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.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
If you have a client, who is the person you're speaking to?
Legal Services, Department of Justice, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
In this case, the person I was dealing with was Mr. Lavoie.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
Thank you very much.
On a point of order, Mr. Christopherson.
NDP
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?
NDP
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.
Conservative
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?
Superintendent (Retired), Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I'm a retired member, sir.
NDP
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.
Conservative
Conservative
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.
NDP
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.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
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—
Conservative
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.
Conservative
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?
Conservative
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.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Chairman, I thought we were here to get the facts.
Conservative
Liberal
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?