|
Moral
and Ethical Ambiguity
By Perry Gray, Chief Editor VVi
On 10
March, the former Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, Christiane
Ouimet, finally appeared before the Commons Standing Committee for Public
Accounts to provide her side of the story concerning her retirement prior to
the release of a very critical report by the Auditor-General last year.
I was there along with Sean Bruyea and representatives of several
advocacy groups as well as whistleblowers, who were supposed to be protected
by the PSIC.
There
are some good articles about this event and you can watch the session on CPAC:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/pm-harper-defends-hefty-payout-disgraced-former-integrity-20110310-113818-059.html
http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/canada/article/799011
http://www.cpac.ca
If
you do watch the 10 March session on CPAC, I recommend the previous session at
which the Auditor-General gave testimony on the controversial audit report:
http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&hl=e&clipID=4918
With
regards to the 10 March session, the following personal observations were
made:
Madame
Ouimet refuted everything in the audit report, but did not explain why she
retired rather than defend her actions. It was also noted that she was
unwilling to appear before committee when first asked in 2010. Apparently
she needed a long vacation in the sun to recover after her long exhausting
work.
While
she was sworn in and allowed to be accompanied by a lawyer, she seemed to
ignore that she was required to answer truthfully. Facts were not
allowed to interfere with the telling of her emotional story. One
MP had to ask twice about answering his question and her lawyer had to remind
her a third time. By the way, the MP was trying to be supportive and it
was not a tough question.
Her
staff only investigated 15 cases according to her testimony, while the audit
report indicates the number was only 7. She decided that the majority of the
228 cases should not be investigated, although some were subjected to a
pre-investigation (no one asked her define these two terms). She seemed
more focused on what she was not supposed to do rather what she could do.
Her
message was quite clear - she was the victim and she was forced to retire
after 28 years service to Canada (and so lost 7 years of pay and pension
benefits) because she was unfairly targeted.
Madame
Ouimet did not explain why she felt that she had to sign a non-negotiable letter
of resignation that was drafted for her and was negotiated by a lawyer
representing her and one representing the Privy Council Office.
This was asked in various forms and her stock answer was she had no
choice. It seemed more like she was still a subordinate of a federal
department rather than a commissioner appointed by Parliament. It
suggests that she was working for Treasury Board and PCO rather than
Parliament.
After
the session ended, I introduced myself and stated that she was a narcissist.
My intent was to upset her, but her lawyer cautioned her about
responding too much. I was hoping
that she might make some interesting comments to the press, although she
departed quickly forestalling more scrutiny.
This gave more time for the advocates and whistleblowers to speak with
journalists.
As Sean
Bruyea observed, "Not
once did she say protect whistleblowers."
The
committee plans to invite both the former commissioner and the Auditor-General
to a future session so that their disagreements can be discussed.
This may occur later this
month (March 2011). Whistleblowers
and advocates will be eager to attend.
It
is now up to the remaining staff of the Office of the
Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
to decide which of the outstanding cases merit a second look.
Hopefully, the majority will be investigated to demonstrate both that
the office will be effective and will not waste government revenues (in other
words taxpayers' time and money).
Prime
Minister Stephen Harper said the government could not fire Madame Ouimet so
the payout was the cheapest and fastest way to get rid of her.
This seems to be a common strategy as many Veterans are now realising.
It explains why VAC has been eager to implement the lump sum payment
and then limit the payouts to paltry amounts (the average is less than
$40,000). It would be nice if all
Veterans were treated to the generosity bestowed on Madame Ouimet
(over $500,000 plus lifetime pension).
There
are other Officers of Parliament that should be better monitored by Parliament
in the wake of the revelations discussed above.
They include:
·
the Privacy Commissioner (1983);
·
the Access to Information Commissioner
(1983);
·
the Conflict of Interest and Ethics
Commissioner (2007);
·
the Public Sector Integrity
Commissioner (2007); and
·
the Commissioner of Lobbying (2008).
You
can read more about them here:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/compilations/OfficersAndOfficials/OfficersOfParliament.aspx?Menu=HOC-Officiers-Parliament
These
officers are supposed to ensure that the federal government is accountable,
responsible and ethical; however, they too may be guilty of moral and ethical
ambiguity as was Madame Ouimet. As
the following article asks, who is watching the watchdogs:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-appointed-watchdogs-reluctant-to-probe-wrongdoing-critics-charge/article1850545/
The
session of the Public Accounts committee occurred during a week in which the
government's activities were subjected to investigations of the Speaker of the
House of Commons, Peter Miliken. While
the Prime Minister wants to concentrate on the economy, it is increasingly
apparent that the next election should also be about good government as
discussed in this article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/speakers-contempt-rulings-add-ammunition-to-election-minded-opposition/article1935375/?asid=d585aee4
The federal government may have an influence in the national
economy, it can not control that economy which is affected by international
economics. After all most of
Canada's business is conducted with the United States, the world's most
influential economy. In my
opinion, it would be better for the federal government to concentrate on
things that it can control like being accountable, transparent and all those
other terms discussed in the last election.
It might also be responsible by focusing on decreasing the national
debt which has increased to over $500 billion since the last election.
Good
government is not just another abstract term as it is enshrined in the
Canadian constitution and was part of the British North America Act which
resulted in the creation of Canada in 1867.
Peace, order and good government (POGG) or paix,
ordre et bon gouvernement are important principles to Canada.
Veterans
are asked to contribute to all three both nationally and internationally. It would be nice if the various governments in Canada were
also more effective in their contributions.
Why should Veterans be expected to adhere to such principles if
governments do not?
Elections
and daily government business should be about what governments can do, not
what they can not do. Governments
can provide good leadership and good service, and not control the economy.
|
Canadian Forces Chief of Defence Staff Military Family
Fund:
