Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

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

Thank you, colleagues.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g) and the motion adopted by committee on Thursday, December 9, 2010, Report of the Auditor General of Canada, “Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada”, we have before us Mr. Rob Walsh, the law clerk and parliamentary counsel; from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Chantal Bernier, assistant privacy commissioner; and Nathalie Daigle, acting senior counsel.

Just before we begin, I want to thank our witnesses for coming forward. Perhaps they would bear with me for a moment or two while I update the committee on a couple of items that have relevance to our discussions.

First of all, there is documentation from the integrity commissioner's office requested by members at the December meeting. Part of it came last week and has been distributed to all members.

Documents were sent by the clerk's office via messenger to members' offices on January 31, February 7, and February 14. Not all of the original documentation received was in both official languages, so, as some colleagues may know, I instructed the clerk to distribute what was received in both official languages when it was received, and to forward the remaining information when translated.

Members should by now have all of the documentation. I believe the last piece arrived last evening.

I want to update you on two other items. I think, by the way, you have already received.... One of those items is the letter from PCO. We can talk about that in a moment.

Perhaps even more significant is the fact that we received a letter from legal counsel at Heenan Blaikie. I called the lawyer and spoke to his junior, who told me that only Mr. Whitehall was going to address the issue. I asked her to put me in touch with him. Friday, at about five o'clock, we had what I hope was a courteous conversation. I asked him whether he was indeed the counsel. He said yes. I asked him about Madame Ouimet's whereabouts. He said he could confirm that she was out of the country. I asked him where he was; he too was out of the country.

I pointed out to him that the committee was anxious to have Madame Ouimet appear before us for two reasons: one, to give her an opportunity to address the issues of her, personally, that were raised in the Auditor General's report; and two, the committee needed to complete its work, and the committee needed to have Madame Ouimet there as the central figure in it.

The third point I asked about was...you know, she'd been hired, so clearly she must have known that the committee wanted to speak to her. We had some discussion about the subpoena. I said to him, why don't you consider the issues of availability and the issues of the subpoena and call me back; you don't have to do it Saturday, you don't have to do it Sunday, but please do it Monday, after you speak with Madame Ouimet.

Last evening, at about 5:30, he called me back. I asked him if he had spoken to Madame Ouimet. He said, no, he had not, but there had been an exchange of e-mails. He gave me an indication that she was in Florida.

I share that with you; it's important only because there were rumours about her being someplace else.

There was concern about the subpoena being served outside of Canadian boundaries. We had a brief discussion about that. I gave him an indication that I would report that he was concerned about that. I also indicated that I would report that he had not spoken to Madame Ouimet.

He initially gave me an indication that logistically he could not be at her side until sometime in April--one, because he was going to be out of the country on holidays until, I believe, March 7; and two, he had to prepare a presentation before a tribunal that would take him into April. So sometime after that they'd be able to address this issue. I told him I would relate that to the committee.

Yesterday he came back and said that they were prepared to come on March 10, because he'd cleared his agenda.

I gave an indication that I wasn't negotiating; I was simply conveying an interest on the part of the committee to have Madame Ouimet come before the committee so that the committee could do its work. I reminded him that we had been trying to do this since December 9 or 10, and that the committee was not pressuring anybody, but I asked him if he was prepared to receive a subpoena on Madame Ouimet's behalf, as he was now her legal counsel, and he said sure; but ten minutes later he called back and said it would be only in the context of March 10.

Again, I told him I was not negotiating for the committee; I was conveying to him where the committee has been. I said that the committee wanted to meet Madame Ouimet, that he knew, I guess, where she was, and that we'd like to have her before the committee, period. I said I'd be guided by the committee.

So I thought I would update you on that, because it's important for us to know exactly where we're going. I didn't want to withhold anything. I could go into the details of the conversation, but I don't think that's apropos anyway.

The letter from PCO has something that's specific. Our motion last Thursday indicated that we wanted a release of documents by February 19. PCO has come back and said, as you can see in the letter you have before you, that they want another week.

Obviously I would be guided by the committee, but my first inclination to the clerk was that we asked for the 19th as a committee, and that's what we'd like.

For those of you who may not have taken that off your computer yet, the clerk has copies.

I take it that we're solid on the PCO letter....

Mr. Bains.

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

Thank you very much for the update, Chair.

In my experiences here in the House--I've been here since 2004--I've never encountered this type of behaviour from any witness. This is a serious matter. We've discussed this issue on many occasions. I, personally, find this to be completely unacceptable.

The commission was set up to improve accountability and integrity. It's very simple, very straightforward. It took three long years to set up this commission, as I indicated before: $11 million, 228 complaints, and no action

And what are we left with? What are we dealing with today? We're dealing with a commission that's in crisis. We're dealing with a commission that's trying to clean up the mess of Ms. Ouimet. To validate that, the Auditor General's report clearly indicated that her conduct was inappropriate and unacceptable. That's the issue here. From my point of view—and many members will share this—we want her to come before the committee.

We as a committee have a responsibility to deal with this issue. It's not government operations, it's not ethics, it's our committee. We work very closely, hand in glove, with the Auditor General's office. We've been dealing with this issue since December 9, and according to my records here—I could be corrected—we've dealt with this issue six times in committee. Six times we've tried to figure out how to get Ms. Ouimet here.

We've sent her calls and letters. We've even summonsed her. Now we have Mr. Walsh and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner here today. We're doing everything in our capacity.

In my opinion, this has dragged on way too long. We don't negotiate with lawyers. This is the first time I've heard of this—trying to negotiate with lawyers. We don't negotiate with lawyers.

You say that she's in Florida. But if she's dealing with a lawyer, then, according to my opinion, she's received a summons. She's aware that we're trying to get her to come before committee. It's very simple: if you've hired legal counsel, there's a recognition that we're trying to make an effort to get her here—not once, not twice, not three times; we have taken every possible avenue available to us.

Enough is enough. I think we need to take action and report this to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair....

Is my mike on?

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Oh, it's on. Okay.

You'd think I'd naturally look to my left, eh?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I need a little clarification, Chair, in terms of lawyers attending with witnesses. We've been down this road a number of occasions at this committee. It's convenient that Mr. Walsh is here, but can somebody remind me what the policy is vis-à-vis...?

I know the fact that any testimony given by a witness before a Commons committee cannot be used in any other venue; it can't be used in a court. This is what I'm recalling, but not the details. Therefore, the right to a lawyer to be right beside you and speak on your behalf is not there, because the trade-off is you're protected; anything you say at committee can't be used anywhere else.

I just wonder what the detail of that policy is. Are they allowed to sit there and consult before they answer?

The reason I'm asking, Chair, is that the lawyer's availability is affecting when Ms. Ouimet will attend. The question regarding the status of lawyers at these meetings has an impact on whether or not it's a legitimate request to delay the appearance until such time as said lawyer can make it or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Kramp, on a point of order.

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

On a point of order, Chair, we have witnesses here. A number of my colleagues are making points that are valid and deserve a response, but would we not be more effective as a committee if we were to listen to the witnesses we have here? Then their points could be brought out in the questions directed to those witnesses that we have here.

Should there be issues still outstanding, arising after that, then by all means.... Our answers might come from our witnesses. If they're not, then of course we have this committee's right to go wherever it needs to go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's entirely reasonable. I'll stand down my question. If it's covered in the presentation, great. If not, I'll get a chance to ask it here.

So I'm fine with that, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Monsieur D'Amours.

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

Thank you Mister Chair.

I realize we have witnesses to hear, so, I will be brief. However, there are specific issues you have raised in your summary of the events of the past few days that have no bearing on today’s briefs. There is one thing that I fail to understand. You stated that a lawyer is currently representing a client that they have never even spoken to. None of this seems to add up. How can a lawyer defend or represent a client that they have never even spoken to?

Quite a coincidence that they are either on vacation in the Caribbean or too busy to appear before the Committee. As far as I know, Mister Chair, Heenan-Blaikie definitely has more than one legal counsel on staff. If they are indeed the firm currently representing Ms. Ouimet, they ought to be able to assign someone else to her case. Simply palming us of with the argument that their legal counsel is either on vacation or too busy is not good enough. They should have alternate counsel able to take over her case.

It would be unacceptable for any lawyer, legal firm or witness to dictate to us when they will testify.

It will be not a lawyer, not a law firm, not a witness who will decide when they come to visit us to answer questions.

As part of our study, we are keen to afford Ms. Ouimet the chance to provide explanations to the Committee. Once again today, it is clear that these people have been stringing us along for weeks and even months. It is totally outrageous. It has been beyond acceptable for a longtime but now they are playing more games with us. These people will now have to face the consequences. They cannot be allowed to call the shots with us.

I would, Mister Chair, like to raise one last point with regard to the letter we received from the Privy Council Office. I fail to understand why the PCO says it requires more time. This is an unacceptable answer. If I am not mistaken, there are seven officials at PCO. They are senior independent House of Commons Officers, who correspond regularly with the Prime Minister’s Office. Therefore, why are they not able to provide the documents we have requested on time?

I had asked for the documents to be provided to us yesterday, not in two weeks’ time. Yesterday. I agreed to extend the deadline until February 19, if I am not mistaken. The Privy Council Office sent us a letter today, on the very day of the hearing, saying that is unable to provide the documents. There is a great deal of correspondence between PMO, Ms. Ouimet and her Office. Why then are they unable to provide us with the documents in a timely manner?

This response is unacceptable. If they have the information, they should provide it as and when it becomes available. They have until February 19 to submit the documents to us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to bring up two points.

First of all, I'd like to reiterate what my colleague Mr. Kramp said. I think we should get on with questioning the witnesses. They are here, and this is our opportunity to take advantage of that.

I'd like to remind my colleague Mr. D'Amours that in fact the Bloc motion originally stated February 24 as being the date that they wished to have these documents presented to the committee. Really, then, going back to the original Bloc motion, it's an extension from February 24 to 28.

Regardless of the dates, I think we received a letter that shows they're working on it, they're cooperating, and they intend to present what we have asked for. It's simply a reasonable request that they need more time, if there are that many documents, so I don't see why there's such a big issue. They are going to be coming here within due course. I think Mr. D'Amours should understand the constraints that the PCO is under.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, please, I think we should proceed with the witnesses. They're here. Let's continue.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

There's a point of order. I want to get to it very quickly. I also want to get to Mr. Kramp and Madame Faille, and then I'd like to go to our witnesses.

Go ahead on your point of order.

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

Mister Chair, this is outrageous. Mr. Saxton ought to be ashamed of himself his afternoon. The Committee voted on this. The dates in the main motion are one thing but the Committee voted to approve a different deadline. He ought to respect the will of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We set February 19 as the deadline. We did not give an alternative date. That is the long and the short of it. At the very least, Mr. Saxton ought to be honest enough to respect that. There are perhaps other things he does not want to respect but he has to respect the will of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The volume of correspondence between the Prime Minister’s Office and Privy Council is enormous, so, why then, are they not able to provide this specific information?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I understand your point. Thank you, Mister D'Amours.

Mr. Kramp, do you want me to go ahead?

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

Chair, I have just a very brief comment.

We have witnesses here. Regardless of the points that are being brought forward for discussion--valid, worth discussion, we should do that--there's a time and a place. We have an agenda. Let's follow that agenda, deal with that, and give our witnesses the courtesy....

Quite frankly, we have brought them here because we want answers. Let's have our questions.

Mr. D'Amours was talking about four or five other areas of concern. They're legitimate concerns, but what are we going to discuss here today--those concerns or the reason that we brought our witnesses here?

I ask the chair to step up and take some control over this meeting and get us back on track.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I'm trying to get it back on track. You've made that same point twice. I said that would finish this and then we'd go on to our witnesses.

Madame Faille, I'll ask you to be very brief as well.

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

I will pass on my turn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

You had finished, right?

We can now move on to hearing our witnesses, Ms. Chantal Bernier and Mr. Robert Walsh.

I would just remind all colleagues that there was a motion that was defeated, but I indicated that we would invite the Privacy Commissioner notwithstanding.

I'm glad that the office availed itself of the opportunity to appear before us, and thank you very much for doing so.

Madame Bernier.