Evidence of meeting #51 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 insurance.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Former Minister of Public Safety, As an Individual
No. I don't even know who you're talking about.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Okay. Well, that's all I'm asking. I'm not asking for a long explanation from either one of you. I'm only asking for a yes or no answer.
4:50 p.m.
Former Minister of Public Safety, As an Individual
You didn't get one. You were given an answer of no.
4:50 p.m.
Former Minister, President of the Treasury Board, As an Individual
I'd prefer to give a long answer. I have a few things to say.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I really don't think this is a laughing matter. You two might think it is, but I don't think it is.
If the report had come out on December 5 for the public to see, I would suggest it would have been very damaging for certain interests at that period of time.
4:50 p.m.
Former Minister, President of the Treasury Board, As an Individual
Mr. Fitzpatrick, you may recall that the government was defeated prior to that. Once a government is defeated, a protocol comes into place for ministers, so that they only deal with those items that are essential to maintain the operation of the government until such time as the election is decided. So as far as general administrative matters, in the full range, are concerned, the answer is that none of these things were brought forward to ministers, period.
I think the parliamentary secretary for the Treasury Board is here. He might know some of this. Of course, he might also have access to the information that I've put forward here, because it's produced by Treasury Board.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Alcock.
Thank you, Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Colleagues, we've again run out of time. I apologize. I'm going to three-minute rounds, but I'm going to have to use the gavel. Again, I apologize for that.
Mr. Rodriguez, for three minutes.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gauvin, you seem to be saying that some members of the Force were opposed to civilians playing an important role within the RCMP. Did you indeed make that statement?
4:50 p.m.
D/Commr Paul Gauvin
Yes, that's what I said. If you go back and read over the testimony that you had from certain people who appeared before these committees, it's quite obvious that civilians are not welcome in the force at senior levels. In fact--
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
In your view, are Mr. Macauley and Mr. Lewis, for example, among those officers who do not want to see civilians in the RCMP?
4:55 p.m.
D/Commr Paul Gauvin
Well, I think two people who, in their testimony, have been quite vocal about it are Mr. Lewis and Mr. Gork.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
There have been many accusations levelled at you or harsh comments made about you. Is it your belief that it is because of that?
4:55 p.m.
D/Commr Paul Gauvin
I don't want to speculate, sir.
I do not know. It is possible, but I do not know.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Mr. Chairman, my next question is also a comment. It is for Mr. Alcock. We are today witnessing the hijacking of the committee's work, for partisan reasons. What we knew before and what we know now is that there is no direct link between the minister and the RCMP. The RCMP is an independent organization. Today, a ridiculous attempt is being made to hijack the work of the committee for partisan purposes by calling former ministers, despite knowing full well what their answers will be. I would like to know what Mr. Alcock thinks of this hijacking of the committee's work.
4:55 p.m.
Former Minister, President of the Treasury Board, As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for the question.
I'm not going to offer too much opinion on the work of this committee. I think it's done very good work in the past. I think House of Commons committees can perform very valuable tasks.
I do think it must be very frustrating for members of the government, after 15 months in office, after a budget that was well received, after a new leader in the Liberal Party, to be unable to rise above 34%. So they're rocketing around, smearing anybody they can, in order to try to go back to the good old days of scandal. I just think it's unfortunate, because frankly, they're the government now. If they focused on getting the job done, they might actually find they have more support from Canadians.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
[Inaudible--Editor]...agree that the question and the answer really don't have to deal with the issues before this committee.
4:55 p.m.
Former Minister, President of the Treasury Board, As an Individual
It was a good answer.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
It may have been a good answer, Mr. Alcock, but I'm going to go back to Mr. Rodriguez.
We are here, ladies and gentlemen, dealing with chapter 9, concerning the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, of the 2006 Report of the Auditor General.
You have 15 seconds for one very quick question.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
This is to Mr. Gauvin.
As the chief financial officer of the institution, you would recognize all of the different layers and so on. Who is the person who would have given the instructions, whether it was Mr. Ewanovich or someone else, to start going around the Treasury Board guidelines?
4:55 p.m.
D/Commr Paul Gauvin
I can't say who gave the instruction, but this project was being done within the human resources area. In the RCMP, contrary to what many people may believe, we are very restricted to the Financial Administration Act, like any other department. We do training, we train managers, etc. But in any organization--and the Auditor General has said this, and so has Hugh McRoberts, the Assistant Auditor General--it's very difficult to protect yourself against every transaction.
In this case, as I mentioned before, there were a number of supervisory levels that broke down, that didn't do the job, and on top of that, there was this issue with CAC. As Hugh McRoberts said, when you have collusion, there's not a lot you can do about it. Hopefully, you'll find it, but everything is based on trust and risk.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you, Ms. Sgro.
Thank you, Mr. Gauvin.
I have one question, before we go to Mr. Williams, for you, Mr. Gauvin. You testified that in the operation of the finance department you had problems with Mr. Crupi. You testified that someone was put in there to watch Mr. Crupi. You testified that they took away the authority from Mr. Crupi. You testified that there was collusion.
My question is, why didn't you fire Mr. Crupi?
4:55 p.m.
D/Commr Paul Gauvin
Well, it wasn't for me to make that decision, sir. He didn't work for me.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Who's decision was it, then? Was there any discussion as to why this person wasn't fired? I think this is the question Canadians are asking themselves.
