Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Very good.

Mr. Christopherson, you have up to two minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I have probably a little more sympathy for Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's motion than Mr. Williams does, because I think the matter, number one, is rightly before us. Number two, just because there haven't been charges laid doesn't mean there aren't areas we should be going into to find out what's going on.

Certainly Mr. Williams would be the first to recollect the sponsorship scandal, and how it began and where it went. Ultimately it led to criminal charges, but it didn't start with that. The matter is rightly before us via the Auditor General.

Through you, Chair, my only concern to Borys is that we had a bit of a debate on this once before, where Mr. Wrzesnewskyj attempted to have certain police documents and investigative reports brought in. We determined that we really weren't there yet. If my memory serves me correctly, the majority of us supported a motion that would have had the RCMP commissioner and the police chief for the Ottawa Police Service come in.

If I didn't say it, certainly my intent was that if we aren't satisfied with what we hear there, I am quite prepared to entertain further action, maybe along the lines that you introduced earlier, but perhaps other things—and I find that this fits in that category.

You seem to know a lot about the story, and that's fine; you've done your homework. If you can pose questions that can't be adequately and thoroughly answered by the two police officers here at the table, then that would beg the question, how do we get those answers? At that point, your suggestion today and your previous one to me are back before us as options.

But I see this very much as either we get the answers we want, we're satisfied, and its over when they come in, or it's not satisfactory and there is a tacit understanding that, if so, we will dig further—and this may include going in that direction.

So for that reason, Chair, I don't find myself in a position to support this now. But I do give assurances to my colleague that if we don't get the answers from our invited witnesses, I am prepared to take further action to bring in those needed to get to the bottom of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. Laforest, you have up to two minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, contrary to what Mr. Williams said, I completely agree with your decision. As far as the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is concerned, I believe that this motion is quite in order.

This matter is part of a very broad issue and arises from the fact that as soon as the Auditor General informed us about significant problems pertaining to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, specifically, the pension fund, it is incumbent upon the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to look into the matter and hear witnesses. Accordingly, both Bloc Québécois committee members will be supporting the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Are there any other interventions?

I'm going to go to Mr. Fitzpatrick for up to two minutes.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I feel uncomfortable pursing this matter because implicit in this matter are allegations of something being really seriously wrong in the RCMP.

What we're doing is carrying on a kind of trial. We're hauling in a bunch of witnesses from one side to try to prove something. I look at some of the witnesses, and one says it's constructive dismissal and it's related to this sort of thing. But I see, maybe, unhappy ex-employees trying to get their things in. I'm not exactly sure what kind of tree we're going to start barking up if we want to plough into this sort of thing and what service we're going to really provide to anybody by doing this sort of thing.

I'm uncomfortable with it, quite seriously. I don't think we should be some sort of jury and prosecutor and judge on these sorts of things. I just don't think we're equipped to do those sorts of things. As Mr. Williams says, we're here for accountability; we're not here for holding trials and inquiries and major investigations. I feel uncomfortable ploughing into that sort of thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

I'm going to go to Mr. Sweet. I'm going to give the last word to you, Mr. Sweet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I'll be very quick. First, I agree with Mr. Fitzpatrick in the sense that I wouldn't feel comfortable having assented to a motion that has a number of allegations already, before we have the witnesses before the committee.

Second, the actions of a motion like this seem more like those for a police services board than for the public accounts committee.

And third, I think if we do what Mr. Christopherson suggests in following the path we're already on with the witnesses, then we do have options that would lead more to the regular process for our kind of business, rather than to this way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

I'm going to invite Mr. Wrzesnewskyj to respond. You have a minute and a half, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, and then I'm going to call the question.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm thankful that the NDP will consider calling these witnesses forward, witnesses that can provide us with key evidence that, unfortunately, we weren't able to dig into from the information the Auditor General was able to garner in her report.

What was quite worrisome in that report was that in fact you had millions of dollars, which she red-flagged, that went into the wrong pockets in the most inappropriate ways. She encountered a culture that made it very difficult for her to really dig into what transpired. We're talking about the pension insurance funds of the rank-and-file RCMP officers.

The two witnesses we'll have coming before us—the acting commissioner and the police chief—will only be able to take a look at what has remained in those particular files. They'll be briefed on it. Perhaps individuals here have gone through the Auditor General's report and been briefed. They might in fact even have more information than the two witnesses we've called. These particular witnesses will allow us the opportunity—we'll have two hours for this—to call other people forward so we can get at more of the details.

You referenced that this is legitimately within our scope of work. You referenced sponsorship—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Your time is up.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

We certainly dedicated the amount of resources required for that. I believe we would do a tremendous service for the Canadian public and for the RCMP rank and file if we did the work to guarantee that this never occurred again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

I believe the question has been canvassed adequately. I'm prepared now to put the question. The amended motion has been circulated. I don't have to read it. It's to call the six witnesses who are identified in the motion.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That concludes today's agenda. We're on for Monday.

The meeting is adjourned.