Public Accounts Committee on June 11th, 2007

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

If you have a client, who is the person you're speaking to?

[Louis Alberti]

In this case, the person I was dealing with was Mr. Lavoie.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Thank you very much.

On a point of order, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

This is new territory, and I don't know if we have legal counsel here, but I would like to get a clearer sense of how this works. We all respect solicitor-client, and I don't think anybody wants to impinge on that. But when the client in question is the organization that's in front of this committee and the delegation is to an individual and we're talking about their role as a representative of that individual, I'm wondering and asking if, like the Privacy Act and other acts, they don't get set aside in many cases when you're here.

What I'm trying to get at is, given the nature of that relationship—that it's the RCMP and it's about what we're doing—does that still hold?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Is there a member—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Here's my concern. You could hypothetically generate a conversation with somebody in your own legal department, and it could suddenly be declared client-solicitor privilege. You could then have whatever conversation you want to have and you could put together whatever you want.

I hope you understand that I'm not saying it happened here. In terms of our business, we could never get at that. If every one of these folks had a discussion with the legal department about some aspect of this, it could be captured.

I for one would like a little assistance on separating how it all works in terms of the priority of rights, Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

I might call on the assistance of some of my advisers here.

Because they're the client, if that's the case, the proper representative from the RCMP could waive the privilege. You could find out what the nature of the opinion was, and so on. We've done it before on this committee. I think we did it on the firearms issue.

Mr. Lavoie, do you have the authority to waive the solicitor-client privilege?

[Supt Pierre Lavoie]

I'm a retired member, sir.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The acting commissioner has sent out a memo in writing asking everyone to cooperate with these investigations, if they're not of a personal nature. If it's not somebody's personal or private business, then we need to find a way to cut through it or it should be waived.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Yes, I understand your point.

Mr. Williams.

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

I take solicitor-client privilege very seriously. The Supreme Court has spoken on this at great length over the years. It is not something on which I'm prepared to jump in and say we should use our big hammer to get it waived.

I take Mr. Christopherson's point very seriously. This is an incestuous circle that is becoming a smaller and smaller circle all the time, between the RCMP investigating themselves and solicitors at the Department of Justice being involved and processing information.

I understand the complexity, but I don't think I would like to support anything at this time without fully understanding it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On a matter of personal privilege, given what we're talking about, I was not suggesting that we use the hammer. I was asking for a little explanation on how this relationship worked vis à vis this committee and its rights, and that's all.

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

Perhaps I could help on this point.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Is this a point of order, Mr. Williams?

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

I hope so, Mr. Chairman.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

We'll hear what the point of order is.

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

Okay. I found Mr. Gauvin's answer quite implausible when he was trying to tell us that because it was Consulting and Audit Canada—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

It sounds like a point of debate, Mr. Williams. We have to move on. I'm going to rule that it's a point of debate.

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

We are here to try to get the facts. We have been led around the mulberry bush by answers time and time again. This investigation is going on and on.

I said Mr. Gauvin's answer was quite implausible. As the CFO of the RCMP when RCMP money was being been spent by Mr. Crupi, who he knew was exercising his authority illegally and improperly and was signing contracts with CAC that he didn't feel were within his responsibility, he just sloughed it off. It wasn't within his responsibility to advise Public Works that something funny was going on.

Mr. Gauvin, why didn't you do it?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Mr. Williams, I'm going to rule that question out of order. It's a matter of debate and opinion. It's a good question, but it's not a procedural rule.

We're going to move to the next person on the agenda.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thought we were here to get the facts.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

I have made my ruling.

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

We're here to get the facts.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Madam Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Williams and I must have ESP, because I'm so tired of Mr. Crupi seeming to be able to get away with everything and be paid for 18 months to stay at home.

I'll go back to Mr. Gauvin.

With all due respect, you're a career person. You've been around a long time. Did you not care what Mr. Crupi was doing, as long as you didn't have to sign off? Did you not care about it?