Public Accounts Committee on May 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I suspect that we're very quickly heading to the point where we can force the issue if we want. That seems to be. But in fairness, I would at least like to hear from the most senior officer here what the implications are for something being divulged. Let's not just run roughshod here. Let's understand the implications of this material being released publicly.

[D/Commr Kevin Mole]

Mr. Chairman, certainly the implications for the RCMP in holding that information is to respect the Privacy Act and all the requirements of the Access to Information Act. So in releasing the information to the committee, we would be releasing our responsibility under the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, that part is good; we can deal with that, because we have the authority to override that. I was just concerned because I was left with the impression that there was a criminal investigation. I'm looking for implications beyond just the political. In other words, are we able to do something that's going to screw up an important case, divulge something that really does some harm to something that most Canadians would want kept confidential if it meant the effectiveness of what you do. I just want to give you a chance to tell us to wait a minute before we do this, and I'm giving you a chance to tell us what to think about. Otherwise, I suspect we're going to go right ahead and direct that this be tabled.

[D/Commr Kevin Mole]

Again, this is a criminal investigation, so the information that's contained within the report is subject to a criminal inquiry. So if for whatever reason the intent was to reopen the investigation at some point, then there is the opportunity that it could—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Before I relinquish the floor, nothing said at this committee can ever be used in any other proceedings, so I'm not hearing anything yet, officer, that's telling me—I'm sorry, you're acting commissioner. Is that your title, sir?

[D/Commr Kevin Mole]

Assistant Commissioner.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Assistant Commissioner, I haven't heard anything yet that would suggest we're going to damage something; that's what I'm looking for. I realize you may not want it released, but that's a different matter. So I have to tell you that I haven't heard anything yet that precludes us from doing this. It's just one e-mail with who it's from and to. There's no context. We don't know what part of an investigation. So I haven't heard anything yet, but I would afford you another opportunity, sir, to make that case.

[D/Commr Kevin Mole]

Again, Chair, the information contained in the investigative report is of a criminal nature, so once that's released in a public forum, there is some jeopardy to the investigation. As well, the information contained in the report, the names of people who are possible suspects or whatever, hasn't been disclosed to this point in a public forum.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Sir, is it the whole report or just one e-mail we're talking about?

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

There are a number of e-mails between parties. The content isn't protected. The people are protected just to defer to counsel. It's been announced publicly that this is a criminal investigation. I'm just worried about some of these folks who aren't part of the RCMP and haven't been named in this forum before.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I see, and they may be just brought in and damaged as a result.

Before I relinquish the floor, I'll just say this. Is there some way we can take it upon ourselves, Mr. Tardi, that we can agree to hear the evidence, the wording actually put on the record? Do we have the option of saying we will receive those names in camera to be true to our system? Do we have that luxury?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I would have thought the proper way to handle this issue would have been if there were references to individuals who had not been charged—and we don't want to damage anyone's reputation—that those names would be eliminated from any report we receive. Up until three minutes ago, I was clearly of the impression that once those documents got translated, they were tabled before this committee, and once they're tabled, they become public documents. Again, if we're dealing with a private matter involving a criminal investigation and people who were never charged, I would have thought they would be taken out of that report.

Mr. Williams, you have a comment?

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

Just because we have the power doesn't mean to say we use it and bring into the public domain issues that are normally private. When the RCMP are conducting a criminal investigation they're entitled to conduct their business in private until charges are laid.

I find it disappointing that these witnesses who have been here many times think we're operating under access to information legislation, which we're not. We see in The Toronto Star today that people want to be subpoenaed by this committee rather than come here voluntarily. That shows a woeful, inadequate comprehension of the way the parliamentary committees operate with the RCMP.

I've always deferred to the people's right to privacy, and will only allow these names out in public if it's absolutely mandatory. This discussion we're having came from Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, who asked for the names of these people. They weren't being offered by Staff Sergeant Frizzell. Therefore I would ask that the RCMP continue with their presentation and leave the names out of it. Our own particular curiosity need not be satisfied at this time.

The issue of the 15 binders still remains to be resolved. Therefore I suggest that the RCMP give some thought to whether they're going to recall them so we never actually see them, or give them to us on the basis that they're embargoed—or we decide on what basis they will actually become public documents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Or they can recall them and take out references to the individuals. That's what I would prefer to see happen, because I don't want to have any references to people who were not charged.

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm going to try to put this in perspective. We started on this inquiry based on the Auditor General's report about some serious issues surrounding the pension insurance administration. We've spent the last two or three months trying to grapple with what went wrong and what the issues were to get a clear picture of it.

I find it personally troubling at this stage of the game, after we've had basically full disclosure before this committee, to have quotations presented to the committee that present pretty relevant and cogent evidence about things that are relevant to our inquiry without knowing who said these things—no hint about who said them. The four w's in an inquiry are who, when, why, and where. We're leaving a lot out of the equation.

I find it troubling to proceed without knowing the source of this information. We're deviating here if we say we're not going to ask for names, because we've been doing it all along. I'm sorry, but I'm a bit puzzled by the position we seem to be taking here. The invisible person is going to be involved in this from here on in, with quotes being attributed left, right, and centre. We're going to have invisible men and women, and nobody seems to know where they came from or where they fit into the picture.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'd like to move a motion that Staff Sergeant Frizzell continue without providing the names of the senders or recipients, and that those names be provided to us in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams.

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

Once we have the names, what are we going to do with them? That's the question. Is it for our own personal curiosity, or are we going to have these names given to us in confidence so we can do something? What can we do with the names? We're not an investigation committee. We don't lay criminal charges. We don't do criminal investigations. We're normally a committee of accountability. We hear the testimony and pronounce our judgment on what we hear.

We've got ourselves into this complex and difficult situation. I can understand the need of the RCMP to give us the information, which we asked for. I understand that by the rules under which they operate they can't divulge the names. I don't need these names. I'm not going to do anything with the names once I get them. Why are we even asking for these names in the first place?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Well, I didn't, Mr. Williams.

Anyway, perhaps I can suggest a compromise, Staff Sergeant Frizzell. I'm going to ask you to continue. Do not refer to the names. Perhaps at the end of the hearing, you and Chief Superintendent Macaulay can take back the binders—Mr. Williams talked about 15 binders, but there are actually 15 copies of one binder—and if there are confidential references to people, I think they should be deleted.

We're just looking at the reference for the relevant documents to try to keep this as succinct and brief as possible.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Chair, there was a motion on the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Do you want to put your motion now and deal with this in camera after?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, you can make the motion.