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.
Former Minister of Public Safety, As an Individual
--there was the impugning of the integrity--
Former Minister of Public Safety, As an Individual
--the reputation of individuals.
Liberal
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
This is way outside the realm of my question. I know you're trying to help the witness here, but this is not my question. My question was very simple. It related to the statement in the House of Commons. It was not to ask whether she was surprised, but to ask why it is that a minister would prejudge the outcome of an investigation by immediately exonerating one of the potential subjects of that investigation, Commissioner Zaccardelli.
It's a very clear question, and we're now well outside any relation to that question. I know you're trying to help the witness, but perhaps we could get on with questioning.
Former Minister of Public Safety, As an Individual
Let me say that I believe--
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
If I can, I'll interrupt you again. Just continue to answer the question. We're not going to get into whether your answer is to Mr. Poilievre's satisfaction.
And Mr. Poilievre, that's it for time.
Former Minister of Public Safety, As an Individual
Yes, I will. Okay.
Let me simply again say, and put on the record, that I was shocked that someone would stand in their place and accuse the Commissioner of the RCMP of criminal wrongdoing. That has nothing to do with internal issues, the code of conduct, how he deals with his officers, the chain of command, or anything like that--the administration and management of the force. This is focused on an allegation of criminal wrongdoing.
In fact, let me go on. Mr. Poilievre doesn't bother to tell you that there are at least two other questions in which I make it very plain that we should all, including Mr. Sorenson, let the Ottawa Police Service do its job, which they did, and you've heard from former Chief Bevan and Mr. Paul Roy.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Poilievre.
Thank you, Ms. McLellan.
Mr. Christopherson, seven minutes, please.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you all very much for your attendance today. I want to shift gears just a little bit and maybe ask Mr. Gauvin a few questions.
Sir, you will appreciate that as the chief financial officer of the RCMP, you play a central role in all of this. So in the interest of fairness, I want to give you an opportunity to expand on what you talked about in the third paragraph. You make some strong allegations yourself, obviously to defend yourself, and you have said that you're not going to expand on it unless we have questions. I want to give you an opportunity to put that on the record, more in the interest of fairness than anything else. You've raised something important. People have said things.
Go ahead, sir. Please don't take all my time, but please take the time necessary to get your case on the record.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
In the third paragraph you said: “Further, since my last appearance before this Committee on February 21, there have been certain statements made by witnesses appearing before this Committee that are irresponsible and calculated to mislead, as they have been made without any merit nor any substance.”
Those are very strong allegations. You obviously feel strongly about it. I'm giving you an opportunity--if we don't waste it all in the couple of minutes we're doing here--to put some of the things that you feel need to be on the record, as a matter of fairness to you.
D/Commr Paul Gauvin
Okay, well I'll just say a couple of them.
It's been alleged that money was taken out of the insurance fund. Well, in fact, as I mentioned in my statement, the RCMP does not have the authority, does not have the mandate to administer insurance. Basically, all we do is get the premiums and we turn them over to Great-West Life. The Treasury Board has a mandate to administer insurance, but the RCMP does not.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Sir, we're really tight for time. Could you confine yourself to the comments made that you wanted to respond to? That's the opportunity I'm giving you here, sir. I'm trying, anyway.
D/Commr Paul Gauvin
Another one is that I was the subject of two criminal investigations, and I was not. I was the CFO and I was interviewed in two very large investigations of over 200 interviews. I cooperated and did what I had to, but I was certainly not the subject, that I know of.
NDP
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Well, I'm sorry. I just assumed, since you raised it in a prominent place.... I didn't mean for this to be something. I was giving you a chance to do something I thought you wanted to do. Obviously it's not that important.
Okay, I'm going to move on, then.
D/Commr Paul Gauvin
I'm sorry, can I come back for a minute? I think Mr. Lewis also said that I was in a conflict of interest. I have no idea what that statement means. I am the CFO; I've been the CFO in many departments, and I do my job in accordance with what I think I have to do. But as for being in a conflict of interest, I have no idea what that means.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay, good. I'm glad you had that opportunity.
If I can, I'd like to move to the auditor's report. It says in here on page 11, paragraph 9.26, that the report concluded--that's the audit report--“that the contracting processes used by the NCPC”--the National Compensation Policy Centre--“would not pass the test of public scrutiny”. It found that “ for a majority of these contracts, the NCPC Director did not apply a fair or competitive contracting process. He established contracts without competition and circumvented controls designed to ensure fairness, equity, and the lowest price.”
Sir, as the chief financial officer, where were you?