Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago, you presented us with a report. This is not an easy issue, as far as I see. In fact, one wonders whether some people are deliberately—I would not say “unintentionally”—testing the patience of committee members. Even worse, that would mean they are interfering with the elected representatives of Canadians.
Sooner or later, we, members of Parliament, have the right to receive answers to our questions. Just because someone has resigned or is perhaps on holiday... We do not even know this. You said so earlier on, Mr. Chairman. No one can prove the opposite. Therefore, if no one can prove that this person is outside the country, it means that this person is, in all likelihood, in Canada.
Our objective, and everything we have done since December, when the Auditor General presented her report, was clear. It was not complicated. In fact, we wanted to give Ms. Ouimet the opportunity to explain herself in light of some facts which came to light in the report of the Auditor General of Canada.
Let's take this one step further. Not a single one of the 228 open cases went anywhere. If I recall correctly, based on some of the documents which were provided to committee members, about 40 cases seemed to involve fraud and misuse of government assets. The clerk can tell me if I am going too far, because I do not know whether these documents, which form a matrix, if you like, were confidential and not to be released outside the committee.
As far as I know, when fraud or invitation to fraud, or misuse of government equipment, is involved, this is a criminal offence, unless I am told otherwise. I find it unthinkable that these cases were not pursued. It is deplorable that today, February 8, 2011, we cannot, as we had demanded, have Ms. Ouimet appear before us. We have nothing more than an empty seat before us.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that you tried very hard to contact Ms. Ouimet. However, at a certain point, I think you dropped the ball. I think we have to be a little firmer. In reality, we, members of the committee, cannot find out what happened. We cannot even find out why these cases were closed. We cannot even find out why, in the opinion of the Auditor General, a quarter of the cases which were closed by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada should not have been closed. We cannot find out why there was no follow-up regarding the 40-odd cases involving fraud or the misuse of government equipment, which was paid for by taxpayers.
We can ask ourselves who currently benefits from the fact that we were not able to get Ms. Ouimet to appear before this committee. To whose advantage is this? Who is being protected? This is all starting to—as we say in good French—get on my nerves. Indeed, we are here to get answers. Business cards go missing. Nieces are answering the phone. When we call, someone answers, someone is on the line, but no one is able to contact Ms. Ouimet to inform her—should she be outside the country—that we are looking for her and that this is urgent. We are not trying to locate her within a year: this is urgent. The members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the representatives of the people, want to have answers. It is not complicated.
At a certain point, this nonsense has to end. We have to put our cards on the table and do what is necessary. We represent Canadians. We have created organizations. We expect answers because we are accountable to our voters.
Other colleagues have wondered where we should turn to next, but now we have run out of patience. We have to move on to the next steps and get some answers. We aren't going to let people stall us like this forever without getting any answers. I think that's quite enough; we have to go forward.