Evidence of meeting #50 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was every.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
Sir, it is with great regret that I listen to your remarks. I cannot accept the comments that you have made, not after 28 years of loyal service.
As an officer of Parliament, I could not have joined the public service. I worked closely with people like Mr. Côté, from Quebec, who is aware of my integrity. I worked closely with all officers of Parliament, who know me.
Bloc
Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC
Then why couldn't you go back into the public service?
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
It is impossible, unthinkable for an officer of Parliament to go back to the public service.
What I wanted—and arrangements had already been made—was to remain an “order in council“ appointee in universities, and in exchanges. That is entirely acceptable.
Yes, I took a seven-year penalty, sir. You are attacking my very nature. I displayed great honesty, and I had the courage to leave. Do you know why? I was not well, I was exhausted. Two years of audit is unheard of, sir! I did not know what would happen when I accepted it. I had hoped to be able to table my initial report on wrongdoing. I ask that you refer to that. I did my job, and for the good of the institution, I accepted, sir. Because I had reached the point of burnout. What is more, my reputation—
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I will ask you to stop there, please.
I said that I would use my discretion as chair.
And part of that discretion is that we're going to be interrupted in about seven minutes by the first bell.
I know my colleagues will want us to, and because we're just down the hall—we're about two minutes or three minutes away—we'll probably go to about 20 or 25 after, if you don't mind, to be fair to everybody.
I'm going to go to Mr. Young.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Madame Ouimet, you've mentioned that all decisions that were in made in your office were made by consensus. But there's nothing in the act about decisions being made by consensus. According to the act, you, as commissioner, had to hear about and address the concerns and protect whistleblowers. You were supposed to be their champion.
In retrospect, do you believe you used your discretion to hear from...and address the issues and protect public servants who desperately wanted to do the right thing?
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, this is a very articulate statement.
I have on occasion met with disclosers myself--people who were in pain, people who understood that perhaps I could not help them but they wanted to talk to the commissioner. And every time I did so. Perhaps it goes to what Member Christopherson indicated, but part of the process—and there have been studies in Australia—is how they feel they were treated. This is absolutely crucial.
Part of the mandate is to treat disclosers with respect, with dignity, and to explain to them if we cannot help them. I have on many occasions met disclosers, and I would, if I were still in the position. I took their issues very seriously. It takes a great deal of courage, and I think we were getting to the point....
If you look at my last letter addressed to the disclosers, I called upon them to continue to come. They don't know what the end result is because I didn't have to.... You see it from one of my staff. I did have a genuine interest and commitment to help disclosers.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Madame Ouimet, I think I have a better date for you. It's a letter that you received on July 12, 2010, from the Prime Minister's department, approving a raise for you and thanking you for your hard work.
I will read it exactly:
I thank you for your hard work and dedication in the past year, and wish you every success in the coming year in your service to Canada.
It was only when the AG's report came out that they decided to turn you down. It's surprising, because on July 12, 2010, they gave you a raise backdated to April 1, 2009.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
First of all, Mr. D'Amours, you are mistaken about the context in which I received the letter. If you checked, you will realize that all officers of Parliament received the same letter. When I accepted the position of Integrity Commissioner, it was a lateral move, which means that I did not receive a performance bonus. What you are referring to—and once again, it is unfortunate that I have not been given these [Inaudible—Editor]—is the salary increase that—
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
But Ms. Ouimet, if the government was not satisfied with you and at the same time, it was preparing an offer for your departure, that is a bit—
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
I had not received anything at that point.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
But your discussions did, nevertheless, start at that time.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
Absolutely not.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
But if we remember correctly, you made a number of comments about the letter that the Auditor General sent to the Prime Minister's Office, and it was before that.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
There had been no exchanges with the Privy Council Office regarding my departure up to that point. There had not been any. That occurred in September. The letter you are referring to is a standard letter that all officers of Parliament receive. It is in no way personalized. I am sorry, Mr. D'Amours, but that is completely out of context.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
But, Ms. Ouimet, while the letter is not personalized, it is still addressed to you. At the end of the letter, it says:
I thank you for your hard work and dedication in the past year, and wish you every success....
I will stop there because I have already read it once. The situation is ironic.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to ask you the same question that I asked one of your former colleagues, a friend of yours, the Chief Human Resources Officer, Daphne Meredith.
Perhaps you have never found yourself in a similar situation. However, if the case were to arise, would you hesitate to denounce a colleague, a person with whom you had worked and proudly accomplished a number of things over the past 28 years?
If that were to occur, would you hesitate to denounce that person? Would you use informal means to contact her and inform her of the situation?
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
First of all, I would like to clarify that I was not friends with... I always maintain professional relationships. I am known for keeping my private life separate from my professional life.
Ms. Faille, in the past, I had been called upon to deal with precisely that kind of issue. So I don't know if you have a particular issue in mind, but my duty—as I am performing it today—is to share the facts and the truth to the best of my knowledge. It is also to ask parliamentarians for their help in restoring my reputation which has been tarnished by a report which is unwarranted and which does not explain—
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I simply want to add a comment. We have heard from members of your office, and no one challenged the allegations in the Auditor General's report. We heard from the privacy commissioner. No statements were made to contradict the views of the Auditor General.
Do you think that the Privy Council Office may have discovered something that would have caused embarrassment?
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
I don't know what the nature of your question is. My colleagues appeared here and answered along the same lines as me. They acted with integrity. If they had had any problems with my management style, I would not have received written evidence and statements that they had never noted anything unacceptable.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Madame Faille, Madame Ouimet, we're going to wrap up in a moment or two.
I want to ask a couple of questions, if I might, and then I'm going to go to Mr. Christopherson, who has given me notice of a question he'd like to put before the committee about next steps.
Madame Ouimet, you strike me as a very professional, very prepared type of individual. You're not a person who would be an easy pushover, in my view, and you started off by indicating to all committee members something they already know, and that is that you are appointed by an order from both the House of Commons and the Senate, both houses of Parliament. You can only be removed for cause or by a similar order from both houses.
We didn't issue such an order in the Commons. Why wouldn't you resist any kind of movement to have you out of your position? The reason you have a seven-year appointment is that parliamentarians want you as their agent, not anybody else's agent. I'm at a loss to understand why you would have accepted any kind of a suggestion, a contract, an offer--I think you put it--that cuts you short of your contract four years before its expiry from people to whom you don't answer.
Former Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, As an Individual
Sir, the first comment, when I made the opening statement that I have to rectify the facts...when I left I never expected the sort of report that was tabled before this committee. Had I known, sir, I would have stayed in my position. I had faithfully answered everything. I am shocked and absolutely...I find that sort of report appalling.