On the pension.
Evidence of meeting #66 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 rcmp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #66 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 rcmp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
A/Commr David Gork
On the pension.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
Thank you, Mr. Gork.
The next person scheduled to be on the list was Mr. Christopherson, but he has been asked to be put at the foot of the list until he gets a key witness here.
We'll move on to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj until that happens.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Who is this key witness? I don't see him on the list.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
Mr. Frizzell was supposed to be here. There's no surprise witness; he's somebody who's been here quite often.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I just thought he might have been on the witness list, so others could know if he intended to show up or we expected him to show up.
Thank you.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Assistant Commissioner Gork, in 2000-2001 I understand you were the RCMP's departmental security officer. Is that correct?
4:30 p.m.
A/Commr David Gork
That is correct.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
In that timeframe of 2000-01 while you were the departmental security officer, there was an internal investigation that you provided protected documents to an officer candidate. Yes or no?
4:30 p.m.
A/Commr David Gork
That is correct.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
You provided protected examination material to an officer candidate. What was her name?
4:30 p.m.
A/Commr David Gork
Inspector Mackie.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
So Ms. Mackie reported this serious ethical breach to Fraser Macaulay, who then commenced an internal investigation into your actions through Barbara George. Is that correct?
4:30 p.m.
A/Commr David Gork
No.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Then correct me. I understand there was an internal investigation.
4:30 p.m.
A/Commr David Gork
Yes, there was. It was not directed by any of those people. What Mr. Macaulay did was totally correct as an officer. He advised my line officer. My line officer then called for an investigation, and that's how it was done. It had nothing to do with Fraser Macaulay, Barb George, or anybody else. It goes through the line officer.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Perhaps we could have Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay sworn in, but I'll continue with Assistant Commissioner Gork.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I'd like to continue questioning in a different line, but I'd like to perhaps have the opportunity to come back to that.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I find this whole RCMP investigation strange. It's not that I don't support it. I just find it strange. We have information coming in out of left field that Mr. Wrzesnewskyj has acquired, which is perhaps from--
4:30 p.m.
An hon. member
Is this a point of order?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
It is a point of order.
It is perhaps from Superintendent Fraser Macaulay and is not privy to anybody else at this table. The witnesses are being challenged by information that is just coming out of the ether.
Normally this committee elicits information from the witnesses--it's on the record--and from there we make decisions. Now, I know we have gone off on a different tangent with this particular investigation, but I find it surprising, and it's not that I really disagree with it, it's just the fact that this information is now being thrown at the witnesses rather than our eliciting information from the witnesses, and they're being challenged on this stuff.
I don't expect he was told to be prepared for it. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I just find this whole style of investigation, with information being acquired by one particular member and then thrown on the floor--the witness is being accused of it--is totally contrary to our style.
I'm not saying it can't be done. I just think we should be careful how it's done.