Public Accounts Committee on March 10th, 2011

[Christiane Ouimet]

And at that time I wanted to explain en français and I had a francophone lawyer.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That explains it. Thank you. I appreciate that.

So at that moment your lawyer contacted you by phone?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

And he said what?

[Christiane Ouimet]

You have a non-negotiable offer.

I didn't know what the details were. I was shocked, I was surprised, I was exhausted, I was tired. This was contrary to my wish, my discussions with the chair. I've explained the extremely difficult two years that we had had to go through.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But you knew what it was in regard to. It wasn't like wondering, why is this out of...? You knew that it was related to the AG's report. Did you assume that, or what?

[Christiane Ouimet]

PCO will keep their distance in whatever...you've seen it before. Of course, I had done my duty. I was intent on staying until the tabling of my third annual report, and I was convinced.... And probably the story would be very different today if I had had the opportunity to table my first case report.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, why didn't you stay, then? You said you didn't leave voluntarily and that there were pressures on you. But as I understand it, the decision to leave was still yours.

One of the things about your position, and the reason we're going to this great length and expense, is that you're an officer of Parliament. Really, other than being the Clerk, you can't be any higher. And you don't have one boss; you have the House of Commons.

So this business that they.... How could they push you out? You're not hired by the government; you're hired by Parliament. So when you said you didn't leave voluntarily.... Do you feel that you were fired?

[Christiane Ouimet]

I felt that I had no choice—for the good of the institution, for the good of all agents of Parliament, sir. There were millions of dollars expended in this process in direct and indirect costs, probably bigger than my annual budget.

There were extremely difficult staff relations for my small unit, who are extremely professional. For the first time—in five years I had not taken a sick leave—I had to take the month of August.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I don't have a lot of time in this round, so here are a couple of quick questions.

The Auditor General says in part in her report, on page 5: “These allegations”—against yourself, ma'am—“included statements to the effect that the Commissioner yelled, swore, and also berated, marginalized, and intimidated certain PSIC employees, and that she engaged in reprisal actions.”

On the same page, a little further, it also says:

Many of the current and former PSIC employees that we met with expressed concerns about the Commissioner communicating with PSIC employees in a disrespectful and unprofessional manner, including yelling, swearing, and also berating PSIC employees, at times in front of co-workers.

What is your reaction to those statements from the Auditor General?

[Christiane Ouimet]

It's not true. Mr. Desjardins was in fact very discontented. I spoke with the same tone and the same frankness that I speak with today. It was a small number of people. And people who have worked for me for years can attest that this is not my style, sir. In fact, I “vousvoie”; I used the vous for francophones among all of my staff. This is my style.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

So basically, you're completely denying all of that.

[Christiane Ouimet]

Maybe in the minds of people—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Then our next step, Chair, has to be to bring in the Auditor General and have the two of them sit side by side.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I'll ask you to make a recommendation later.

Let me go to Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Madame Ouimet, let me quote from the Auditor General's report:

According to its 2007–08 and 2008–09 annual reports, PSIC received a total of 114 disclosures of wrongdoing and 42 complaints of reprisal in the first two years of its operation. During this period, out of the 156 files, [only] three formal investigations were conducted.

I put the word “only” in there.

I read your statement very carefully. We heard about charts, draft procedures, operating procedures, draft guidelines. It seems that you had everything going on except a finding of wrongdoing or reprisal that would protect whistleblowers. My question is, how could it be possible that your office received 156 complaints of reprisals and reports of wrongdoing and that not one of them was substantiated?

[Christiane Ouimet]

It is because, number one, the vast majority of the cases that we received did not fall within our mandate, or there was another process. This was simply because we weren't known. Of course, with the recent publicity, I can assure you that probably Canadians now do know about the integrity office, and I'm just sad that they don't get the right story.

Number two, there are disclosure regimes all across the system. A lot are captured by each organization.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you. That's sufficient, because I read your statement, which covered that. I'd like to ask another question, if I may.

According to section 25 of the act you administered:

The Commissioner may delegate to any employee in the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner any of his or her powers and duties under this Act, except: (a) the power to delegate under this section; (b) the power to decide not to deal with a complaint filed under subsection 19.1(1)

--which is the section that deals with complaints related to reprisals. Yet we have a matrix from the AG that shows that no fewer than eight times, other staff members signed off, closing files.

The committee that was to oversee your operations was the government operations committee, chaired by coalition member Pat Martin, and I'll read this quotation, in case you haven't heard it before:

“I accept some of the blame for that as the vice-chair of the oversight committee that was supposed to be watching Christiane Ouimet. Report after report after report came by our committee without comment.”

Did the government operations committee ever ask you why staff were closing off files?

[Christiane Ouimet]

I don't recall that specific question, but I would have been happy to respond. No file was closed unless we had looked at every aspect, from a legislative perspective, from a factual...and even if we did not have jurisdiction, we would refer the matter, to try.... We had people help for social services.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

I understand that, and yet on this chart there are files that you closed as decision-maker, and there are files that W. Watson closed, or some of the other members of your staff. But that appears to be against the act.

[Christiane Ouimet]

No, I don't think so. In fact, my understanding is that I could delegate decisions according to the act.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

According to your 2009-10 annual report, you state upfront:

- our message is reaching its target audience;

- our stakeholders have a clearer understanding of our mandate;

- our collaborative relationship with organizations...is more firmly established;

- more people are coming forward....

Then, in a later part of that same report, you have a list of things that seem to say why you're not doing anything or why you can't do anything. For example:

- our jurisdiction is limited to the public sector as defined by the Act, which covers most, but not all federal public organizations and employees;

- we were not established to duplicate or interfere with other processes under other Acts....

- we are not an appeal body for decisions made under other processes;

- wrongdoing is defined broadly....

- we act on solid and dependable information, and if we do not have it we will work to obtain it.

My concern is that this was your message to your target audience, which is whistleblowers who need protection. It doesn't surprise me that they wouldn't want to come forward.

Again, my question is, did the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates ever challenge you on all these red flags that were in your report that you actually were not accomplishing very much?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Sir, we implemented the act that you've given to my office. We had 15 serious investigations after three years. We were on the verge of issuing the report, and it is normal, looking at access and other organizations. We were evolving in a measured and appropriate way. All of the decisions were a consensus, based on review and quality control. I stand before you today with a clear conscience and say that I'm satisfied that every decision was made in the best interests of all parties' reasonable interpretation and based on the act.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Madam.

But you know that you were supposed to be championing the--

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you.

Mr. Young, your time is up.

Monsieur D'Amours, please.