Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 7th, 2007

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

For example, on page 26 of your report, you say that there was a memorandum of understanding between the Ottawa Police Service and the RCMP, under the terms of which the principal investigator of the OPS reported to Assistant Commissioner Gork. You were told—and you said it yourself in your report—that this was a typographical error.

What are you referring to? Do you have the memo?

[David Brown]

No, I don't have that memorandum--

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Were you aware of it?

[David Brown]

I've not personally read the memorandum of understanding. Members of our team looked at it and summarized it for me.

Let me, if I may, just address our recommendation on the OPP, because I think it is important.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

But I have to interrupt you there, Mr. Brown. I am tabling the copy of the memorandum of understanding for the committee. You mention a typographical error, but two paragraphs deal with the relationship between the inspector in charge and Assistant Commissioner Gork. In point 3.1 of the memo, it says—and I think the reference is to Inspector Roy:

The inspector [...] will be in charge of the RCMP investigation. He will report to Assistant Commissioner D. Gork while the investigation is in progress.

If there is a typographical error, we need to know where it is. Still on the subject of the lead investigator, point 3.2 says:

Assistant Commissioner Gork, representing the RCMP, will oversee his work, and may from time to time provide instructions to help him in his inquiries.

So I believe that Inspector Gork could direct the investigation any way he liked because, as the memorandum makes clear, he had the authority to oversee the investigator's work and give him instructions as needed. I see this as a long way from typographical errors. There are no incorrect words here: an entire paragraph clearly states that the RCMP was overseeing the work of the Ottawa Police Service's investigator.

I think that it is easy to conclude from this that the investigation was not independent. In fact, the OPS's investigation was not independently conducted because it was supervised by a direct superior in the RCMP. I do not understand why you were not aware of that. You were told about a typographical error, but it seems to me that you should have examined and analyzed such an important document. I find that this was really lax on your part.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Brown, do you have a copy of this document he's referring to here?

[David Brown]

I don't have a copy in front of me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

So it's really unfair to.... Have you seen it?

[David Brown]

No, I have not seen the text that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

What we might want to consider is taking the comments in question under advisement, and perhaps you could get back to us with a letter on that point.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

As a point of clarification on this issue, this document was tabled previously, and if you check it, you'll find that it's not just a blank MOU, but it is in fact signed by former Assistant Commissioner Gork. It's a memorandum of understanding on a very serious issue, a criminal investigation into the RCMP. And I would assume that if you're signing a memorandum of understanding, you would have read through it and been clear as to its content.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

But Mr. Brown didn't sign it.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

No, no. Mr. Gork did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Gork signed it. Mr. Brown didn't sign it, and he said he didn't see it.

What I'm suggesting here, since Mr. Brown did not sign it and didn't see it, is that it's a little unfair to ask him to comment on it. But I think, in fairness to the committee, I would like to see Mr. Brown go over it with the staff and get back to us on Monsieur Laforest's comments and questions.

Is that okay with you, sir?

[David Brown]

Perhaps I could assist the committee and then we could go back to see if that is necessary. Would that be acceptable, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Sure, go ahead.

[David Brown]

What Mr. Laforest is saying is quite correct. We concluded that the investigation by the OPP was not independent. You've concluded that it was not independent for one reason. I actually concluded it wasn't independent for a bunch of reasons, including the role that Assistant Commissioner Gork had.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

Your time is up, Monsieur Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

My time has been used for points of order. I would just like to add this: it is clear that the investigation was not independent and that the independent investigator did not study this document. It seems to me that the Ottawa Police Service's report contained a large number of elements. If it was not conducted independently, a host of questions are raised, leading us to demand a public inquiry. It seems very clear to me. I feel that the matter has not been completely dealt with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Laforest.

I'm going to leave this, Mr. Brown. If you have any additional comments after reflecting on the report, and if you want to, if you choose to get back to the committee, you're invited to do so.

Mr. Williams.

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

I think Mr. Brown referred to the OPP. Just for the record, I think he actually meant the OPS.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

[An hon. member]

Which one is it?

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

It's OPS, the Ottawa Police Service.

[David Brown]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

If I said OPP, I meant that the OPS investigation was not independent and that Mr. Laforest and I were on the same page there.