Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 5th, 2007

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I think the motion is self-explanatory. We somewhat dealt with this particular chapter of the Auditor General's report back in the fall.

The RCMP perform a critical function in society. Not just for all Canadians, but especially for RCMP officers, to have found out that there were severe irregularities that affected their pension funds, and especially their insurance funds, to the tune of millions of dollars, not all of which have been returned.... Even the portions that were repaid into the pension and insurance funds were repaid out of the RCMP budget rather than by the people who benefited from the abuses that were so clearly outlined by the Auditor General's report on that chapter. This helps get to the bottom of how it happened and hopefully prevents its occurring again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

Mr. Williams, do you have a comment?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Yes. I have no problem with the first one, asking for the internal audits of the RCMP, considering the irregularities. I have a serious problem with the other three, Mr. Chairman, regarding the Privacy Act and the privacy of people being named, where charges I believe were not laid, for whatever reasons—they may been administrative, more than anything else. We cannot have private investigations by the police in public indiscriminately. I think the following three points would in all cases reveal names of people who were not charged.

I would therefore suggest to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, Mr. Chairman, that we approve number one, and that we ask a senior member of the RCMP to come forward to explain what happened and why these charges were not laid, rather than be given the files with names and so on.

I would therefore move that we strike the three bullets at the end. If Mr. Wrzesnewskyj wishes to come forward with another motion asking for a member of the RCMP to come forward to explain what happened, I think I would support that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I understand the logic of Mr. Williams' argument about the other points. We have the option, and this has happened in the past when we have wanted to protect individuals from potentially negative repercussions, of going in camera. This committee has the ability to decide, when reviewing sensitive information, to go in camera to avoid exactly that situation.

I would be more than willing to have a friendly amendment that would say that any portions of those reports that name individuals be dealt with in camera. I would be willing to look at a friendly amendment to that effect.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Chairman, the only two meetings I'm aware of that were held in camera, other than the one you held about a year ago, were two at the beginning, dealing with the first three contracts of what became known as the sponsorship scandal. For the two people in question, we made an agreement that the testimony would be made public after two years if no charges were laid or, in the event that charges were laid, after all proceedings had been dealt with. It was the full intention that the public accounts committee testimony be made public.

I'm a great believer in the public accounts committee doing its work in public. I'm totally opposed to any kind of in camera meeting, with the exception of when we're doing our own internal business. I would rather proceed cautiously, Mr. Chairman, than foolishly, and therefore I said I will support asking for the audit. I will oppose the other three points because that would, as far as I can see, bring out the names of people who have not been charged and, as far as I understand, will not be charged. To put the names out in the public domain as being potentially culpable, with no right or opportunity for defence, is not the way we do things.

I appreciate what Mr. Wrzesnewskyj is saying. I'm fully supportive of bringing a member of the RCMP in here to see how they explain themselves, but I think we are best to leave the actual reports themselves where they are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Well, I don't view that as a friendly amendment, in that case.

I'd just like to state that I understand the sensitivity of not wanting individuals, perhaps, to face negative repercussions inadvertently, and Mr. Williams has confirmed that in the past it has not been a frequent occurrence, but this type of situation would warrant our consideration to go in camera. We do have that mechanism at our disposal. Obviously we prefer public accounts meetings to be public, but it's very important that individuals not face potential negative repercussions. I'm more than willing to look at a friendly amendment that would still allow us access to the type of information that would help us in providing recommendations so that these abuses never occur in the future.

Rank-and-file RCMP officers who put their lives on the line every day are flabbergasted, astounded, that their pension insurance funds would have been abused in this manner. They'd like to see this gotten to the bottom of. The processes that were meant to get to the bottom of that were unable to, and this is one of their last resorts.

There's tremendous respect for the public accounts committee because we do conduct our proceedings mostly in public. But I agree; if there's a friendly amendment that would find a way to protect individuals named, I'd be more than willing—with reservations, but more than willing—to go in camera to protect those individuals for those portions of the reports.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, if I may, can I propose a compromise here? I don't want to enter the debate, but I think it would be extremely unusual and improper for us to go into in camera talking about a criminal investigation. When we did it before, we had people who “may be” subject to a criminal investigation. Here, we're asking for the complete criminal investigation file. In camera or not in camera, I think that would be really unusual; however, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj makes the point.

What about this? Can we deal with the first bullet and the last bullet, “Any documentation pertaining to why disciplinary action against nine”—no, “against the”, and never mention the number—“against the regular and civilian members identified” in the auditor's report? Do you think that's a relevant consideration?

Mr. Williams.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Chairman, there are two issues here. First, there is the problem with the management of the fund. We have every right to find out what was going on there, and I think it's quite reasonable that we should. Second, there is the criminal investigation into some people, who were never charged, and I understand it was because the time ran out. They may have been charged if the time hadn't run out, but that's by the way; they were not charged. That's a separate issue: why did the criminal investigation run out of time? If you want to have two separate investigations into, one, the improper management of the fund, and we can deal with the criminal one at another time and another place—

Don't let the two issues confuse each other. We have a responsibility to the taxpayer and to the RCMP members of the fund to look into this, absolutely, and that's why I say let's look at the internal audit. The internal audit likely lays out all the problems. That's what, as far as I am aware, started the criminal investigation.

The criminal investigation went nowhere, and we're not going to take it anywhere. I say to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, if we hold hearings in camera and we find out something that we don't like, what are we going to do about it, tell the world? No, we can't. Once you have privileged information in camera, you're not able to do anything with it. So do you really want the information anyway, knowing that the RCMP or criminal investigation file has been closed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, Mr. Williams, I take it that it's not a friendly amendment. Do you have an amendment to make?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Yes. My amendment is that we delete the last three bullets and remain with the preamble, to request “The Internal Audit of the RCMP 2003 concerning irregularities with the RCMP pension fund”—period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, do you want to speak to that amendment?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Sure.

On this one, I think it would be tremendous, and a show of support for the rank and file of the RCMP, if we were able to go about this in a fulsome way.

In trying to work with your concerns, Mr. Williams, of individuals being named, if you look at bullet point number two, the second last line, bullet point two could state, “the documentation which justified the termination of said investigations”. So we're dealing not with the nuts and bolts and individuals named but with the reasoning provided. The documentation provides the reasoning for shutting down the first investigation.

On bullet point three, it's the same idea. In the second last line, “the reasons for shutting down the Ottawa Police Service investigation, why further actions were not taken”: once again, that avoids the difficulty you seem to be worried about.

I believe the last one doesn't necessarily speak to any individual's criminality as such, so I think the last point could probably stand.

In that way we still get a more fulsome idea of the processes that took place and perhaps why investigations were shut down, while avoiding the difficulty of having reports before us that name people who may in fact be innocent.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I'll support the calling of the Acting Commissioner of the RCMP and the Chief of Police of the Ottawa Police Service, without seeking the documentation beforehand.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'd be happy to support that as a separate motion.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Well, as a separate motion or as an amendment. As I said at the beginning, I have no problem with their coming in and having to explain themselves, but I really don't think we want the files, Mr. Chairman.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

We're no longer requesting the criminal files, according to—

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Well—

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Once again, I'm bending over backwards right now trying to—

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Let me confirm with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj that, first of all, we agree that we ask for the audit. That's not in dispute.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Number two, in lieu of getting these files, we ask the Acting Commissioner of the RCMP and the Chief of Police of the Ottawa Police Service to come forward—

[A voice]

And then ask for the files when they're here.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

—and explain what happened.