Evidence of meeting #46 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was senior.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
So neither of these people were RCMP? They were just kind of pushed into the system?
Conservative
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?
Chief Superintendent, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Absolutely, sir. He was the gentleman to whom both Ron and I addressed our complaints. He was the ultimate person making the decision.
Conservative
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.
Staff Sergeant, Strategic and Operational Support, National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Well, I was sick and tired, but I wasn't removed for health reasons.
Conservative
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?
Chief Superintendent, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
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.
Liberal
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.
Conservative
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.
Liberal
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
He has changed it to bring unanimous consent for the motion. Is that correct?
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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?
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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.
Liberal
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.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I think we have unanimous consent for Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's motion, at least on this side.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
I think it's very helpful for all of us. We have the same interests here.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Going back to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's motion, does he have unanimous consent?
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I just want to ask a question before I give unanimous consent, if you will allow me.
NDP
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.