Public Accounts Committee on March 10th, 2011

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

If you took that as an interpretation, I think Madame Faille wanted to ask Madame Ouimet to seek her counsel before she answered.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Did you hear the question?

[Christiane Ouimet]

There were several elements—

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

A little earlier, you said:

“My staff was called on the weekend and evenings.”

[Christiane Ouimet]

I do not recall having said that.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

You said that people from the Office of the Auditor General called on weekends and evenings.

[Christiane Ouimet]

Allow me to be more specific. Documents were brought to my personal residence late one evening, despite the fact that I was always available at my office. I apologize for not speaking clearly.

Indeed, we often received documents on Fridays, at all hours of the day. The requests were very demanding. For example, we received documents on December 22 and December 29, with deadlines no longer than a few weeks.

Did you have questions on my background, Ms. Faille?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

You said something a few moments ago and you have just clarified the situation. You say that this does not concern you personally. You were concerned for your staff. You said that your staff was harassed by the Office of the Auditor General.

[Christiane Ouimet]

My staff worked extremely hard to respond to the many requests made with regard to every aspect of the way the office of the commissioner operated. The institution felt it was its duty to collaborate in any way it could, and I have documentation to prove this. My staff acted professionally and managed to respond to every question. The same staff continued to work and to operate within the institution. Staff members were all professionals of a very high calibre.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

That's what I wanted to clarify. Earlier on, when you said that your staff had been harassed—

[Christiane Ouimet]

I did not use that word.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

In the complaints we heard about, it was revealed that you often called people in the evening and on weekends, and that you expected your staff to get back to you within half an hour. I hope this was not the case, because the picture which the Auditor General painted of you leads us to give more credibility to the people who complained about the way you treated them.

[Christiane Ouimet]

If I may, madam, let me talk about the environment within the institution. I have tabled with you a detailed account of testimony from employees who worked with me for one or two years. You'll see that nobody responded to emails in the evening or on weekends. Further, the people who complained only worked for my office for a few weeks or a few months.

May I read some of the excerpts, Mr. Chairman?

“I cannot tell you how much I have enjoyed working with...you. Your exceptional--”

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

We have those documents and those statements.

The documents contain exchanges which show that you conducted an investigation on your own employees. Can you explain to us the context within which this investigation was made?

[Christiane Ouimet]

First of all, employees were not being investigated.

Upon the recommendation of my audit committee, a risk assessment was done, as is done everywhere. This includes a physical analysis, and I must add that the last safety officer was very concerned about breaches of confidentiality. I hired a professional who assessed the risks. It cost just a few thousand dollars. He concluded that the institution's reputation was in jeopardy. That is very important. Essentially, that is what happened.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you very much, Madam Ouimet.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Ouimet, for being here.

The Auditor General concluded that complaints were founded and specifically that you acted inappropriately; that you mistreated and intimidated certain PSIC staff; that you took retaliatory actions against employees, including circulating sensitive personal information concerning health, character, and performance within the office and to outside parties; that you neglected to perform many of your mandated duties, including setting out proper procedures--you did touch on that--and handling disclosures and complaints under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act; and that you refused to investigate complaints in spite of supporting evidence.

Madam Ouimet, these are scathing accusations. In fact they're very disturbing. How do you respond to that?

[Christiane Ouimet]

First of all, I absolutely refute having being inappropriate or having inappropriate conduct with any of my employees. In fact, in her report, the Auditor General gives no indication, no explanation. Were there some discontented employees because they didn't get a promotion, or because even before they knew me they didn't want to support me? This is not unusual, Mr. Chairman. Lots of agency heads have been in that situation. When they arrive, they bring new leadership. They bring a new approach, and there is resistance among many colleagues.

I am firm. You can see my passion. I'm a francophone. I'm direct. I speak truth to power. Maybe some people didn't like it. But did I use inappropriate language? Absolutely not. In fact if asking somebody to do her homework is inappropriate, well then I asked somebody to do her homework. This is why. If you look at the testimony of 20 of my recent employees, how could they very spontaneously use that language?

I absolutely refute that I shared any personal information. In fact I was looking to my counsel for a copy of the letter that I received from the Deputy Auditor General in August 2009 indicating that they have no expertise, no jurisdiction, in the area of privacy. To my surprise, a few months later--in fact I was not aware--they used that. I would invite the Privacy Commissioner to look at the file. In fact we hired one of the top experts in privacy to assist. I have not shared any information. In my report I explain that an individual threatened legal action in 2008, and in 2009 documents were put together in anticipation of litigation. The problems existed way before 2009, and I have discussed them with a very senior former agent of Parliament.

I absolutely disagree that I acted in an improper way. Members of my audit committee have confirmed that as well.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I have to tell you that I have only been on this committee a couple of years or so. The Auditor General gives her report, whether it's about an agency, a department, or whatever. The recommendations come out. We've had reports that have not been very good and we have had reports from the Auditor General in which the agency or the department has actually had very good reports. But in every one of those there are some recommendations, and the agency or the department will say yes, we acknowledge, we will correct, we will do whatever. We say, okay, we want to hear back from you in a year or at some time so that we can actually check to see what you're doing.

I have to tell you, this is the only report I've ever witnessed on which there is a clear discrepancy between the opinion of the Auditor General and...this person being you, Ms. Ouimet.

I find that to be more than unique. I find it to be disturbing, because what we have now is two clearly different opinions about what has happened. This committee is going to have some very big struggles about how we're going to move ahead to deal with resolving that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Shipley, I want to be fair to Madame Ouimet. We've gone way past the time allotted, and if I asked her to entertain a comment or a response, it would be unfair if I had to cut her off.

So I'm going to ask Madame Ouimet to just hold that thought, and as we go through this I'll see whether we can give you ample time to respond to that comment, as opposed to a question.

Is that fair enough? Thank you.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

It's interesting. You mentioned that you speak “truth to power”. The reason we're here is that in this case you were the power. That's the whole issue we're faced with: what is the truth concerning the exercise of that power that we bestowed upon you when it was carried out?

When you and I were last talking, we were on the path of exactly how the offer came. I'd like to return to that, if I can, for just a moment. My understanding from the last thing you said was—please correct me if I'm wrong—that Treasury Board, I believe, but someone from within government, contacted your lawyer to advise.

Just in passing, I'm curious, does—

[Christiane Ouimet]

It was PCO, just to be clear.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Does PCO have everybody's lawyer and their number on file?

[Christiane Ouimet]

No, the reason is.... Somebody referred to the fact that the Auditor General had written to the Privy Council Office. I had no choice but to respond. My lawyer was copied on that file.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I see.