Public Accounts Committee on April 25th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We're going to move on, then.

Mr. Poilievre, you have four minutes.

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

Thank you for being with us, Commissioner Busson.

It seems to me that you have a big job ahead of you. You have a big mess to clean up. I have talked to a lot of the whistle-blowers who've been involved in this sordid affair, and they see some hope in your leadership. They have told me that they believe your heart is in the right place and that you're determined to put this organization back on its rightful course. So I'd like to get into the specifics of where we go from here to ensure that the RCMP is set back on its proper course.

Let me start with the independent investigation that the government has called. What disciplinary measures have you planned and publicized, amongst people working in your organization, for officials who refuse to cooperate with the investigation?

[Commr Beverley Busson]

There hasn't been anyone, as of yet, who has refused to cooperate. I am actually looking into the issue of whether I can order someone to cooperate or not under these circumstances. If I can, I certainly will.

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

So you're looking at ways you can order people to cooperate with the investigation. Are you considering informing your employees of the consequences of failure to cooperate with this investigation?

[Commr Beverley Busson]

I believe that the vast majority—and I'm not going to be tempted to say “all”—of the people involved in this whole issue are anxious to get to the truth, whatever that is. I don't envision that there will be—

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

That's not really my question. There have been questions about whether or not people will cooperate with this investigator. I'm asking whether you are going to put in place consequences for those employees who refuse to cooperate with the investigation.

[Commr Beverley Busson]

It depends on whether or not they are legally allowed not to cooperate. At that point in time, we'll have to look at whether or not.... If they're legally allowed not to cooperate, it's difficult to talk about consequences.

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

They would certainly be undermining their responsibility to your organization if they failed to cooperate with a ministerial investigation into a potential corruption scandal, would they not? It would seem that they would have a legal obligation to cooperate, and if not, a moral obligation, which I'm asking that you would enforce with consequences.

[Commr Beverley Busson]

I think each situation, if and when it arises, would beg a decision and a determination on the facts and the reasons for that person not to cooperate. If a person was obstructing justice, then certainly that would be a proper response. If a person had a viable and legal reason not to cooperate, it's difficult to make a carte blanche issue around it.

We are encouraging people to cooperate and facilitating that cooperation as best we can, because I'm very anxious to get to the bottom of all of this.

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

Well, I think what the Canadian people want to know is that if individuals in your organization try to obstruct this independent investigation from getting to the bottom of this matter, those individuals will face serious consequences.

I'll leave you with that message. I know you're not willing to be any more specific right now, but that's what I want to tell you.

[Commr Beverley Busson]

With your question framed that way, absolutely; they would be dealt with.

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

The government has introduced whistle-blower protections that apply to the RCMP. How do you intend to implement those in a manner that is independent, so that when people come forward with accusations of wrongdoing they can have them investigated without being punished?

[Commr Beverley Busson]

Of course, it's all very new to us. Our ethics adviser is building a fulsome business plan as we speak. We've already designated the executive and the designated officer called for within the act, and the ethics adviser is now putting together a business plan to make sure we have a full process in place, with a design that will make it work.

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

I will just conclude, because I see that this is my last intervention.

You mentioned in response to the member's question about people putting money in their pocket.... I think if you read this KPMG audit, you will find without question that there are individuals who put money in their own pockets at the expense of the pension program that was meant to support the retirement of your members. Instead, it went into the pockets of some very well-favoured insiders, and that's unfortunate.

Your job, and I and I think all of us believe you're up to it, is to restore the public perception that we see on top of your letterhead, that your organization is guided by integrity, honesty, professionalism, compassion, respect, and accountability. We believe that you're up to that job, and we're here to work with you to make sure that happens.

[Commr Beverley Busson]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Poilievre, and thank you, Commissioner Busson.

Mr. Christopherson, you have four minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

To pick up where we just left off, Commissioner, you're one of the few people in a democratic society who actually have true power, absolute power such that you can command things to be done, and I appreciate that if you have any ability whatsoever, your clever legal people will help you to find a way to ensure that the pressure that needs to be there is on current sworn officers. You may not, but I suspect that if there is any way, you will.

But I'm concerned about how you would extend that power to people who are retired from the RCMP or people who are persons of interest in this investigation who have nothing to do with the RCMP. Do you have any power such that you can command them to appear before this investigator and tell the truth?

[Commr Beverley Busson]

No, I don't.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, I didn't think so. I appreciate that. Thanks.

I would like to quickly ask Assistant Commissioner LaFosse his opinion.

When you found out that Chief Superintendent Macaulay was being seconded to DND, what was your personal reaction or thoughts about whether this was a good thing or a bad thing for him?

[A/Commr Darrell LaFosse]

Sir, I really knew nothing about what happened to Chief Superintendent Macaulay prior to the phone call that he was available to come to work in my area.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Fair enough.

Commissioner, this is another one of my hypotheticals that are really about this. I'm up front about that.

Hypothetically, if you determined that it was in the best interests of justice that an internal audit be conducted within the RCMP and that a criminal investigation begin, is there anything to stop you from having both of them work in parallel at the same time?

[Commr Beverley Busson]

Usually in situations like that we prefer to do the criminal first, so that people can be interviewed, know what's at risk, and have their story told. The other way, people are a little awkward about giving up information, feeling that they may be held responsible in another way. But there is no reason they can't both be done conjointly. From a Criminal Code perspective, in our own code of conduct we often do those two things in parallel.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Right. That's interesting. We can't do anything about trying to get inside the former commissioner's head, but it's interesting that he, in this case, decided it was in the best interests to go the other way. But that's for Mr. Zaccardelli to speak to.

Mr. Loeppky, given some of the questions that have been raised about arm's length and concerns about the way this ultimately turned out, would you act differently in terms of bringing in the Ottawa Police Service and the way the whole thing was done? Would you do it differently now, based on what you now know?

[Garry Loeppky]

You'd need to consider all the options, and one of the options.... For example, when an OPP investigation was done that I ordered, probably in about 2001, the OPP led that investigation, but we paid all the accommodation expenses, all of the salaries. So you'd have to ask yourself whether that is independence as well.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Fair enough, but in this case, sir, if you had the luxury of knowing what you now know when you were designing this at the beginning, would you do it differently?