Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

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

That's right. We have three allegations. The first is of an inappropriate conversation Ms. George allegedly had with Mr. McCauley. The third is that she participated in Mr. Frizzell's removal--

[Commr William Elliott]

Number three actually is.... That is not the exact language of the allegation. Basically, the allegation is that she misled or failed to inform Commissioner Busson.

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

You have dismissed the first and third allegations. You're left with only the second allegation, which deals specifically with her testimony, her words in this committee. The Speaker of the House has since written to you telling you that you may not use her words. Therefore, having dismissed allegations one and three, you're only left with allegation two, and you've since been told that you're not allowed to even consider allegation two, because it is privileged.

[Commr William Elliott]

With respect to allegation two, I agree with the description the honourable member has made. With respect to allegations one and three, just to be technical and precise for a moment, a decision was made not to proceed to adjudication, which I think is somewhat different. It has the same effect, but dismissal sort of sounds like there was a formal adjudication and a dismissal. What happened was that those responsible for presenting the case to a board determined that there was insufficient evidence to proceed.

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

I would just conclude through the use of deductive reasoning. We have three allegations. You've decided not to pursue the first and the third. The second involves testimony before a parliamentary committee, which you are not allowed to use in your proceedings according to our own Speaker in a letter to you. Therefore, the responsibility rests with us to determine whether she is in contempt. It is the responsibility of parliamentarians now to do our job in determining her comportment before this committee. It is beyond the scope of the law for you to make that determination for us.

Is that your understanding?

[Commr William Elliott]

That's my understanding.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Poilievre.

We'll have Mr. Sweet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

If I could ask the indulgence of the committee, a number of things were thrown around there--one and two and three. There's one fact that we didn't get on the record. I don't want to ask a question, but I would ask if you would confirm it.

For allegations one and three, was it at the sole discretion of Deputy Commissioner Sweeney to make a decision that allegations one and three were not actionable?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm going to ask the member to repeat the question to the commissioner.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Commissioner Elliott, was it at the sole discretion of Deputy Commissioner Sweeney, after Paulson had tabled his report, not to action allegations one and three?

[Commr William Elliott]

Yes.

Just to clarify, after the report was provided to Deputy Commissioner Sweeney, as I indicated in my opening comments, he made a number of further inquiries. Those included further discussions with Chief Superintendent Paulson, discussions with former Commissioner Busson, and the seeking and receipt of legal advice. He then determined, as the appropriate officer, not to proceed to adjudicate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

We'll go to Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have a very relevant question. If you don't think it is, Chair, it won't go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead, Mr. Christopherson. I trust your judgment.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would like to know, for the purposes of what we're looking at here, if there was any senior officer--I'm asking now hypothetically--and there was a finding of contempt by the House, would the commissioner then have the right to take that decision and do something in terms of the officer now having done something that--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I think that would be highly speculative.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's speculative, Chair, but we called the witness here because we're saying that he shouldn't have made the appointment. I think it's fair to get a picture in our minds, because we're not a legal body, of what would have happened, to its full extent, to get a sense of how much traction this issue has.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm going to ask the commissioner if he has any comment on that point.

[Commr William Elliott]

I think my two comments are that the matter is speculative and that it would be complicated by the fact that all the documents that have been referred to, including correspondence with the Speaker, the chair of this committee, and the Federal Court, talk about the fact that it's not only the sole purview of Parliament to investigate such matters, but also to punish them.

All I can say is that if future events arise, we would certainly look at them and see whether further action is warranted.

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

Chair, I just want to state for the record that what the commissioner has just indicated is not the opinion of the clerk. It is the unanimous opinion of the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We'll have a chance to discuss this afterwards, Mr. Poilievre. We're not going to get into a debate or argument right now.

As everyone knows, this committee will discuss this in camera at a later date.

The room is starting to fill up. I'm suspicious that they're not all here to watch us, so I'm going to adjourn now.

On behalf of each member of the committee, Commissioner Elliott, I want to thank you for your attendance here today. You were very helpful. This matter is somewhat troubling to the committee, and I'm sure it's been challenging to you, too. But again, we want to thank you very much for coming today, under reasonably short notice, and we certainly appreciate your assistance.

The meeting is adjourned.