Evidence of meeting #72 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 brown.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Order. Try to keep the politics out of it as much as possible, gentlemen.
Go ahead, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I'll move on since we're not getting an answer from you on this particular question.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yesterday you were very liberal in your use of that gavel when I was exchanging questions and answers with Ms. McLellan. You indicated at that time there would not be any interruptions--
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
If you could be consistent in the way you apply the rules, we would really appreciate it.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Day, I understand that there is a sworn affidavit before the courts that you were made aware of interference by Mr. Zaccardelli's RCMP in our political processes. Surprisingly, it is a sworn affidavit by a candidate of the Conservative Party.
When you were made aware of this particular very serious allegation, what did you do? When did you hear about it, and what did you do?
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Thank you for pausing long enough for me to answer a series of questions, and I'll try to do that now. If you can show me the same respect as I'm showing you, which is to wait for you to finish and then to respond, I'd appreciate that.
I will repeat, I do find it ironic that this entire episode, taken place under the Liberal regime, during a period of time in which we saw zero action on a very serious matter.... And I am not pointing culpability at any elected person. I'm just saying there was zero action.
I'll repeat what I said. When I became aware of this and posed the questions first of all to the commissioner and heard from him that the matter was indeed being looked at by the Auditor General, I contacted the Auditor General and said I would be looking forward to her deliberations on this. As a matter of fact, we were all looking forward to her deliberations on this. I met with her in November on that, and she confirmed to me that she would be publicly making her observations known on the whole matter. She did that on February 21, I believe, in front of this committee. On March 28, at this committee, allegations were so serious about wrongdoing, which was a surprise to many of us, that the very next day, March 29, I announced that there had to be an investigation into this matter, and by April 12 we had announced that there would be an investigative body put together to do that. They began their work. They delivered their work on June 15.
I agree with the chairman. I don't think this should descend into political partisanship. You've certainly been known to take that position on this particular issue--again somewhat ironically given that it was a Liberal mismanagement--but that's your right to do.
I took action. I took swift action, not wanting, of course, to undercut the Auditor General but wanting to hear fully. She had a right to speak fully, not just to me but to the committee and to the public, about this. Knowing that no action had been taken for years, my colleagues and I determined it was time. We wanted action. We wanted answers. We wanted it as soon as possible, but we also wanted there to be prudence in the whole investigation so that we could make some headway on this.
That's in fact what I did, and I think the record shows that my movement on this was not only exemplary because it was recommended by people wiser than I, including members of your caucus, but also because the people of Canada wanted answers to the questions that were being posed--very serious matters. We took those matters very seriously, and we acted on them, and we continue to act on them.
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
There's another round, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.
Monsieur Laforest, for seven minutes.
3:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj made reference to a letter from a lawyer in December 2006. Has that been tabled? If it hasn't, will he table it?
3:10 p.m.
Liberal
3:10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Good afternoon. Mr. Minister. You said that problems arose when the Liberals were in power and that you have worked to resolve them. Yesterday, Mr. Fitzpatrick talked about how the RCMP came into the world, and I jokingly wondered if it had a conservative father and a liberal mother, or the other way around. In the same vein, I am suggesting to you today that the RCMP has some genetic problems, serious problems that have become apparent in the last few months.
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts is now holding its 18thmeeting on this matter. You may be the last witness that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts hears. Today we heard from new commissioner Elliott who told us about his strategy for restoring confidence and rebuilding. But the appointment of a man who worked to censor the O'Connor Report leaves a bitter taste in our mouths when we think about the need for transparency in the reform process.
We found out that Mr. Brown, whom we saw earlier, to whom you entrusted the chairmanship of a working group, and who wrote a report, was not even aware himself of all the information that I consider to be relevant. I am specifically thinking about the independence of the investigation conducted by the Ottawa Police Service on the problems in the RCMP. We have found out that he mentioned it in his report, but that he was not familiar with it himself. So there are some significant blunders.
I return to the need for a public inquiry—I stressed it this morning as did several others—so that we can shed real light on this. Frankly, I can tell you that we do not feel that we are any further along. We only have bits and pieces of information. After 18 meetings, we know more, I agree, but we believe that there is more to know. But we do not feel that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has the mandate to get to the bottom of these things. We are not investigators and our resources are limited.
Mr. Brown suggested a group working behind closed doors to solve problems that arose from a lack of transparency. That seems to us to defy logic. A number of people are asking for a public inquiry. We are not alone in asking for one, some newspapers have repeatedly done so.
What do you think? Do you feel that the public will really be able to regain confidence in the RCMP? There is a real crisis of confidence.
This morning, Mr. Elliott mentioned some shortcomings. I am afraid that—as I told him again—this is not about some shortcomings, this is about a basic structural problem.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
The question of trust is very important. I agree with the view that you expressed here. It is also important to understand that opinions differ on the question of a public inquiry. Let us remember that Mr. Brown listened to all the witness who came before the committee, that he read more than 4,000 emails about the problem, considered about 35,000 pages of documentation and heard more than 100 hours of evidence. He and his committee colleagues had access to all the information. After all that, he provided recommendations that I think are very important.
Opinions differ on whether a public inquiry should be held at some stage. This is a very serious undertaking and would be very expensive. Inquiries of that kind take a lot of time, and we want to see progress and solutions. As you said, we want the RCMP to be transparent, strong and effective. This is why we decided to put this process in place. I am very confident, and it is important that I be confident, given that none of these matters occurred in our government, in Canada's New Government, if I may use the term. This all happened in a previous administration. It is not for me to defend it, but I am like all Canadians from coast to coast; I am very concerned about the safety of our communities, our streets and our citizens. This is why I am convinced that the process we have chosen will provide answers on matters of security. I respect that fact that we disagree on this subject.
3:15 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
From all your comments, I specifically take note of your view that a public inquiry would cost a lot of money. Everyone knows that, I feel. But I believe that it is a transparent way of letting everyone discover the facts, and would lead to real reform of the RCMP.
Do you not think that, in spite of the costs, you should go further? Is that an obstacle? You brought the matter up. People want a reformed RCMP. The fact that it is no longer functioning and that it is now a long way from its original mission costs a lot of money too.
I think that some people would pay for it themselves. You do not put a price on something like this.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Cost is one factor, but it is not the most important. I am sure that you do not mean that the entire RCMP is no longer working; some people say so, and others think it, but this is not the majority of Canadians. There have been problems at the RCMP, especially in upper levels of management. Mr. Brown said so, and so did the Auditor General. We also have become convinced of it. That is why we have put in place this process that is supposed to bring about solutions.
Operationally, the RCMP is working well. But there are problems. As I have said, I respect the fact that we do not share the same view. We need firm and effective solutions as soon as possible. When we see the recommendations in December, maybe our opinion will be different.
3:20 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
But we are going to continue to ask for a public inquiry.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I would first like to thank our minister for coming before us. Mr. Day, you are here to speak to us today about solving the present problems and to clean up after the scandals that have taken place. But yesterday, the goal was different; we have talked about what took place under the previous liberal government. This is the reason we invited the minister who appeared before you did. So our discussion is in two parts: what we are doing to fix the problems—and my congratulations to you for that—and the scandal that happened when the Liberals were in power.
Ms. McLellan said some interesting things. First of all, she agreed with almost every witness we've had on the panels that there is no need for a public inquiry. That was the first thing she said.
Secondly, she indicated that she supported the approach you have taken. She said the following: “Mr. Day, the minister, discharged his responsibility by asking Mr. Brown to do what he did”. I admire her for her non-partisanship in recognizing your efforts.
She also recognized your efforts in implementing the O'Connor report. Can you tell us how the progress is going on the implementation of that report, Minister Day?
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
Stockwell Day Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
On your first observations, I also noticed Ms. McLellan's remarks. I reviewed them yesterday. I will say it's difficult in an atmosphere of highly charged political rhetoric to take a non-partisan position. Now, I believe she did that when she was commenting on the way I'd handled the situation. Of course, if she disagreed with how I had handled it, I'd like to think I'd be able to make the same statement right now.
I think she was taking a fair view. She knows what it's like to be in this position, and she knows the length and complexity of a public inquiry. Though she and I may have disagreed on any number of things and issues and policies over the period of time when we sat opposite one another in the House of Commons, I do believe she was always wanting to find an efficient way to get work done, especially as related to security.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's face it, around this table we all know what political partisanship is. We all get into it as a necessary and vital, or vibrant, part of democracy. But when it comes to the safety and security of our country, the more we can set aside partisanship, the better for our citizens. I think they really expect that when it comes to safety and security.
So I appreciated her observations that I had discharged my duties in more or less the appropriate manner. I wasn't surprised to see that she agreed that it probably wouldn't be best to go to a full public inquiry, because of the length of time—and money is one consideration, but not the only one. But we want answers and we want solutions, and that's why we've moved on this.
On the latter part of your question related to the O'Connor inquiry, all of the recommendations related to the RCMP, if not completed, are in the stage of being fully implemented. I said, and the Prime Minister said—our government said—right from the start when those recommendations came out that we agreed with them and wanted to see them put in place.
I guess the silver lining, if there is one, in the dark cloud of these types of serious problems--the Arar problem and this one--is that changes do take place that make for a better system. With the changes that the RCMP has put in place—the memoranda of understanding and the operational understanding between the RCMP and CSIS that have been achieved, and the operational understanding between the security agencies in Canada and other countries, notably the United States, in terms of what type of information should be shared and how it should be shared—some great improvements have been made.
It took a tragic situation for those improvements to come into being, but in fact, just to answer that question, there has been very successful implementation of the recommendations coming from the Arar inquiry.
3:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Minister, former Commissioner Zaccardelli met with you at some point throughout the process and told you that he had problems with the limitation period for dealing with employees who had been involved in misconduct. You've been very open about that. What's your view on the limitation period? Do you think it needs to be extended so that we can go back farther and punish misconduct in the force?