Public Accounts Committee on March 10th, 2011

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

Well, first is about your independence. Again, we have many e-mails questioning the independence of your department. You say that you haven't discussed cases, but I have one example here, one of many, that you have discussed cases.

Second is the severance agreement. Why did you accept half a million dollars and the gag order, if one can put it that way? It was reinforced again by the Prime Minister today, early on in the scrum, when he said that this was the cheapest and fastest way to make a change.

[Christiane Ouimet]

With respect to independence, I jealously guarded our independence. In fact, I was concerned enough to ask the Office of the Auditor General to investigate a potential breach of confidentiality during my meeting, because I was concerned that issues concerning cases be discussed. I have not yet received a response, and I probably never will.

The only explanation, and you have to give me that e-mail so that I can properly respond--

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

Sure, absolutely. I will give it to you.

[Christiane Ouimet]

Specifics of any case would never be discussed. There was one instance when a discloser went to complain to the Privy Council Office that he had not been attended to. This was referred back to the registrar, of course. Maybe they just wanted to know whether we had taken care of this, because they don't like to have disclosers knock at their door. That is the only instance I can remember. I would never discuss the specifics of any case with anyone outside the office.

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

What about the question about the Prime Minister and his remark, with respect to your severance agreement, that it was the cheapest and fastest way to make a change?

[Christiane Ouimet]

I was not aware of his comments. He made his comments. I explained the reason I accepted.

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

You're saying that you had no choice. You're saying that this agreement was brought to your attention and you had no choice.

You're an independent officer of Parliament. Why did the Prime Minister and his department get to decide? Isn't that something Parliament should decide?

[Christiane Ouimet]

You ask the Prime Minister. I explained my specific circumstances and why I had to accept.

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

Again, there's a lot of discussion today about your disagreement with the Auditor General's report. The AG gave you an opportunity to defend yourself, to discuss her report, and you denied it, saying that you had sent a 10-page letter to the Prime Minister's department explaining why you were not agreeing with what she said. Why did you want to explain yourself to the Prime Minister's department and not to the Auditor General?

[Christiane Ouimet]

Okay. I think you're referring to an exchange in February 2010.

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

That's correct.

[Christiane Ouimet]

That's correct.

Essentially, it is the Auditor General of Canada, to my surprise, who took allegations, which to this day are unfounded, to the Privy Council Office. I have never seen this in my whole career. It was the Auditor General who went on a specific disposition that...I think general information can be brought to the attention of Treasury Board.

Obviously, I had to respond to the Privy Council Office, because they had been in contact with the Auditor General since the very beginning. The response I provided was vetted by the members of my audit committee, by a DG of audit, and by internal controls. I was very surprised by the approach the Auditor General took instead of taking it to Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Madam Ouimet.

We'll go to Monsieur Plamondon ou Madame Faille.

Oh, I'm sorry, I have to go over here first.

We'll go to Mr. Kramp.

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

Thank you, Chair. I was feeling neglected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I didn't know where you were.

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

I'm so small, I fade away.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Such shrinking violets.

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

Thank you, Chair. Welcome to our witnesses here today.

Madame Ouimet, of course, I recall the first time I met you. I served on the government operations committee during the vetting process when we first were given the opportunity to pass judgment on your capacity, capabilities, and your willingness to serve. It should be noted for my colleagues on the other side, in case they're concerned about the partisan nature, the chair of the committee at that time was a member of the opposition. The opposition carried the majority on the committee, but I can tell you that regardless of the composition of the committee that day, at that point a unanimous motion from government operations was put forward to endorse your position, based on the presentation and based on the testimony given.

That's all fine, but here I find myself a few years later saying that was then, this is now. This committee has always had a tremendous amount of respect for the Office of the Auditor General, and we respond primarily to the concerns and reports of the Auditor General. We've had no occasion in the past to doubt the veracity of those reports. So here we are today in a bit of a box, in that the Auditor General's report has been tremendously scathing of your conduct and yet your statements run contrary to that.

With the record you had, how did we get to that in the three years, to the situation we have before us now where we're faced with this difficult challenge? Tell me how and why you think we're in this position now where this committee is entrusted with following this up? Quite frankly, committee members want to know, and when there are dollars and cents involved and many allegations, I think Canadians deserve to know.

[Christiane Ouimet]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have to say that when the Auditor General looked at the area of expertise, my financial records, my public accounts, they found nothing wrong, and this is the area of expertise.

Outside the area of expertise of the Auditor General, the Auditor General is wrong, and I've explained in detail all the specific allegations. I did explain, Mr. Chair, what would put me in that position. I can answer every single aspect of the report.

And, sir, I recall vividly the one question you asked me when I appeared before committee. You asked me, what do you want to be remembered for? And my answer was, doing the right thing, and sir, I stand before you today in the firm conviction that I've done the right thing.

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

Thank you. Then have you challenged or do you plan on challenging directly the allegations of the Auditor General?

[Christiane Ouimet]

There's no forum, unless the committee...and that is why I am extremely grateful to be here today. I really am. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for affording me the opportunity. I did not have the resources. I did not have the venue. The jurisdiction of the Auditor General is extremely broad, and I thought that throughout the process we, collectively and individually--and I'm talking about every member of my staff--had answered every aspect openly. Every time I came out of those three days of cross-examination, the institutional lawyer would say I'd answered every aspect.

So I invite every member of the committee to read my written submission carefully and to call upon other members of my team, who are extraordinary.

The act is working, perhaps not exactly the way you would have liked, or perhaps a little earlier, but with respect to serious wrongdoing, my imprint is on 15 investigations. My imprint is also on other investigations and probes that have been looked at and vetted and cross-verified.

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

In your--

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you.

On behalf of everybody, I appreciate your gratitude to the committee for having you here today. We did try to get you here earlier, but we appreciate that you're here now.

I'm going to Madame Faille.

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

A little earlier, I referred to your background within the Public Service. I listed several situations when you were with PWGSC. However, you also mentioned that you worked for the IRB. Those years marked the highest rate of rejection of refugee claims.

You also contributed to the fact that the Refugee Appeal Division never saw the light of day. With this government, you gerrymandered organizations which at the time were operating in the area of immigration, that is, organizations which were helping people who were seeking Canada's protection.

This very protection seemed to have been missing within your own office when you were integrity commissioner. A little earlier, you said that investigators from the Office of the Auditor General came:

“My staff was called in on the weekend and evenings.”

Your lawyer called this harassment, didn't he?

[Ivan G. Whitehall, Lawyer, Heenan Blaikie LLP]

Are you asking me the question?