Public Accounts Committee on April 16th, 2007

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

People are entitled to due process and—

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

So he's on leave. He hasn't been fired.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

I didn't say he was fired. I said he was removed from doing that job the way Jim Ewanovich...and I gave instructions that very day.

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

So you didn't even get rid of him. You implied in your testimony that you had gotten rid of him for this misconduct, and now you tell me he's not even gone, but is on leave.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

I did not imply anything. I stated very clearly in the statement that I had the two people who were principally responsible for what I believe were the wrongdoings in the audit removed from their jobs. They are entitled to due process in terms of exiting from the organization.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Before we move on to Mr. Christopherson, let me ask you this, as a follow-up to that question. Would Mr. Crupi's personnel file confirm any of this information?

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

Could you repeat the question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Obviously the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would have a personnel file for Mr. Crupi. If we got that file, which we're entitled to have, would that indicate why he was dismissed?

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

I'm not certain what's in the file. I can only tell you the instructions I gave that very same day when I received the audit. I wanted the two people removed from their positions so that they would not be in a position of authority to direct human resources or the National Compensation Policy Centre.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson, for five minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Zaccardelli, let's go back to the issue of the ordering of a criminal investigation and whether or not that really happened. Let me introduce a couple of facts, and then I'll make my comments.

When you splice it, the actual wording that the Auditor General uses in her report is:

The RCMP initiated a criminal investigation on 23 June 2003. The Commissioner then cancelled it two days later to conduct an internal audit to more clearly identify issues and help determine if an external investigation was warranted.

We have the current acting commissioner saying under oath here:

My understanding around the first criminal investigation was that it was not the commissioner who ordered that investigation but someone else. In his review of that, he turned it into an internal audit for whatever reason he felt was expedient.

And lastly, I have a quote from Mr. Lewis, referring to you, sir:

He instructed me at that time to go to the commanding officer of A Division to start an investigation, and I have the documents, which will be tabled. At that time, it was Assistant Commissioner Ghyslaine Clément, because she was responsible for criminal operations in the Ottawa area.

If I have this right—and please help me if I don't—it's your contention, Mr. Lewis, that you went in to see Mr. Zaccardelli. As part of your discussion with him, he said he wanted you to go ahead and act, with his authority, to start this investigation by contacting someone. A couple of days later, you confirmed that in an e-mail, which then went to Mr. Zaccardelli.

Mr. Zaccardelli, you're saying you didn't give such a direction, and when you saw it in this e-mail, you immediately....

No? Then correct me now.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

I can only tell you what I did and what I know, sir.

Once Mr. Lewis came to me and made a series of complaints, my judgment was that the best way to deal with that matter was to have an internal audit. That very day—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But he left there with a different understanding.

[A voice]

That's right.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

I can't speak for his understanding. I can only tell you what I did. I ordered an audit, because I called the internal auditor—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You're not adding anything to my line of questioning, sir.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

I'm trying to tell you what I did that day, because then I have to get to the two days later.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I know what you did that day. We have testimony to that effect, sir. I'm really not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to narrow it down.

Let me ask you a direct question, sir. At that meeting, did you give directions to Mr. Lewis to initiate correspondence that would have the effect of starting a criminal investigation? Yes or no.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

Absolutely not, because it would have been contrary to the decision that I'd already made, which was to issue an audit.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. This is why you need a courtroom and not here, sir. I'm sorry, but I have to stop you and go to Mr. Lewis, if I have the time.

Mr. Lewis, would you give testimony, then, that that's not the truth and that you were given explicit direction to use the authority of the commissioner and convey that a criminal investigation was about to start? Yes or no.

[Ron Lewis]

Absolutely. Under oath, that's exactly what he told me.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Obviously this is not nuance. One of them is lying. It can't be both. They're saying opposite things, so either an order was given to start a criminal investigation or it was not.

I'm curious, though, Mr. Zaccardelli, how it came to your attention that somebody was starting a criminal investigation when they shouldn't have been. What's your opinion?

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

Two days later.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

How?

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

I do not know who, but someone brought to my attention—