Public Safety Committee on June 17th, 2008

[Margaret Bloodworth]

—to help them in that.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

And I'm asking you, do you know why Foreign Affairs decided to hire a private firm to assist them in their review of this entire affair of the missing documents rather than ask the RCMP to assist them?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

The RCMP are called in for criminal investigations. At the moment, I'm not aware of any particular criminal issue related to the documents. The review will determine what the facts are, and that's what it's doing. I think we may well have suggested the assistance of some professional investigators in the effort to do that.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

In fact, Ms. Bloodworth, the RCMP investigate to determine whether or not there's sufficient evidence and reasonable grounds to believe a criminal act has been committed and, if so, whether they have sufficient evidence to determine who committed the act, and then whether the evidence is reasonable and sufficient to support criminal charges against them.

So I do not see why.... But you may not be the right person to answer this, because you don't know what the term “a person known to the police” means.

I fail to understand why Foreign Affairs would not ask the RCMP, who are expert investigators, to assist them in that review. If evidence of criminal activity came up, then the RCMP would clearly be well placed to do that.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

Let me make two points on that.

First of all, the review is about the documents--what happened to the documents, who did what, who had access, what injury, and so on. Actually, on the injury assessment the RCMP wouldn't be very helpful, because it's not something they have expertise on.

The second point I would say is that nothing stops the RCMP from investigating anything at any time. They don't need my opinion, my permission, my request, or Foreign Affairs' request. None of it precludes anything.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

My question relates to something Ms. Priddy was asking about, whether or not PCO is passive rather than being active.

Given everything you've told us about the background checks on candidates to be appointed ministers, members of cabinet, secretaries of state, if anyone in PCO learned from a newspaper, TV, radio, or some Internet site that an individual who had an ongoing and close relationship with a minister was known to have been married to someone who is part of organized crime, was on the point of marrying someone else who is part of organized crime, had other relationships and business dealings with Monsieur Pépin, etc., do you think it would have been appropriate...? Suppose you heard about it that way or somebody in passing mentioned, “You know that Julie Couillard. Did you know that one of her former husbands was a close associate of Mom Boucher?” And you say “Who's Mom Boucher?” The person explains to you who Mom Boucher is and then says, “And that person also was getting ready to marry Monsieur Sirois.” “Who's Monsieur Sirois?” And the person explains that to you. Would you at that time have thought it appropriate to say, “Hmm, ministers never told us any of that; I wonder if he knows that, first”—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I think it's time for a brief response.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

—“and second, if he knows it, why didn't he tell us? And third, I don't know if any of this is true. Perhaps I should contact the RCMP and ask them to do a check to see whether or not any of these allegations are true, first. Second, if they are, does that have any implication for security?”

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Ménard, it's your turn.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

Can I answer the question, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Sure.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

The first point I would make is what I have tried to say throughout: we provide our advice based on analysis and facts, not media speculation. We of course read newspapers; we read more newspapers than we ever want to read at the Privy Council Office. We do not base our advice on what is in the media.

The second thing is that the RCMP were contacted at least twice about Mr. Bernier, as I explained, in regard to the background checks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Thi Lac.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

On a point of order, Chair, I would just like to make one point. All the information regarding—

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We will have time to come around to you again.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

—Madame Couillard's background became public after the second and most recent background check.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Ms. Thi Lac, go ahead.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I made that point.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

And I've just made it again.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Welcome, Madam.

In your statement you say that last August the government undertook background checks on the members of the Cabinet and that this updating exercise is done every two years, whether or not the minister has changed portfolios.

Before the month of August, in other words before that rule was changed, how often were these checks done?

[Margaret Bloodworth]

The norm had been, before that, to do checks when ministers changed offices or when cabinets were formed, which could mean that if a minister stayed in office for four years or five years there would not have been any check done. There had not been any particular problem. This was just a sense of regularizing it more systematically. But they would have normally been done, before that, at the time a minister changed office or when a cabinet was formed initially.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Previously, this was done when the minister changed portfolios. However, in theory, if this rule had not been put in place last August, a new security check for all ministers having changed portfolios during the last Cabinet shuffle would have been done in August. That was not done given that, according to the rule, the timeframe is two years and the previous check dated back to 2006. The next check was therefore going to be done in 2008. That is how I see it.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

It's true that if the rule had not been changed, we would have done background checks on the few ministers who changed office last August. Instead, background checks were done on all ministers in the March and early April period. It's true that some would have been done last August, but none of the others would have been done until they changed office.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Several ministers changed portfolios last August. Had this rule not been changed, checks would have been done for several of them. In Mr. Bernier's case, the previous check dated back to 2006. But in 2006, he was not in a relationship with Ms. Couillard. When the second check was done in April, he was no longer seeing her, according to him. In any event, no check was done when he changed portfolios. There nevertheless was a gap since he dated Ms. Couillard during this two-year period. He changed portfolios within that period, but they were not covered by the background check because of that two-year period.

[Margaret Bloodworth]

I think all I can do is repeat the facts. It is a fact that if the norm had been passed historically we would have done fewer background checks. We would have done them last August. Instead we did them all and we did them in March-April. That's a fact.