Public Accounts Committee on March 28th, 2007

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

So neither of these people were RCMP? They were just kind of pushed into the system?

[C/Supt Fraser Macaulay]

Correct.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay. Thank you very much.

We're an accountability committee. Unfortunately, we're not a court of law. I think a lot of these matters should have been before a court of law, not before a parliamentary committee. To me, they sound pretty darn serious.

But we are a committee of accountability, and first of all, before we can hold anybody accountable, we have to find out where the buck stops and who is responsible.

I am reading your opinion, Chief Superintendent Macaulay, that the buck stopped with the person who was in charge of the RCMP at that time, Commissioner Zaccardelli. Is that a correct assumption on my part?

[C/Supt Fraser Macaulay]

Absolutely, sir. He was the gentleman to whom both Ron and I addressed our complaints. He was the ultimate person making the decision.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I just want to get something clarified from Staff Sergeant Frizzell. I was reviewing the transcript, and I think Commissioner George sort of suggested you were moved out of the investigation and put into A Division because of health reasons.

Is this your understanding of what transpired? Maybe it was the stress or something, or the strain they were imposing on you.

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

Well, I was sick and tired, but I wasn't removed for health reasons.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I am a lawyer, and from a lot of the stuff I've heard, if it had been somebody else they would be in criminal court dancing a tune. Some of them might have been packing their toothbrushes for the crowbar hotel visit. That didn't happen here.

Something that's very bothersome to me is that charges may not have been laid because things were dragged out long enough that limitation periods expired; it wasn't that there wasn't evidence. To me that's another problem. We have professional police people dragging things out deliberately to get beyond the limitation periods. That's another story in itself that is troublesome to me.

Chief Superintendent Macaulay, do you have these kinds of concerns, or am I off base on this concern of mine?

[C/Supt Fraser Macaulay]

I think your concerns are right on.

One of my greatest concerns was with the audit. Our internal audit group reports to our senior executive and/or through Mr. Gauvin. By stopping the criminal investigation and going back to an audit, all of a sudden all the findings started to filter back through the people who eventually ended up being those who were at the top making the decisions. Therefore there was a lot of time to see what was coming and start doing what they needed to do to make sure it didn't come out even further.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

I'm going to conclude within about a minute and a half.

Mr. Williams, do you want to deal with your motion now? You need consent anyway, I think.

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

Yes, but I think you will find unanimous consent to deal with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's motion at the first meeting when we come back on April 16. I propose that the first half hour of that meeting be in camera to deal with where to go with this issue, including Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Does Mr. Williams have unanimous consent for that direction?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

He has changed it to bring unanimous consent for the motion. Is that correct?

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

I'm asking if there is unanimous consent to take the first half hour of the next meeting on April 16 to discuss in camera where we go from here, including talking about Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's motion.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Why would we lose the opportunity to hear three or four very key witnesses so we could assess them?

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

I'm not opposed to bringing the witnesses forward. I just want to do it in camera so we can decide where to go from here.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I think the motion is where we have to go, because we need to hear from those six people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I want to put it on the agenda of the steering committee on the 16th anyway. I'll do that myself.

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

I think we have unanimous consent for Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's motion, at least on this side.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I think it's very helpful for all of us. We have the same interests here.

Thank you.

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

I want half an hour also.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Going back to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's motion, does he have unanimous consent?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I just want to ask a question before I give unanimous consent, if you will allow me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I will.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I want to know whether that will preclude the discussion. As I understand it, Mr. Williams is suggesting that we go in camera for a half hour, and part of the focus of the discussion will be Borys' motion. If you're going to move it now and pass it, that precludes other options that I think some of us want to explore.

While I have the floor, at said half-hour in camera meeting, I would like to request that the law clerk be present.