Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

[Commr William Elliott]

Deputy Commissioner Sweeney was appointed the appropriate officer, which is the process followed when a formal discipline process is initiated under the RCMP Act. He made a determination based on his evaluation of the evidence as to whether there were sufficient grounds to proceed to adjudication. In his opinion there were not sufficient grounds to proceed; therefore, he withdrew the allegations. My role then was to deal with the consequences of the fact that there was no longer a disciplinary process pending, and to reinstate Deputy Commissioner George. I made a number of decisions in relation to that.

Frankly, the question of reinstatement was not a terribly difficult one, because the bases on which the suspension had been made were no longer in existence. So the question for me really was whether or not she would go back to her previous position as the deputy commissioner for human resources.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Exactly what position did she go back to? Could you clarify that for us? Perhaps you mentioned it earlier. I really thought that you had said earlier that Mr. Sweeney had made a recommendation. However, you clearly stated that no recommendation was made. And yet it seems to me that you did use this word. That is why I used it.

[Commr William Elliott]

The deputy commissioner will be doing a number of projects pending the start of educational leave that was agreed to in an agreement entered into by Commissioner Busson on March 27, 2007.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Elliot.

Merci, Monsieur Laforest.

Mr. Williams, five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Elliott, Ms. George told us that you looked into all information before you reinstated her, and actually you quoted text from the court decision regarding the testimony before this House that said that the RCMP had no capacity to pursue the matter of the evidence given under parliamentary privilege.

I understand that you have reinstated Ms. George. But I'm rather concerned that you would reinstate the deputy commissioner of the RCMP when, in your words, you said there was no disciplinary process pending. Well, I beg to differ, because there is a disciplinary process pending. It's going on right here this morning, Mr. Elliott, where we had Ms. George defending herself on her statements. I'm concerned that you reinstated someone of that rank in the RCMP when she was under a disciplinary process of another venue. And I agree it is another venue. Even though it was outside your purview, it was within our purview to have a disciplinary process.

I want to know why you reinstated her when we were still looking into a matter that Chief Superintendent Paulson referred to as perjury. Now, that's a serious allegation. In Parliament, as Ms. George pointed out, we call it contempt of Parliament. But it's the same seriousness of charge.

Given that was hanging over her, why would you reinstate her at that time?

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to clarify that. In my response, when I referred to there being no discipline process, I was referring to matters within my purview and the purview of the RCMP, and those are disciplinary procedures pursuant to the RCMP Act.

In answer to the honourable member's question, I refer again to the decision of the Federal Court, which in essence directs me as commissioner, and I quote again: “...if the House believes it was misled, it is for the House alone to investigate and punish this offence.”

I do not believe that the fact that this committee and the House still have issues before it can be used by me with respect to a disciplinary matter under the RCMP code of conduct.

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

I'm not talking about the RCMP code of conduct. I'm talking about the reinstatement of Barbara George at that particular time, given the fact that there was a serious disciplinary process in place and ongoing at that time.

I think what the commissioner is trying to tell me, Mr. Chairman--and he can correct me if I'm wrong--is that a senior member of the RCMP could be under a cloud of accusation in any other venue outside the RCMP and it means nothing to the RCMP. Even for deputy commissioners--they can continue working and so on with no appropriation of any kind because it's in another venue. This is a serious charge hanging over Ms. George. She realizes that. I would hope that the RCMP and the commissioner realize that.

My concern is for the 26,000 RCMP officers who are putting their lives on the line to uphold the law, and we have lost far too many of them over the last few years. Therefore my concern is that we would have a deputy commissioner who is under a cloud of potential contempt of Parliament, which Chief Superintendent Paulson referred to as perjury, and yet the commissioner reinstates her as deputy commissioner, even with that allegation hanging over her head.

That's why I want to know what the commissioner is doing at this time. Why didn't he wait until this committee resolved whether or not it believed there was a contempt of Parliament or that she had misled the committee, and then he would have been free to make his decision?

[Commr William Elliott]

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have been directed by the court and by Parliament not to deal with the question of contempt. I again refer to the judgment of the Federal Court, in paragraph 65:

Finally, if Parliament has reason to believe that a witness has deliberately misled the House, it is up to Parliament, and Parliament alone, to initiate proceedings and discipline such conduct. Misleading the House is contempt of the House, punishable by the House. If a court or another entity were allowed to inquire into whether a member or a witness had misled the House, this could lead to exactly the type of conflict between two spheres of government that the wider principle of parliamentary privilege is designed to avoid.

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

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, what he is telling us is that if we find “contempt of Parliament”, akin to perjury, it means nothing to the RCMP and she can continue on in her position. Is that what he's telling us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'll clarify just briefly, Mr. Williams, that it won't be us; it will be the House on the contempt. It's a minor point, but I just want to....

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

Okay. But if this committee finds that the allegations are upheld, it means nothing to the career of a senior member of the RCMP? Where are we going from here if we find the allegations are upheld?

[Commr William Elliott]

I don't think it would be appropriate for me to speculate, but if and when matters unfold, we will consider those matters and consider what, if any, further action is warranted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

There's just one point I want to make before we go to Mr. Christopherson.

Commissioner Elliot, I want to clarify. You're quite right, and you're quite right in quoting the court case about the parliamentary privilege concerning the evidence of Deputy Commissioner George that could not be used by the RCMP in their code of conduct investigation. But there are all kinds of allegations in the Paulson report, and that is your report. You certainly are entitled to look at that, look at the allegations, and give it whatever weight you think it deems necessary in coming to your decision. So did you consider that report? Or are you confused that you can't consider those allegations also?

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I'd just like to clarify. In your question, when you used the term “you”, if you mean the RCMP, then I certainly agree with you. But I do think that it's important to be clear, as well, with respect to which officer of the RCMP played which specific role in all of this.

Chief Superintendent Paulson conducted an investigation. He initiated investigations into all three allegations. The investigations continued into allegation number one and allegation number three. If it would help, I can refer you specifically to those allegations. It was on those allegations that he reported to the appropriate officer, Deputy Commissioner Sweeney, and it was with respect to those allegations, having reviewed the results of the investigation and other information, that Deputy Commissioner Sweeney, the appropriate officer, determined that there were insufficient grounds to proceed to adjudication.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson, you have up to five minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner, for attending today.

I would benefit from being reminded of those three allegations, if you would. Very quickly, please, just remind us of the essence of them.

[Commr William Elliott]

The first is addressed to Deputy Commissioner George:

That on or about September 19, 2003, at or near Ottawa, Ontario, you did conduct yourself in a disgraceful manner that could bring discredit on the Force. During a meeting with Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay, you advised him that he was on an island by himself and that others would not tell the truth. You explained that Chief Superintendent Macaulay was naive to think anyone would stand beside him in this type of situation. This is contrary to subsection 39(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988.

Number three:

That, between February 21, 2007, and March 28, 2007...you did conduct yourself in a disgraceful manner that could bring discredit on the Force in that, knowing that you had been involved, directly or indirectly, in Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell's removal and knowing that I had undertaken, as Commissioner of the RCMP,

—that's Commissioner Busson speaking—

to provide the Standing Committee on Public Accounts with all of the information pertaining to Staff Sergeant Frizzell's removal, you failed to inform me, your superior officer, of the above. Failing to disclose the extent of your involvement resulted in an incomplete response being provided to the Committee. This failure to disclose your involvement is contrary to subsection 39( I) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 1988.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

The second one pertained to the actual testimony that was here, which the court removed. Was that number two?

[Commr William Elliott]

That's correct. The allegation refers to giving false testimony before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on February 21, 2007.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes. Okay.

So that was already ruled by the courts to be out of your purview, and you are left with one and three?

[Commr William Elliott]

Yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Can I ask the law clerk something, Mr. Chair?

Could I have the attention of the law clerk?

You've heard the answer. I need some legal advice as to where the interface is. I understand the responsibility that we have in terms of what we're looking at. I'm hearing the commissioner talking about the allegations number one and three that were left, which the RCMP had to come to grips with. They are the same matters we are dealing with, but those allegations are within the RCMP, and not necessarily what's come here. I'm having some trouble understanding the interface between our role and that of the commissioner vis-à-vis allegations one and three. Can you provide me with some guidance, please?

[Rob Walsh]

I don't know that I can usefully comment specifically on allegations one and three as such without just making a general remark that would apply to all three allegations, particularly the second allegation.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, the second one is clear. It's one and three I need a little help with, but go ahead.

[Rob Walsh]

I think there's a lack of clarity there, which leads to some lack of clarity, perhaps, that you are suffering with one and three.