Government Operations Committee on March 8th, 2011

[Joe Wild]

—resign her position when she had four years left on a seven-year mandate. The government was of the view that it was in the public interest at that time, when Madame Ouimet approached the government to resign, to negotiate an appropriate package that would allow the office to be able to move forward with an interim commissioner to address the issues. Basically, that was the view: that this is what would be necessary in order to arrive at an agreement.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I don't blame you personally, Joe, but you are rewarding bad behaviour in the most ridiculous way. It would be different if the government went to her and said, we want you to resign and here is the offer; take it or leave it. But she quit—or the government would have us believe that she quit—her job. She wasn't fired; she wasn't let go, as it were.

This is what makes Canadians' blood boil: not just that she failed 250 honest, courageous whistle-blowers, but that she ran a reign of terror in her office, humiliating, browbeating, harassing employees. The employees who wanted to do a good job were harassed and browbeaten by this woman. It was a horrible experience.

We listened to Mr. Keyserlingk. He laments this, because a lot of those employees were his former employees—dedicated, dutiful employees whom he convinced to stay on when he left—and he feels that he's let them down as well.

You didn't listen to a word of what Dr. Keyserlingk had to say in his recommendations. He's abundantly clear that he doesn't think this appointee should be a public servant, because there's an inherent bias that develops among ADMs and deputy ministers, a sympathetic synergy with other ADMs and managers. When a whistle-blowing event takes place, there's a sympathy that may have developed over the years of working with her colleagues. They may be former colleagues whom she's being asked to investigate. It's an untenable situation for a former ADM to do this job and investigate in any aggressive kind of way.

Nothing I've heard today changes my opinion that you were looking for a compliant stooge who wouldn't rock the boat in that very sensitive office.

Joe, you were part of the Federal Accountability Act; you were the point guy. You essentially wrote it on behalf of the government, and I appreciate the work that went into it. But part of that was a Public Appointments Commission—which exists, even though it has never really been given any substance. Was this appointment vetted by the Public Appointments Commission to test the integrity of the selection?

[Patricia Hassard]

Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is quite right, in that the Public Appointments Commission legislation exists—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, the office exists.

[Patricia Hassard]

The office exists, but it has not been established by the government to this point.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

There are personnel there, are there not, Patricia?

[Patricia Hassard]

There is one executive and one administrative staff.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The Maytag repair man.

[Patricia Hassard]

They don't have a mandate at this point to oversee appointments of Governor in Council appointees. So no, this appointment was not vetted at the time.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I see.

Would you agree, Mr. Wild, that if a Public Appointments Commission were in full force and effect as contemplated by the Federal Accountability Act, we might have had a better selection process for these senior officers?

[Joe Wild]

Mr. Chair, I wouldn't want to speculate as to what would have happened had the Public Appointments Commission been in place. I would simply note that the mandate of that commission is to provide advice to the government on establishing selection processes and that work has been done by those who were set up in the secretariat of that commission to that effect. That has been taken into account in the guidelines that have been established around selection processes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Can you answer what the reasoning was behind the gag order associated with the severance package? That's pretty unusual, is it not?

[Joe Wild]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know exactly what the gag order is that the member is referring to. I'm not clear what he's referring to.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We were told she's not allowed to divulge the details: the terms and conditions of her appointment, her term in office, or her severance arrangements.

[Joe Wild]

There is standard language in the settlement agreement around the confidentiality of the terms and conditions of the agreement, which you will find in any settlement agreement in any labour situation. In—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, how does anybody know all the terms that—

[Joe Wild]

In addition to that, though—excuse me, Mr. Chair—the agreement has a clause in it that makes it very clear that the government, in order to discharge the responsibility of ministers to account to Parliament, can make public the terms and conditions of that agreement, and in effect that agreement was provided to a parliamentary committee when that committee asked for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madam Coady, you have five minutes.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you very much.

And thank you for taking the time to be here today. I think you're sensing a fair amount of frustration, not only on the part of this committee but also on behalf of Canadians, concerning Madame Ouimet, and also on behalf of the 228 people who came forward with information that they thought was important enough to bring forward to her, whistle-blowing on behalf of this government.

I want to make a point of information here. We've been talking about Mr. Keyserlingk. I just want to point out that he was appointed in 2001 as the public service integrity officer. There was a change in 2007, and I want to know, for clarity, that the position now is that of an independent officer of Parliament.

Is that correct, yes or no?

[Patricia Hassard]

Yes.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Great.

Well, I'm a little appalled today, because when I was listening to your comments and hearing about the appointment of a new Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, I heard from you that the chair of the selection committee is going to be none other than the President of the Treasury Board.

This is supposed to be an independent officer of Parliament. The role of this particular officer is to investigate instances that are brought forward to this individual and to that department when there are concerns about the government, concerns about managers, concerns about happenings within government. She is supposed to investigate those to see whether there is merit.

We know that she had—and this is a quotation from her—a “bias toward prevention”. Now, how she could have a bias toward “prevention” when she should have been investigating and taking seriously these 228 instances of people saying that there is a concern within government....

My first question is, how do you justify having the President of the Treasury Board? I see that you said it's because of the responsibilities for the promotion of ethical practices. If we're truly looking at that, why would the President of the Treasury Board be chair of the selection committee? That's my first question.

My second question is this. There doesn't appear to be much urgency around this. The gag order on Madame Ouimet was issued in early October of 2010, and yet you do not have this selection committee struck, nor do you have the selection criteria established. That was six months ago.

Those are my first two questions, if you would be so kind as to respond. Thank you.

[Patricia Hassard]

Thank you very much for the questions.

I think there is a very good rationale for the President of the Treasury Board to chair this committee. In the end, it is the government that will nominate an individual, so the government has to be comfortable with putting forward that person's name. And the President of the Treasury Board does have responsibilities, as I mentioned, for ethical practices in the public sector.

I would also point out that when the current Auditor General was chosen 10 years ago, there was a minister in the chair of that selection committee; it was the President of the Treasury Board. And in the search for the new Auditor General, the President of the Treasury Board is in the chair.

I think it is a case in which the government is the body nominating this individual, so I don't see that this is an issue. The committee will be well-rounded.

In terms of your second question, on the timeliness, as I mentioned earlier we have a timeline that will allow us to name a new Public Sector Integrity Commissioner before June 18, and I think that is what's important.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Could you please table that timeline so that this committee can be reassured about how we go forward?

My concern here is that there seems to be a relationship between the integrity commissioner and the PCO and the PMO, and there should be independence there, because they are actually investigating concerns within government. We know that there has been an e-mail going around, certainly in the public realm. That is the current interim commissioner actually e-mailing Mr. Wouters, who is the chief of the Privy Council, talking about wanting to give him a heads up, that there is one issue his office is currently not privy to, that the clerk must be briefed on, and that he'd be pleased to provide details to the PCO to ensure that Wayne is not blindsided.

So there is this interaction that I have some real concerns about. What we don't want to see is that this person is no longer an independent officer of Parliament. We want to make sure they are actually able to work on behalf of the whistle-blowers who come forward.

There is where the concern lies. If you're truly independent of that—and again, they're protecting whistle-blowers—they should have a disengaged relationship.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Could you give a very brief answer?

Your five minutes is up.

[Patricia Hassard]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I would say it is important that agents of Parliament understand government and that they have professional relationships with senior leadership in the government. I think you could say that about every single one of them. They do that, and they meet. We have cordial relations with all of them. It is important to the fulfillment of their duties.