Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 7th, 2007

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

There are problems with that limitation period. I'm sure it's mystifying to Canadians when they see that alleged misconduct took place—let's say on a particular file—and then the one-year limitation that is set out within the act is arrived at and it appears then that no further action takes place and the person, if they were guilty, appears to be off the hook. That's a frustrating thing for people to consider.

I would like to add at this point that even with that limitation period, there is no limitation on criminal charges. No member of the RCMP would be absolved of any criminal activity or charges because of the one-year limitation--

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

But we want to start firing these people who engage in clear misconduct.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

On the area of misconduct I think there needs to be a change. I've indicated that. It's one of the areas that I've asked that the task force consider when the report comes out, hopefully late in December, because there's a balance here.

With a one-year limitation, what you're saying is that the premise behind it is that a member who is under some serious allegations should not have an accusation hanging over his or her head indefinitely. That's simply not right. On the other hand, if you allow the limitation period to be too long, the thing would never get investigated. But we don't want even the appearance of somebody getting around a misconduct ruling just because a limitation period could run out, because there could be an accusation—I'm not saying it's happening—that the investigation purposely took so long that it didn't get down to the area of deciding on the misconduct.

So I'm asking that this area be looked at and a productive way found to address that problem.

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

You're responsible for security right across this country. What would be the impact on Canadian security if we were to go ahead with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's suggestion of August 2006 that Hezbollah should be legalized?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

On the suggestion of legalizing Hezbollah, whoever would make that or whether it was made or not--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

This is totally politics. It's got nothing to do with matter.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Do you want just a general response to that, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

No.

Mr. Christopherson, you have seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for attending today.

Sorry. Do I have the floor, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You have the floor.

The interpreters can only handle one speaker at a time, so I'd like everyone to appreciate their difficulty.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Great. Thank you. I have the floor.

Yes, I'll slow down for the translators. Thank you.

I want to open with...and Minister, I'll give you a chance to comment. There'll be a question. There'll be a number of things I'll say. I'll give you time. I just want to lay out why I personally think you went this route instead of a public inquiry, and I don't think it's anything particularly deep or difficult to figure out.

The fact of the matter is, if you ask anybody--current minister, former minister, ordinary working person, just about anybody in this room--“How would you like to have a public inquiry on the job you're doing?”, most of us would say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” That's understandable from a human nature point of view, and I would use that to say why former Minister McLellan took that position personally. She'd have been crazy to take any other position.

From a personal point of view, I think it was done because, quite frankly, Minister, you didn't want to have to deal with what would come tumbling out. You can't control it. Once you start these things, they take on a life of their own. We saw what came out in Arar. We saw what is coming out in Air India. And I believe you were trying to avoid all of that. You didn't want to open up a whole new front, and this was a way of containing it and packaging it.

It's worked politically to the extent that you still drive the bus and we don't have a public inquiry. So far you're winning. But I really don't think you've served the RCMP or the process well.

I gave your investigator a chance to respond to my allegation that he really didn't provide much value-added, that most of what he wrote about we found out and came from being in the public domain. He didn't refute that much. He had a couple of small details, and I think that's the proof of the pudding.

And that's why we're maintaining still that there needs to be a public inquiry, for the same reasons that the pressure was on for Arar, and for the same reasons that pressure was on for Air India. So I want to put that there as to why I think what's going on is going on, and to give you a chance to respond.

Here's what I'm curious about, as a question, Minister. And I accept totally that the actions happened before your time, before your government, and much of the responsibility belongs to the Liberals. There's only a small piece that yours, but nonetheless you are the minister of the day.

If history had unfolded differently, and if the first time we had witnesses come in on the Auditor General's report, when we were told by serious brass within the police community involved in this, from the Ottawa Police Service and the RCMP, that everything was fine with the investigation by the Ottawa Police Service, and that quite frankly anything wrong internally was really just internal administrative matters, we had accepted that, Minister, all the things that came tumbling out, that we found out, through this committee would not have come out. We would have addressed the auditing issue. It might have got a little bit of oomph in the media, but not a lot. That would have been the end of it. But for you, the issue would still be real and it would still be there in your ministry to be resolved, but without our playing a role in it.

My question to you is this. How would you have ultimately gotten hold of this issue and resolved it, given the current way you run your office, if we hadn't done the work we did?

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

On the first part of your question, David, let me say that it's a time-honoured tradition that.... Well, on both parts of your question, number one, we usually don't spend time, especially committee time, on hypotheticals, but I'm willing to do that to answer your question. The second thing is, we don't try to impugn or determine motives from the words of another member. We determine from their actions and what they do or say in the House, but the motive behind it.... So I'm somewhat fascinated that you would think that a motive....

If what you're saying were true—you have this public inquest, and all the truth comes tumbling out—and at the same time you say that none of this happened under our watch, then from a partisan point of view I should have jumped on a public inquest, because it's all going to be stuff about the Liberals, according to what you're saying. We had nothing and we have nothing to hide on this, because it didn't happen under our watch.

I agree, David, we have a difference of opinion. You want the full public inquiry route, which at best is a multi-year process. I share the views of many people that the problems within the RCMP can't wait that long to be addressed, and that the men and women of the force who do their jobs every day so incredibly well that this force continues to have one of the best reputations as a national police force in the world.... I think they want this stuff dealt with also.

I would say that one of the litmus tests of the process we've put in place, as I did when I announced Mr. Brown would do the investigation, is that the very officers who were instrumental in bringing forward the problems—and I understand this committee feels they should be commended for that, and we do too, and that was actually part of Mr. Brown's recommendation—are themselves, by and large, not saying that this is a bad process we're following. As a matter of fact, the ones I've seen interviewed said they want to move along with this process, that they want to get things done.

So the people who probably had the most at stake, the people who had the most invested—literally from their hearts, because they took a big career challenge in raising these things—are themselves not clamouring for the inquest, because they believe this is moving along.

Now, we'll see in December when the recommendations come out. If there's a strongly different view, if we're not able to achieve what we want to achieve, I might be saying to you that maybe you have a point or maybe that you don't. But the task force needs time to work and to dig to the bottom of this.

All information was made available to Mr. Brown. I said in my previous remarks that he saw almost 4,000 e-mails and 35,000 pages of documents; he reviewed 100 hours of verbal testimony, had access to every person. The RCMP commissioner—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have my answer, Minister. Thank you.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

—Commissioner Busson, commanded all officers to report and deliver, if they were called upon. So I think, David, we'll agree to disagree on this.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The proof will be in the pudding; I accept that.

You made good points. I would just answer to you that given the nature of the Harper government, the word “control” is enough to respond to what you're saying. Your government does not like anything that you can't control.

What?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

It's a little political. Let's keep to the question.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We're having a fine time.

Okay.

The other thing is that you still have some responsibility there. I would suggest to you, sir, that you should be worried about how you're going to have to deal with that.

So, fair enough from all that. I suspect we may yet hear from a lot of groups that have a vested interest.

The time is up? Do I have any time at all?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Finish your question, and we'll hear a response.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

There's one question I didn't get a direct answer to. I've tabled the question in the House and haven't had an answer yet.

To give us a better sense of what happened with Mr. Brown's investigation, would you please direct that we receive the tabling of a list of the witnesses, the transcripts of the questions and answers that were given, the dates of the meetings, and the list of all the documents that were presented, so that we can at least get closer to the way we do business vis-à-vis this report.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I'd say, David, that first I'd have to see, within the confines of how the committee was constructed, whether that is even legal to do. I'd have to check that, because you realize that one of the benefits of Mr. Brown's being able to talk to people was that they would be able to be in a room where they would have the confidence that what they were going to say would not be held against them.

As you know, the structure is not yet in place, in terms of recommendations for the change of governance and the ability of people to come forward. I think that would be very important first, before I were to take that action. And I don't know that I could. The fact that people were told they would be able to come in confidence.... I believe they would have said things there that, had they known it was all going to be on the record, they might have been reluctant, might have been fearful, to say.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That would be the point, Minister.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

They're talking about maybe some of the senior officials.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Who are they talking about? It may be other people.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

I think it's also important to realize that even in this committee of fine, upstanding parliamentarians, who believe in democracy right around the table, there are times when you vote to go in camera, when you say, we don't want the public seeing what we're talking about. There are good reasons to do that at times—not always—and I believe there are good reasons why Mr. Brown did his investigation the way he did, so that he would--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Will you undertake to at least consider it, to look at it and give me a response?