Public Accounts Committee on May 14th, 2007

[S/Sgt André Girard]

I can't say that I was not getting any information from the organization. Sometimes it was limited to certain subjects and it took a long time to get the information. I realized that it was becoming increasingly difficult to receive the information directly. So I decided to file access to information requests to protect myself. If I got the information from the organization, I would have to decide what I would do with it, whether I could distribute it to the members I represented and how I would do that. But if I got the information under the Access to Information Act, it was clear that members had the right to see it.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Why did you want information about the Ottawa Police Services report?

[S/Sgt André Girard]

As the representative for 1,000 civilian and regular members of the RCMP in Quebec, I thought it was important for them to know how their pension fund was being managed.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

You talked about the process. You were basically not allowed to put your name forward again for the position of divisional representative. It is clear that certain people prevented you from running, because you had been re-elected almost unanimously every two or three years.

What explains this process? Should it not be up to the 1,000 members you represent to decide who will represent them?

[S/Sgt André Girard]

That's what I believe, Mr. Laforest. You are absolutely right. I have always held that it is the right of the members, or in my case, the members of the Quebec and Cornwall divisions, which now make up Division C, to decide who will or will not represent them, to agree or disagree with their representative's opinions or ideas.

But that did not happen in this case. One person made a decision; I saw that person at the back of the room a few moments ago. I believe he is sitting at the very back. Yes, it is Mr. Rod Keeping, who is sitting at the back of the room. He took the decision to deprive me of my right to put my name forward for an eighth consecutive mandate as the Quebec members' representative.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

And this happened after you filed an access to information request on the Ottawa Police Service's report.

[S/Sgt André Girard]

Yes, it happened afterwards, but that was not necessarily the only issue involved. What happened is that Ms. Barbara George, who appeared before the committee, established a policy, that is, she approved an RCMP policy dealing with potential conflict of interest situations involving staff relations representatives.

At the time, I was the treasurer of the Association des membres de la Police Montée du Québec, which is an independent association of members from Quebec; it is a bit like an accredited professional association or one which is seeking accreditation.

Following the implementation of this policy, which dealt specifically with persons occupying the position of chair, vice-chair, outgoing chair, treasurer, secretary, director or sergeant-at-arms of an association outside of the internal system of divisional representatives, this person, who is sitting at the back of the room, had the right to reject the candidacy of any person under the policy established or approved by Ms. George.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Would it be fair to say that you were prevented from getting the position you wanted? Would it also be fair to say that the 1,000 members you represented will not be represented by the person they want?

[S/Sgt André Girard]

That's correct, yes.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I have another question. Do you have the impression or do you know whether a similar situation occurred elsewhere within the RCMP?

[S/Sgt André Girard]

I know that other people within the RCMP tried to run for the positions of either staff relations representative or assistant representative, which is more or less like being a delegate for a particular sector, and to my knowledge they were all prevented from doing so because, under the policy, they held positions which were either that of chair, outgoing chair, vice-chair, secretary, treasurer or sergeant at arms.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

If you were unionized, do you believe that there would be more transparency?

[S/Sgt André Girard]

Based on my experience of the last few years, I believe that this would lead to much more transparency. In fact, I believe it would bring about something I have been advocating forcefully for years, namely accountability at all levels: within the rank and file, within the staff relations representatives and, of course, within RCMP management.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I have a question for Mr. Spice.

You held your position until 2003. But something happened in 2006. In the memo to Mr. Pierre Lavoie, Mr. Estabrooks said he believed that Mr. Gauvin was in a conflict of interest because he had been involved in preparing the documents requested, and he is a key player in the file.

This letter was sent after you were gone, when you no longer held the position, but you were still an assistant commissioner and ethics advisor. Mr. Estabrooks believes that the mere fact that Mr. Gauvin had access to these documents represented a conflict of interest and was unethical.

You were still an ethics expert. What do you think of this situation?

[A/Commr John Spice]

You're asking me about something that happened in 2006, three years after I retired.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I am asking for your opinion as an expert.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Chairman, we get facts on the table here; we don't ask for the opinions of somebody else. He just said he was retired for three years before this happened, so why are we letting this line of questioning go forward?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Well, he could rephrase it and ask him what he would do in a similar circumstance.

There really isn't any relevance to what your opinion is. Have you dealt with a similar situation before, Mr. Spice?

[A/Commr John Spice]

Not within the privacy context, no.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Perhaps we'll move on.

Mr. Williams, seven minutes.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I'm deferring to Mr. Poilievre.

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

Can I call Ron Lewis to the witness panel?

[Ron Lewis, Staff Sergeant (Retired), Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual]

I, Ron Lewis, do swear that the evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

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

Mr. Lewis, you occupy the same position for which Mr. Girard was saying he wanted to present himself as a candidate. Is that correct?

[Ron Lewis]

That's correct.