had to overturn a single decision or recommendation.
I also implemented, from the first day I arrived, procedures to deal.... I fundamentally disagree that there were no procedures. I understand, Mr. Chair, that you got reports of all the procedures that were prepared by the institution. I haven't received a copy, but I'll give you just one example.
On December 13,
the procedures guide was completed.
It was very extensive, and while it carries the word ébauche, right in the body of the document it says:
“The rules contained in this guide are provisional.”
The “provisional” is because you have to gain experience.
Based on my extensive experience in managing investigations, the first thing you do is you have your rules of practice. We have checklists for every reprisal case because this was our exclusive jurisdiction. We had org charts. We had tracking systems. We also had, at my request, operational procedures developed. I hired a former senior official from the RCMP who had extensive experience in managing the policy that proceeded from my legislation. We had in fact consigned to that procedure a number of policies. For instance, how do you deal with senior officers? What are the timelines? Essentially, there was just about every possible tool that could be used. As I was leaving, similar to what I had done at the Immigration and Refugee Board, we had the mapping of how decisions were made and all the cross-checks that were done.
In addition, after decisions were made, I had quality control by my deputy commissioner, and also a former DG of audit, who did the review for file completeness. As a result of legal services reviewing files, we reopened the file, because we're not above making mistakes, but we wanted to make sure the process was solid.
One other major misconception: the tribunal. It was still early days, but I delegated under the act the review of every single reprisal case to my deputy commissioner to ensure that we had looked at them very carefully. There's a very stringent test under the act. There has to be a link between the reprisal and the disclosure. In the end, no cases met the test, but there's also one other important factor, and it's called conciliation. Under the act, conciliation is one of the venues that Parliament has given us. Most parties would prefer an informal conciliation process in order that their identity not be disclosed in front of a public hearing by the tribunal.
We compared very well. On checks and balances, I would refer to my presentation. Given that this is the accounts committee, we have exemplary financial controls and governance systems.
Very quickly, about human resources, when I took over, I inherited an administrative unit that had been operating for five years with its own way of operating. I was told that a few players were not very eager to have my leadership. In fact, there was somebody acting in the job who was very disappointed. And I was told in June that no briefing material would be prepared for me in August. The complainant who has gone into the news has indicated he became very furious on my appointment, regrettably. He refused to provide any information of substance on the investigations he had conducted previously and those that were before our organization. He had been promised an executive position without competition, like others. I must say that some members were very professional and very helpful. But at the end of the day, as a result of an exchange requesting information, he left, and the performance issue became a big concern. I could not give him performance...based on the advice of the human resources agency.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I'm going to have to interrupt you there. I had indicated to Mr. Whitehall, and I'd already consulted with colleagues, that I would use the chair's discretion to give you a little bit of extra time. Now we've gone way over that extra time.
Thank you for your presentation.
Before I turn to questions, the document that you referred to is one that we received in our offices today. I understand that's for public consumption, if that is asked for. Committee members have received it.
I'm going to go to Mr. D'Amours for the first round. You have seven minutes.
3:40 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, have all the members received our extensive statement and the attachments?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
My understanding is that yes, everybody has it in both official languages.
3:40 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
Thank you very much. This is very helpful. I apologize.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Madam Ouimet, for being here with us this afternoon. You quit. Why? Were you pushed out of your job?
You resigned from your position. Did someone push you to do this, or were there other reasons?
3:40 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, I was the subject of an unprecedented investigation that lasted more than two years. Every aspect of the organization that I led came under scrutiny and we answered every question asked. My email was reviewed, documents were delivered to my residence. I received documentation on December 22 and on December 29, and I was only given a few weeks to respond. I received seven boxes of documents in June. I had to hire a lawyer in April in order to get the details of the allegations made against me. I was exhausted. It looked as though the process that had been started would never end.
In the interest of everyone, over the summer I consulted the chair of the Commission's Audit Committee. I wanted to obtain another position within the public sector. I had accumulated 28 years of service, I had only seven years of work remaining before taking my retirement. I tried to contact the Privy Council Office, which had absolutely no interest in wanting to meet with me. I continued doing my work, because I was determined to table my annual report and submit my initial cases of wrongdoing.
In August, I had to take medical leave. My family was not well and I was receiving threats, repeated threats that may have been linked to my position. Then I received, through my lawyer, a non-negotiable offer. I hesitated for some time, however, for reasons of health and because I had accomplished my mandate, namely to establish a professional institution, I decided to accept the government's offer to take an early retirement.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Ms. Ouimet, you can understand that, for the people in the riding that I represent, where the average annual salary is $26,000, half a million dollars is an amount that would take them more than 20 years to accumulate. From what I can gather, the government offered you a half-million dollars if you would leave and not bother them anymore. Is that right?
3:45 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, I lost seven years of income, seven years of pension, my reputation and my health. All public employees, soon or later receive part of this compensation. The government made me an offer: clearly, they wanted me to leave my position. I accepted the offer and I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I was severely penalized.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
I do understand, Ms. Ouimet, that you may have had some penalities as far as salary and pension are concerned. However, someone who leaves his or her job voluntarily cannot receive such sums of money. This is a personal decision.
I am going to read a paragraph to you in English.
The departure agreement holds a gag
It says, “the parties shall not engage in any criticism against each other, personally or through another person including media representatives....”
I can stop there, I am sure that you read all the terms of this agreement.
What I want to know is, what is it that the Prime Minister's Office does not want you to say?
3:45 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
Sir, let me correct the facts. I did not leave voluntarily. I left because I no longer had the choice, for reasons of health and for the well-being of both the institution and my family. I would remind you also that, when I left my position, I was receiving death threats.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
However, Ms. Ouimet, if I recall correctly, included in the documents that we received from the Prime Minister's Office is a copy of a letter of resignation dated October 7. You are in fact the one who resigned, you were not shown the door. You yourself resigned on October 7.
3:45 p.m.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, the document was signed without any initial negotiations. I accepted the wording as it was presented to me. Initially, I intended to pursue my career. I would like to assure all members of Parliament and you yourself, sir, that I am here to answer your questions and I am very happy to answer them.