Evidence of meeting #53 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes, you may.
One came from the document that Assistant Commissioner Gork had signed by Chief Superintendent Doug Lang, and it cited various reasons. That was attached in the letter.
I'm listening now to the head of the investigation, Inspector Paul Roy, who tells us that he was not removed. In fact he was sent back to his home base, along with the other 16 or 17 investigators, upon completion of his report.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
This is what Inspector Roy is saying: he was not removed from the investigation.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Okay. We have heard that he was removed for health reasons. We've heard he was removed for harassing behaviour. And now we're hearing that he was not removed. I'm sorry, but this is becoming very hard to follow.
5:05 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Well, it is, particularly since people cannot get an answer out straight.
Mr. Chair, may I please speak?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Pierre, you're out of time.
I'll allow you to finish the answer and then we'll move on.
5:05 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Thank you.
On February 21, when I was asked why I thought.... This was two years ago. I didn't have the document in front of me. I remember Doug Lang telling me that he was ODS, off-duty sick; he was mentioning the doctor. I thought that, under stress, he had gone home.
Then the document comes in from Assistant Commission Gork, who thinks that he has been removed for various reasons. It's stated right there in that document. I listened to retired Inspector Paul Roy, who said he was not removed; he was simply sent home at the end of the termination of the investigation.
I'm not involved in either aspect of it, and you can take your pick as to which one it was. I would tend to go with retired Inspector Paul Roy.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much.
I have one question following up from that examination by Mr. Poilievre.
Ms. Burton, you testified that you were interviewed for three hours by Staff Sergeant Mitchell?
5:05 p.m.
former Director general of Human Resources, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
On my initiation, yes. He came to my office on December 20.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
When you were here before, the question was asked of you: “Did you find the investigation harassing when he was questioning you?”...“He did not interview me as a witness....”
5:05 p.m.
former Director general of Human Resources, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
Yes, Mr. Chair. I was never advised that I was being interviewed as a witness or anything to that effect. I initiated contact with Mike Frizzell and asked him to come and see me. I had information for him. I had documentation to give him. So he did not indicate that I was a witness or any other terminology that has been used in this committee.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Aren't you playing with words here? The question from Mr. Fitzpatrick—
5:05 p.m.
former Director general of Human Resources, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
I did not find his behaviour harassing, no.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Let me read it to you. The question: “Did you find the investigation harrassing when he was questioning you?” Your answer: “He did not interview me as a witness, sir”.
5:05 p.m.
former Director general of Human Resources, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
That was my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that he was not interviewing me as a witness. I would assume that he'd tell me if I was being interviewed as a witness. I don't know. I'm not sure what their procedures are.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you all again for taking the time to come forward.
The reason it's crucially important for us, for a public inquiry, or for somebody to get to the bottom of these particular issues is because it speaks to whether or not there was an attempted cover-up. If there wasn't, we need to get a whole lot of people's reputations back, and if there was, that's in some ways a bigger problem than the initial crime. I think President Nixon would have something to say about how that can collapse around you.
So we have to get to the bottom of whether or not these transfers were done as punishment, to take people away from finding out things, or whether it was just the regular course of business. It matters incredibly.
Ms. Revine, I appreciate your coming back today. Let me set this out. You're currently working from home...full pay, full benefits, full everything, except you work at home most of the time instead of the office.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
5:05 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Are there other people who are in the same work situation?
5:05 p.m.
Public Service Employee, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Not that I'm aware of.
5:05 p.m.
Public Service Employee, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
At this point I've been diagnosed with PTSD, so it will continue for at least two years.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay. So we're getting into the health issue now, and that's my segue. I'm trying to be as respectful as possible. If at any time you think we're crossing the line on your privacy or on health, stop answering. Okay?