Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

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

No, this is only contextual, to say what's at stake.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

But it's getting pretty broad.

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

Okay, to bring it back, if we have that as context and that at stake, why on earth would you not have waited for this committee and the House to make a determination whether or not contempt of Parliament had occurred before you reinstated Ms. George?

[Commr William Elliott]

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to clarify that I do not believe I have said or done anything indicating I treat the matter of contempt of Parliament lightly. And I'd like to clarify that I do not treat that matter lightly at all. But I do think it's important for us.... I talked earlier about due process. There was a process initiated. That process was based on three specific allegations. Decisions were made with respect to those three specific allegations, one as a result of parliamentary privilege and the direction of the Federal Court, and the other two based on a careful evaluation of the evidence. Because there's been a determination with respect to a specific process and specific allegations, that is not a reflection of my views as an individual, or as the Commissioner of the RCMP, or of the RCMP as an organization, with respect to another matter outside of the process I was called to testify on this morning.

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

The decision to reinstate Ms. George was made in advance of a report from this committee on the investigation of this pension fiasco. It just doesn't make any sense to me that you wouldn't wait for this committee's report, a report that condemned the actions of Ms. George and took great exception to what occurred there. Yet she was reinstated before that report came into place. And while we know you can't consider the testimony, it certainly is public. Why have you not at least waited for the outcome, given a couple of very specific facts?

We heard from Ms. George today that it was a shot out of the blue when she was asked about whether or not she was involved in the removal of this officer. We know from the Paulson report that she was specifically advised in advance—this is point 9(c) on page 24—that Mr. Frizzell was going to be raised as an issue, and yet she said it was a bolt out of the blue. And then she took the time in her testimony to state in absolute, unequivocal terms: “I can state with absolute finality...”—and these aren't equivocating terms—that she had “anything whatsoever to do with...”--

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Point of order, Mr. Chair. Point of order—

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

My point is that these are public proceedings, and that the outcome—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Order. Order, please.

Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre, on a point of order.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Nothing Mr. Holland is saying is even admissible with the RCMP. None of that testimony can even be considered in disciplinary proceedings against any of its employees, because it is entirely immune. I'm not the person saying so; it's the Speaker of the House who has written the RCMP to instruct them as such. Why are we even reading this testimony, which would not even have been admissible in the decision the RCMP made?

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

My point is simple, Mr. Chair. It is that the outcome is actionable; the subject matter is actionable.

To the commissioner, I am not suggesting that you make a determination on what your thought is of this process, but you are aware that there are grave inconsistencies here. I'm asking why you would not simply wait for the outcome, which is actionable--and, I would suggest, must be actionable. Why would you not wait, when there are such serious questions before the House of Commons and before this Parliament?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Holland, your time is up.

Go ahead, Commissioner Elliott.

[Commr William Elliott]

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the matters the honourable member raises as being actionable, to use his term, are not actionable within the context of the disciplinary process initiated on March 30, 2007, against Deputy Commissioner George by the then Commissioner Beverley Busson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Commissioner Elliott.

Thank you, Mr. Holland.

Mr. Poilievre, this will be the last question. You have five minutes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Commissioner, Mr. Holland went on at some length reading excerpts of testimony before this committee--excerpts that the Parliament of Canada, through its Speaker, has indicated that you cannot take into consideration in your disciplinary proceedings against Ms. George.

What I think you're waiting for is for Parliament to make a decision. We've been advised by our law clerk that the RCMP cannot use any testimony before the committee; however, it can use decisions by Parliament. No such decision has been made. To this point, Ms. George has not been found in contempt of Parliament. If she were to be found in contempt of Parliament, you could consider that as an agency, but as of now, there is not such a finding. Is it therefore your understanding that you cannot discipline her for things she has said in this room as part of proceedings of this parliamentary committee?

[Commr William Elliott]

That's clearly my understanding.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Not only is it your understanding, it is the instruction--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

There is a point of order.

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

On a point of order, I don't think it's factually correct that there was nothing that is a matter of public record as an outcome; there was a report by this committee dealing specifically with this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

No, this is not a point of order.

Please, Mr. Poilievre, just continue. You've got three and a half minutes left. We are only talking about the reinstatement. We're not going to go back in the history of the whole issue; let us talk about the reinstatement only, please.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Even more narrowly, we're talking about whether that reinstatement should have occurred prior to this Parliament's decision on the possibility of contempt by Ms. George. Thus far, the RCMP has no usable evidence that Ms. George has been in contempt of anything.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Well, do you have questions?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I do have a question for him.

Is it the view of the RCMP that allegations one and three have not been proven?

[Commr William Elliott]

Yes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The RCMP has determined that allegations one and three have not been proven. We are left, then, with allegation two.

Allegation two is that she perjured herself before this committee. Even if it were true, and even if one day it is found true, you cannot legally take it into consideration in your proceedings, because our Speaker has written you and said you may not. Is that correct?

[Commr William Elliott]

Yes. There is just one minor point of clarification. The allegation that we're referring to as allegation two, which is so numbered in the formal notice of suspension, is based on an allegation of giving false testimony.