So it wasn't RCMP money.
Evidence of meeting #65 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 gauvin.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #65 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 gauvin.
A recording is available from Parliament.
June 11th, 2007 / 5:25 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Management and Comptrollership, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
No, it was not.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
This wasn't to do with the sponsorship scandal and the RCMP involvement in that, was it?
5:25 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Management and Comptrollership, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
No, it had nothing to do with sponsorship. It was money that had been used, through various means, for charity purposes.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Now, tell me, as the deputy commissioner of the RCMP and chief financial officer, if you find out that somebody's breaking the rules, would you write a letter to the deputy commissioner of human resources, Barbara George? Wouldn't you write to somebody in Public Works, maybe the minister or the deputy minister, saying this guy is working with Consulting and Audit Canada, and make sure he's not a problem because there was a problem with us?
He's spending our money through CAC and we're not going to do anything about it? Don't you think that you have a dereliction of duty here, Mr. Gauvin?
5:25 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Management and Comptrollership, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Well, hindsight is 20/20.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
No, I'm asking you today—you've got all the 20/20—don't you think there's a dereliction of duty here?
5:25 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Management and Comptrollership, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
No, I don't think so. I think I did my job and I did it well.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I'm sorry, but I do, Mr. Chairman. I still wonder why the commissioner, who started an investigation on the other deputy commissioner, hasn't started one on this one too. There seems to be some serious questions with no answers as to why a middle-level bureaucrat, by Mr. Crupi, can spend $6 million of RCMP money and nobody has checked it out, through the checks and balances, to keep everybody honest, and he gets away with it.
I can't believe, Mr. Gauvin, that you don't accept the responsibility.
5:25 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Management and Comptrollership, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I've explained it to you.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I can't believe you won't accept the responsibility.
5:25 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Management and Comptrollership, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It was an HR issue, he reported through HR, and there were four levels of supervision.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
No, no, it was a money issue, and that's your responsibility.
5:25 p.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Management and Comptrollership, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
So basically what you're saying is that you want me, as the CFO, to manage everybody in the organization. If I--
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
You have checks and balances. Mr. Lavoie was one of the guys--
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
Mr. Williams, we're very interested in your questions, but you're out of time. Thank you very much for your good questions.
Thank you very much, witnesses, for your attendance today. We have some other committee business. If you want to hang around to listen to it, you're welcome to it. If you want to leave, you're free to leave.
As our first order of business here, we have the minutes from our steering committee. To give a little bit of background, last week we had minutes that were approved, basically to send a message to the House of Commons, to the Speaker, that we want to defend our parliamentary privilege.
It looks like some things have crossed in the mail. The RCMP had written the Speaker, and the Speaker had sent it back to us for our thoughts. Basically, the motion we have, or the thing that was agreed to in our steering committee, was a reaffirmation of what we said last week.
That's about the gist of it all.
Yes.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Chairman, I think this has to be dealt with as a formal motion. I agree with your assessment, and will support—
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
It's on the agenda, Mr. Williams, for Wednesday, for a more thorough discussion in camera on how we proceed with it. But the members on the steering committee felt quite strongly on the point. We just thought it would be reflected in the minutes as our basic recommendation or position on the matter.
It will be on the agenda on Wednesday for a full discussion, so save your powder for that day, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Poilievre.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
Oh, I need somebody to move that.
Borys, you were going to move the motion, weren't you?
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this. You say this is coming up on Wednesday for discussion. It says right here we “do present a Report to the House in which it reaffirms its privileges and immunities.” You're deciding now and discussing it on Wednesday?
