Public Accounts Committee on May 29th, 2007

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

Mr. Chairman, I asked for the floor before he made his motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

No, you didn't, but you're on the speakers list. He proposed his motion.

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

I had asked for the floor before he presented his motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead.

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

I am inclined to agree with Mr. Fitzpatrick. We find ourselves in a very difficult position, primarily because the documents were not translated before being tabled. They have not been tabled and, for that very reason, we are unable to divulge the names of the people involved. That being the case, I fail to see the value of this testimony or the quotes intended to explain facts Mr. Frizzell will be presenting.

As we all know, this is a public forum. We have agreed that the value of the Public Accounts Committee lies in the fact that what it does is public. However, if someone tells us that such and such an individual said this and then called somebody else, without any names ever being given, what exactly is the point? We can hear that testimony, but in my view, it carries very little weight.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, do you want to put your motion that the evidence be received in camera?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

No, not the evidence, but the names, the senders and recipients of the e-mails. Then we can judge at that point how to proceed, once we have those names.

I do believe it is of relevance. There's a significant difference if these are e-mails between minor officials or e-mails between senior levels of the RCMP. What I'm suggesting is a way to perhaps protect individuals who have been or may be subject to a criminal investigation while at the same time doing our due diligence and knowing what the sources are of these particular e-mails and who the recipients were.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, my only concern, the way I think the motion is being amended, if I hear it being amended, is that we'll deal with the question when we get in camera; we just won't do it right now. That leaves us the option of hearing the names and positions in camera, and leaving it at that. It gives us the option of bringing it public if we decide that's in the best interests.

My concern about not leaving an ability right now is that I would certainly like to have Mr. Tardi, and perhaps even the law clerk, present to ask them what the implications are of allowing testimony to be given when at no time anywhere does a witness have to acknowledge where that came from or who they're talking about. It just seems to me that at some point in natural justice there has to be an accounting that we've held this witness—not that we question his integrity, but that someone who may be damaged by all of this understands that we didn't just deal with a quote that came out of nowhere and accepted it as the truth, when we haven't accepted anything else without checking it.

All of that is to say that if the amendment is that we proceed now and the question of whether names are made public or not will be dealt with in camera at a future meeting, that certainly meets my needs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

We've been naming names throughout the entire process. I just would like to stop for a second and have Mr. Frizzell or perhaps Mr. Mole please explain to us the difference in treatment between the people named throughout this entire process and those who we're not naming today. Why the difference in treatment?

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

I can speak only for myself. The only names I've named are people who were sitting at the table with me. I've made a point not to, because these names are linked to the investigation, whereas others, to my observation, came out in speaking of other things—“he said, she said”, as opposed to “we investigated and found that this person did that”.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

So you would say that many of the names that have been named through the process by other people at other times—not by you—would be names that you would not have named in the same circumstances?

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

I'm an investigator. I came across this information as part of the criminal investigation. That's the big difference. I'm under different rules. I'm under a sworn oath that what I find during a criminal investigation I don't divulge. That's well past the Privacy Act; it's part of my oath. Where other people are talking about hearing this from so and so, I saw them do that, I'm talking about what was discovered during a criminal investigation. That's the big difference, in a nutshell.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Mole?

[D/Commr Kevin Mole]

Basically the information, as I understand it, came from the criminal investigative file. Although the file has a current status, I believe I've concluded it doesn't mean that it couldn't subsequently be opened with new information that comes to light. Again, these people certainly haven't been charged. I'm not sure the folks that Staff Sergeant Frizzell is being asked to name are even aware of the discussion here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Poilievre.

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

Friends, I fear we only have two options here. One is to demand that the names that Mr. Frizzell is quoting be given, in which case we can hear the quotes, or to ask Mr. Frizzell to neither give us the names nor the quotes.

It is unfair to the public to have a bunch of unnamed sources quoted into the record—people the existence of whom we have no evidence. It is equally unfair and unproductive to hear those names in private. The only purpose for holding these hearings, as parliamentarians, is to write a report about it. If those names cannot go in our eventual report and in our findings, they are no more use to us in private than they would be if we didn't know them at all. If we go into private, we find out the identities of these people for whom we're getting quotes, and we can't use their identities for anything, then why would we have their identities, other than for our personal curiosities? We couldn't achieve anything with those identities. We couldn't use their identities as evidence of anything. We couldn't use those identities to produce any sort of conclusion because we would not be able to cite those identities in the final report.

Our options are to ask Mr. Frizzell to use the privilege afforded to him before a parliamentary committee to cite the names of the people whose words he is using, or to totally omit mention of their identity and their words. Those are the only two options that are consistent, practical, and acceptable.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Personally, I am more interested in the motion moved by Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. What is interesting is that this would give us an opportunity to hear the names in camera, without their being made public. In that way, we could establish or clarify certain facts, make certain connections and perhaps gain a better understanding of some of the things that occurred, without always having to ask who said what to whom. Furthermore, to a certain extent, this would give us a chance to see whether we should take action, make this information public and determine what is feasible. Of course, all of that would be done in cooperation with the RCMP.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams.

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

The comment by Assistant Commissioner Mole I think was important.

When we started this little discussion, Staff Sergeant Frizzell said there was an ongoing criminal investigation. When there's an ongoing criminal investigation, I tread very carefully. However, since Assistant Commissioner Mole said the investigation had concluded and no charges were laid, that actually does put a different light on the matter.

Am I correct, Assistant Commissioner, in saying that the investigation has been concluded? I'm not asking whether you agree that charges should or should not be laid; I'm asking whether the investigation has been concluded and no charges have been laid.

[D/Commr Kevin Mole]

I haven't been involved in the criminal investigation at all.

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

Okay. Let me ask Staff Sergeant Frizzell.

Have charges been laid?

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

Not to my knowledge.