Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 8th, 2011

[The Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Colleagues, it looks like we have quorum.

This is meeting number 43 of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, December 9, 2010, we are looking at the report of the Auditor General of Canada on the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada.

We had invited, as an individual, Madame Christiane Ouimet, former commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada. We obviously don't have her here.

I want to provide the committee members with an update on this matter, and then we can begin discussion, if you will. Okay?

Pursuant to that order to have Madame Ouimet appear here, on December 10 the clerk telephoned Madame Ouimet's residence, spoke to a woman who indicated that Madame Ouimet was not there, and the clerk left a message.

On December 13, the clerk once again called the residence, and this time left a voice mail.

On December 14, in a committee meeting, the decision was made by the committee to schedule another meeting for February 1 in order to invite the former commissioner to the meeting—and, I might add, to be firm about it—and to write the commissioner accordingly.

That letter was signed by the chair on your behalf on December 16, and was sent by registered mail to the residence of Madame Ouimet.

On December 17, Canada Post attempted delivery of that registered letter. A notice card was left, indicating where the item could be picked up. That registered letter was returned by the post office on January 28—that's last month—and it was received at the House of Commons committee directorate on February 3.

On January 12, the clerk once again left a voice mail at Madame Ouimet's residence. She did that, as you recall, because we put in the letter a date by which we had expected confirmation from Madame Ouimet that she would attend. It was roughly a 30-day notice period.

On February 1, this committee made the decision to summon the former commissioner before the committee.

On February 2, the bailiff attended at her residence to serve a summons. There was a verbal report from the bailiff that he attempted to serve unsuccessfully, but spoke to a woman who identified herself as Madame Ouimet's niece. She indicated that Madame Ouimet was out of the country.

We received an affidavit attesting to this on February 3.

On February 4, the bailiff attended the residence to ascertain the identity of the individual who actually answered the door, and to request a forwarding address, or coordinates, for Madame Ouimet. The bailiff said that there was no response at the door, and left a business card.

On February 7—that would be yesterday—at 7 p.m., the bailiff again attended the residence to ascertain the identity of the individual who purported to be Madame Ouimet's niece and to gain contact information.

This morning at 9:54, we received a verbal report from the bailiff that there was no response at the door on February 7 and that he was going to provide a written report by e-mail, which we received at about 1:25 this afternoon.

Very briefly, it said there was no response at the door at 7 p.m., but the business card that had been left there on February 4 was gone.

So, colleagues, that's the update.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

This is just a quick question about the process.

The bailiff went there the first time, and someone identified herself as the niece, and the bailiff left and then came back the next day with a mission to determine who that person was and to see if there was a forwarding address. I'm just curious as to why the bailiff wouldn't have asked that on the first day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

You know, it's a very good question.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, it's a detail, but....

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

You can imagine that the question was asked of the bailiff, and then the bailiff went back.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Kramp.

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

Very clearly, Mr. Chair, I think we need to know what our legal options are at this point in order to pursue this matter further. Do we have any direction from the clerk on that, or will we simply have to go to our own justice officials to find out?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Well, I imagine that we can do several.

The very first thing, I suppose, in terms of options, is that she's not available, and we can give it up. So we can have some discussion in that regard.

We can have a discussion as to what the next steps would be. I take note that some members, at the very beginning, suggested that we seek authority from the House to proceed further. I'm going to ask the clerk to outline for us what that means.

Third, we could wait until Madame Ouimet comes back, whenever that is. But we don't know where she is, and we don't know for how long she will be where she is, if indeed she is away.

I can share with you, Mr. Kramp, that our subpoena, our summons, has value only in Canada. But I'm sure you knew that.

These are the issues that you have before you.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, I'll play a role in getting the ball rolling.

I agree with Mr. Kramp. It seems to me the next step is to identify the options. You've mentioned some. I don't know whether those are all our options. What are the implications of those options?

So I'm kind of in agreement with Mr. Kramp in terms of getting everything in front of us, getting advice on what we can do, understanding those options, and then making a determination on which one we want to act on.

I'm not aware...unless you have that.

Through you, Chair, is the clerk comfortable giving us briefings on all those next steps, the legal procedures, etc.?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I'll entertain interventions and then come in with a summary.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. D'Amours.

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

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Shipley.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is that when you're looking at the options in terms of having Ms. Ouimet here--I mean, it's disappointing, she should be here, we know all that--what is the government operations committee doing? I'm not too interested in duplicating what they're doing. Are they looking to locate her? Have they got the bailiff out trying to form...or are they getting legal advice?

We should be working together, not in isolation. Our purpose is to contact her. Each of us from different committees will have our questions when she comes.

She was appointed by Parliament through the operations committee, so I would hope that maybe we're not just out here on our own. We should be working with the operations committee to find out what their process is also--if that's something you think is worthwhile discussing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you.

Mr. Kramp.

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

Chair, I recognize there are significant frustrations within the committee. It's shared by many, many people. But notwithstanding making the arguments and/or any allegations from this committee at this point regarding any testimony that might come from Madame Ouimet, the fact remains she's not here. The fact remains we have to deal with that. We have to find the options available to us and then move on it.

There's a lot of discussion on this file, but I would suggest that if we can't get to deciding what we can or can't do within the parameters of this committee, we're going nowhere.

So I would certainly ask the clerk, through the chair, to explore the options that we have available to us--in concert with Mr. Christopherson's comments, which are basically the same thing. Once we know what we can and can't do, and also, we don't need to duplicate something that the government operations committee is doing or isn't doing at the same time. There should be communication between the two committees.

We do need to have a clear sense of direction, because there's no doubt that we cannot leave this outstanding. Non-attendance is not acceptable, and we have to deal with it. This is an issue that is not going to go away, period. It will be dealt with at the first convenience. We do need to know our options so we can deal with them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

There have been a couple of examples of what other committees may have done.

I thank you, Mr. Shipley, for raising the issue of what the government operations committee might be doing.

I think we raised this issue at another time. They were dealing with the question of whether parliamentary committees had done the appropriate due diligence when appointing Madame Ouimet. As I indicated to you at a previous committee hearing, they had decided, as it would appear, in camera, that they were not going to proceed.

So we're here, and thank you for raising that issue about maybe bringing in other resources, which is, I think, where you're going, and perhaps Mr. Kramp as well.

We're left again, still, with two questions, and one that Mr. Christopherson raised at the very beginning, and I guess both Mr. Kramp and Mr. D'Amours...where they want to go.

I'm sorry, I've left out Madame Faille. Before I engage both the clerk and anybody else, let me go there.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with what Mr. Kramp and Mr. D'Amours said. We cannot let this situation drag on. Since December, we have been trying to shed light on this matter. Ms. Ouimet has had plenty of time to come and explain herself.

The longer we wait, the more speculation will surround this issue. We cannot question Ms. Ouimet. The purpose of this committee was to give her the opportunity to respond to the Auditor General's report. I believe that we should continue in the direction in which we have started, namely to get her to appear before the committee. A little earlier, the clerk explained to us the powers of this committee.

I have many questions. Amongst others, why did Ms. Ouimet treat her employees the way she did? What was the work climate like in her organization? Over the years, why did no other organization raise issues as far as the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada was concerned?

Is the fact that she is not here today an indication in and of itself that there was definite abuse which might lead to criminal prosecution?

A little earlier, I was at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The committee just finished studying the possible repercussions regarding a contract which was violated and the false interpretation of certain provisions in various contracts.

What the Auditor General's report seems to indicate, regarding the cases which were reopened, is that they involved situations where financial rules were not respected. This is something serious which the Standing Committee on Public Accounts cannot ignore.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

We'll go to Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It appears that Madame Ouimet is not available, obviously. She's not at home. She may even be out of the country. As the chair rightfully pointed out, our summonses are not valid outside the country, so there's really very little we can do with regard to tracking her down while she's away or while she's out of the country.

Now, she can't stay away forever. She appears to have kept her home, and it's still being used as a home, so she will be back eventually. When that will be, we don't know. Unfortunately, there's not much we can do while she's out of the country, if she is indeed out of the country. Perhaps we can re-address this situation in a few weeks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

Go ahead, Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I too want to, first of all, echo my frustration, as Mr. Kramp and many others on this committee have indicated. To say that I'm frustrated is putting it mildly, because we've been dealing with this since December 9, when the Auditor General put forward the report.

We've done everything. The chair has been very clear on all the steps we've taken. We've made calls. We've sent letters, and even a summons. We're doing everything we possibly can to reach Ms. Ouimet. As Mr. Kramp said, this is unacceptable. We clearly want to deal with some very important issues, issues such as the fact that millions of dollars were spent on setting up this office. Millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars were spent on setting up this office.

As Mr. D'Amours said, there were 228 complaints and no action. Some of those were dealing with issues of a fraudulent nature, possibly. We need to make sure that the Auditor General's comments about Ms. Ouimet's behaviour being unacceptable and inappropriate are addressed. We need to get to the bottom of this. We've done everything possible.

Our frustration is shared by many others. I've received e-mails on this and calls on this. Canadians want answers. They demand answers. That's why I think we need to take all possible steps within our domain to get to this as soon as possible. I don't think we delay this for another day or two days or two weeks. I think we need to address this immediately, because it's very frustrating. We need to make sure that we take all the appropriate actions so that we send a clear message, going forward, that anyone called before a committee shouldn't try to avoid coming forward.

We don't know the circumstances of where she may be. Clearly, she must be aware of the fact that this report was being tabled. Clearly, she's aware of the issues raised by the Auditor General and her response. So what's going on, and how do we get her to come before committee? That's what we need to do today. That's what we need to address. We need to make sure that we send the appropriate message by saying that she needs to be here as soon as possible. We need to find a way to deal with it.

I don't know if we need to send a report to the House, if that's a possible option. But we need to make sure that we look at all the possible options. I just want to echo my frustration, as well, because this is a very serious issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Christopherson.