Public Accounts Committee on March 10th, 2011

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Ouimet, could you give us an explanation? When the security incidents occurred at your office, you contacted, if I am not mistaken, the RCMP deputy commissioner of operations, Mr. Tim Killam. The services of a risk assessment specialist were retained. They had been recommended by the Prime Minister's Office.

There is talk of independence. However, I wonder why the RCMP was involved in this matter, and why, at the same time, the Prime Minister's Office provided the name of a person to solve this problem.

[Christiane Ouimet]

First of all, the two issues are completely different.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

They dealt with the same section, Ms. Ouimet.

[Christiane Ouimet]

First of all, Parliament should be concerned if a breach of security and confidentiality occurs. In fact, the mechanism in question is confidential under the act. The Office of the Auditor General should be concerned about how well it is working, since confidentiality is at the heart of the act and breaches of security may occur. It is in everyone's interest.

As a small organization, we did not have the capacity to act.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Ms. Ouimet, why did the Prime Minister's Office direct you to a specialist?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Because the staff was well placed and neutral. I am talking about a security matter.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Let's continue, Ms. Ouimet, on another aspect of the problem. One of the emails mentioned earlier came from the Prime Minister's Office and said this:

...if you could advise PCO as to the status of his request.

This is a matter you addressed earlier. The Prime Minister's Office asked you to provide additional information on the issue. The name had been removed, but this is a specific case. I also have questions about another email. It came from Treasury Board. It says this: Ms. Marie-Josée Beauchesne, our director, wishes to revise the document ahead of time to ensure that it is consistent with the content of the workshop.

You were going to make a presentation. Why did Treasury Board want to revise your documents? If you were independent, Ms. Ouimet, why were these two federal offices interfering in your work?

You were an independent officer of Parliament. We agree on that. Everyone knows that. Why, in addition to having specific information, did the Prime Minister want to buy your silence? He acted the same way he did yesterday in the House of Commons. He concluded that he was above Parliament. He bought your silence for half a million dollars. The reason remains unknown. You say that it is because of the Office of the Auditor General, but why do you justify yourself with a letter from the Auditor General? You did not justify yourself to the Auditor General, in Parliament or to the people you are accountable to, but to the Prime Minister's Office.

The links are so obvious! There is no independence, Ms. Ouimet. What is more, the Prime Minister allowed himself to buy you out for a half a million dollars. That is how I see things. You were supposedly doing your job. That is at least what you are saying and what some members of government would appear to be saying. But the Prime Minister ignored the decision of Parliament and the Senate and decided to buy your silence for reasons we would like to know about. Those things have not been clarified.

Why did the Prime Minister want to buy your silence? If, according to your hiring, you were accountable to Parliament and the Senate, why was he the one who paid you half a million dollars? That makes no sense. There must be other reasons, and those are the reasons we want explained. Otherwise, you are directly accountable to Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. D'Amours.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Chair, this is like last week's allegation. The Prime Minister doesn't pay out. Let's cut the partisan stuff and just deal with the issue, please.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister said today that it was the best way of solving the problem. He said that himself.

So why did these people want you to remain silent, Ms. Ouimet?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. D'Amours.

I am reacting the same way I did following Mr. Shipley's statement.

To be fair, I want to give Madame Ouimet an opportunity to respond. You've consumed the time, as is your right, as Mr. Shipley did with his. I indicated then that I would give Madame Ouimet an opportunity to respond to a comment, and I think your intervention falls into that same category.

I'm taking a little bit of time, Madame Ouimet, because I want you to catch your breath. I only have one other intervener, actually another one afterwards, so I'm going to use the chair's discretion to give you ample time to respond to both the observation by Mr. Shipley and the observation posed by Monsieur D'Amours.

Do you want to do that now, Madame Ouimet?

[Christiane Ouimet]

I will start with the final observation. I was somewhat confused, I must admit, because there were a lot of aspects. I will, however, do my best to answer the questions.

First of all, I did not have access to those emails. I think that unfortunately, you are perhaps quoting them out of context. Questions were perhaps asked. I cannot assume that a whistleblower has already gone to the Privy Council Office. If there is an issue, the registrar will be able to say he is looking after it. That is my only...

On the other question, I did more than 150 presentations across Canada, namely in central organizations, to explain the act. I have no idea which presentation that was. I am an officer of Parliament. No one changes the substance of my messages, but as regard to the format, there may be... I would really need more details on that. Sometimes, Treasury Board has responsibilities vis-à-vis a human resources officer. Under the act, these people are responsible for preparing certain sections of a presentation. Never, ever, was the substance of my presentations changed.

As regards the third question, after only three years of service, the Government of Canada made me an offer which I accepted. I cannot add to that, as I am not familiar with what the Prime Minister said and I am not in a position to deal with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

For Mr. Shipley's comments?

[Christiane Ouimet]

I would ask for your indulgence. Mr. Shipley, I made some notes.

I apologize, sir. I just want to make sure that I understood correctly your question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

It was your observation, more than anything else.

If you'd like to think about it for a moment, I'm going to go to Mr. Dreeshen, and then I'll give you a chance to come back.

[Christiane Ouimet]

It had to do with ministers, severance, and....

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

We'll come back to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

We'll come back to that, Madame Ouimet.

Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Ouimet, for appearing here today. I know we have met on the ethics committee, and I know you had spoken quite highly of your educational promotion of your department.

What I'd like to do is go into two different areas, point 13 of the AG's report and paragraph 36. I'd like to talk to you about human resources and what types of staffing issues had taken place. I have read all of the report you have given us. I've seen some of the types of commentary of your current staff and I know how they felt about you. But I guess the point is, going back to the original staffing situation that you were in...my assumption is that this is what the Auditor General was looking at, if the timeframe is accurate there.

I'll start with paragraph 36:

In our view, the allegations made by the complainants concerning the Commissioner’s inappropriate conduct and interactions with PSIC staff, retaliatory actions by the Commissioner, and the failure by the Commissioner to properly perform her mandated functions, are founded. As previously noted, we have reported separately to the Chief Human Resources Officer at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and to PSIC management on the allegations related to performance pay decisions.

I think in that there was the question about how someone went from one level of pay to another level of pay. Am I misinterpreting that?

[Christiane Ouimet]

I think it had to do with the performance pay of the individual who did not want to support me.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

So that was on performance pay. Thank you.

Then on paragraph 13:

We found a high level of turnover at PSIC in the first two years of its operation. Between 5 August 2007 and 31 July 2009, 24 employees left the Office, which amounted to an average turnover rate of over 50 percent per year. This included the departure of the majority of staff in senior positions who reported directly to the Commissioner. The Commissioner told us that the level of turnover within PSIC was normal for a small entity.

I know that you addressed that, but if we take a look at what the Auditor General has said, she has reported the great number of employees who left with grievances regarding how they were treated. That was part of it. We're led to surmise from the AG's report that it was a hostile environment, and again I'd like you to be able to comment on that aspect of it.

So really we're taking a look at that high turnover rate. I wonder if you could start by dealing with that.

[Christiane Ouimet]

Certainly.

Let me be clear. I joined an office that did not want to support me. They had not even met me, and they had made it clear that they would not support me. And I am not unique. There was even a case study at the Canada School of Public Service reporting this.

I had to set a direction. I had to set up an institution. We were building the plane while flying it. In fact, I was even audited before I arrived, from April.

I wanted the support of all staff, but if people do not want to support me—they made their own decisions within weeks—I had a job to do. I did it with integrity, in accordance with all of the applicable policies. There was a key expert in human resources who knew all the complainants, who in fact has not been interviewed by the Auditor General, and who would confirm that I adhered to all of the policies.

In addition, we got training, coaches, special retreats. If you look at my written communication, I commend staff, but there is a direction, and if people don't like the direction, they are entitled to.... I have read every single testimony, Mr. Chair, and while some people say it was a charged atmosphere, I personally was well treated. The two people who were allegedly marginalized were the first ones to phone me in my retirement and have been sending me thank you notes ever since. Some got promotions elsewhere because they deserved it. Two went on pre-retirement, and there were transitional team members who were not happy in their previous positions either, but the core group stayed with me throughout that period.

We have built together the institution that you have today, which will deliver on those 15 investigations.

I urge parliamentarians and pressure groups to help the whistleblowers who are currently being dealt with now so that the decisions can come, so that my institution—my former institution, I'm still passionate about the work I did because I invested in it professionally and personally—will deliver on the act. Perhaps it's not the perfect tool Parliament wanted, but it will deliver.

I am absolutely personally offended. I've treated people with respect, with dignity, and people--maybe in their own minds, as we each have our own perception--the vast majority of employees, which you saw in the written testimony and even in the testimony I read, enjoyed the challenges. I guarantee you this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Madame Ouimet, I have completed rounds for everybody.

We have some more time. I'm going to be very flexible on this part in terms of who I recognize. I've already been given an indication of at least one member who wants to raise an issue about going forward. When I get to that, I will do it.

I'm going to go to Monsieur Plamondon. I'm going to try to limit everybody to three minutes.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

I have a short question. I listened to your explanations carefully. I saw that there were personnel problems. You explained why. I also saw that the Auditor General tabled a report critical of your administration and you have attempted to respond.

You know, I think that in politics, as in life, perception is the most important thing. I am trying to put myself in your shoes. You worked in the public service for 28 years; you could have continued on another seven years and, suddenly, you receive an offer. You say with some surprise that you received an offer resembling a buyout. It is as if they were buying your credibility and reputation for $500,000. In your place, it seems to me that I would have thought that if the government was no longer satisfied with me, I would have given up the job; I would go and work elsewhere in the public service and complete my 35-year career properly to earn the pension and money owed me. By accepting the offer, it seems to me that you opened yourself up to a number of interpretations and rumours, and that you discredited the public service in general.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Madame Ouimet.