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.