Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Very good.

[Rob Walsh]

Regarding the second allegation pertaining to her testimony before this committee, I believe Commissioner Elliott is quite correct in pointing out that the court had indicated that testimony could not be used by the RCMP for purposes of any investigation, whether criminal or internal disciplinary investigations. However, with the greatest respect to the witness, I think he's taking that decision further than it ought to be taken. I mean that with reference to Chief Superintendent Paulson's report that there was an inappropriate attempt by Ms. George to cause Staff Sargeant Frizzell to be removed.

I'm making an assumption here, Mr. Chairman, that it would be inappropriate to try to get an investigating officer removed for other reasons. That, I would have thought, was a legitimate point of inquiry by the RCMP regarding the internal conduct of both Ms. George and any other officer who might have interfered with an investigation, whether or not it was discussed before this committee. They can't use the testimony before this committee for purposes of laying any proceedings, but they could still—as I believe Chief Superintendent Paulson did in his report—investigate into how it was or it seemed to be that Deputy Commissioner George played a role in the removal of Staff Sargeant Frizzell. I'm making an assumption here, and perhaps I shouldn't. However, were she to have done so, it would have been inappropriate for her as a matter of police practice, never mind committee testimony. I think what the court said was that they couldn't use committee testimony.

To the extent that committee testimony touches on points one and three, or one and three are free of that, they can be investigated by the RCMP for internal purposes.

My concern here—and I don't know, Mr. Christopherson, whether I'm responding to your question--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, you are.

[Rob Walsh]

--is that the court ruling, in my view--to properly understand its impact--restricts the use of testimony. It doesn't mean that the same subject matter can't be the subject of inquiry elsewhere. It's just that you can't use the testimony before this committee for purposes of those proceedings.

[Commr William Elliott]

Can I make a comment, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Yes.

[Commr William Elliott]

I would like to state that my understanding of the implications of the decision of the Federal Court and the application of parliamentary privilege is completely in sync with the comments just made by Mr. Walsh. The matters referred to in allegations one and three of the notice of suspension were in fact fully investigated by Chief Superintendent Paulson and others. They were the subject of a report to the appropriate officer and they were the subject of the evaluation and decision by the appropriate officer with respect to not proceeding to adjudication.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I know I'm running short on time, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You have a minute and a half.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks.

That's why I wanted the clarification, because I was having some trouble understanding it. Unless the law clerk or you, Chair, want to correct my direction here, it seems to me that we can't have it both ways. We can't tell them, on the one hand, that you can't use anything that comes up here, and yet at the same time try to take what we're doing here and cross the line into personnel matters within the RCMP. I just heard from the law clerk that they were able, notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, to go ahead and have independent investigations.

What makes those independent investigations of an internal matter any different from any other that is going on at this time? Given the number of officers there are, there are likely one or two rattling around out there, so I'm having some trouble understanding where we would hold the commissioner to account on this reassignment, given that the part of it that is our responsibility has been supported by the courts as being within the parliamentary domain and nowhere else, and the separation is clear. So how can we expect the commissioner to take account of what we're doing at the same time we're saying don't take account of what we're doing?

So I'm having a little trouble understanding where we hold the commissioner to account on this particular order that he has issued.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm going to invite another response from the law clerk.

[Rob Walsh]

Mr. Chairman, I can understand the member's confusion. It might be difficult.

The subject matter on which someone testifies before a committee is not itself privileged. The testimony given is privileged. All I said a moment ago, or tried to say, was that if the subject matter of Superintendent Paulson's inquiry is the attempt to remove an investigator, that, to me, is an appropriate point of investigation internal with the RCMP. In doing that, they can't rely on what may have been said or not said here. That's the first point. Secondly, they clearly can't investigate whether a witness was telling the truth or not telling the truth in front of this committee. So in that sense, what is said here is beyond their reach.

The subject matter of the testimony, the issue, if you like--whether it was an inappropriate attempt to remove somebody--is a matter of legitimate concern to the institution itself, and they might well want to investigate it and could do so, in my view, but they couldn't rely on testimony here or go after her for apparently giving false testimony here.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Perhaps you'll allow me one bit of latitude.

So the measures, allegations one and three, that they have the right to follow up on, at that point that's no longer our business as a committee, correct?

[Rob Walsh]

It might be your business. You might choose to make it your business, and if you do, the testimony given here is privileged, but the subject matter isn't necessarily removed from the RCMP. They may have their own reasons to look into those other matters. It's just that they can't use the testimony given here for their own purposes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I understand. I'm just trying to see where there remains a tie-in between our work and the decision of the commissioner to reassign or not reassign a senior officer, based on allegations that are not the direct responsibility of this committee.

I am done. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

One last response, Mr. Walsh.

[Rob Walsh]

I think the tie-in, Mr. Chairman, is not so much in the substance of the allegations but in the fact that the committee had not finished its business and there could well be relevance to the decision of reinstatement, whether the House did or did not find the individual to have been contemptuous of the House. That's not reliance on testimony. That's recognition of a public act by the House of Commons, and it could well be relevant, in my view, to a question of reinstatement. The commissioner perhaps made a decision, it would appear, on the basis that the testimony could not be taken into account, therefore it was out of the picture, and the other allegations were withdrawn, so we had no basis to not reinstate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Holland, five minutes.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner, for appearing today.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair. Mr. Walsh has tried to put some words in the commissioner's mouth, and I just wanted him to give his opinion that he saw it the same way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Do you have a comment, Commissioner Elliott?

[Commr William Elliott]

Mr. Chairman, I think I've already indicated I did not believe there was any basis for me to continue the suspension.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Holland, for five minutes.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Commissioner, we've just heard from the law clerk that the subject matter is relevant. We know from the Paulson report that there were serious questions about Ms. George and her involvement in this matter. Furthermore, with respect to this committee particularly, we know that parliamentary privilege does not protect a witness from contempt of Parliament, or perjury, to use the equivalent term in other processes. It most certainly does not protect a witness from lying. And while it may be true, certainly, that the evidence or testimony given before this committee is not something you can use, the outcomes certainly are.

After the testimony given today by Ms. George, I can say there are deep and troubling concerns about what she said. There are inconsistencies that don't add up, and it stretches all imagination that the truth has been told in certain instances. So we are left with a very troubling circumstance.

What concerns me, Commissioner, in what you're saying here today, in not taking this seriously and not having reserved your judgment until our report came out and the committee and the House made a determination about whether or not there was contempt of Parliament, is what is at stake. We know there is a great deal of public concern about the RCMP right now and that your job is to restore faith in that institution. From the Air India inquiry to Maher Arar to the Mayerthorpe incident to the tasers and to the pension fiasco we're investigating today—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Holland, we're talking about the reinstatement only. We're not going to get into the Maher Arar case and—