Evidence of meeting #39 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pco.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
You've all heard the motion. Is there any further discussion? No discussion. We'll take the vote then.
(Motion negatived)
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
The motion is defeated, so we will continue with our hearing.
It being five minutes to four o'clock, we'll try to continue on until five minutes to five o'clock. We'll allow one hour for our witnesses. I should have checked with our witnesses. Are you ladies and gentlemen able to stay a little beyond the projected time of 4:30?
3:55 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
Yes, Mr. Chair.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
You are. Thank you very much.
As you don't have an opening statement, we will go over to the Liberal Party first of all.
Mr. Dosanjh, you are first on my list.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Thank you.
Thank you for appearing again before us. I got the impression last time when we were discussing this matter that you did not want to tell us whether or not you spoke to the PCO with respect to the Couillard-Bernier matter, under the rubric that these kinds of conversations might jeopardize what you may have done in the past or may be doing currently or in future investigations. Therefore, nobody pressed you on that particular issue in a specific fashion.
So I would like to know what changed between then and the time PCO spoke to you. I would like to know what changed in terms of your being specific.
3:55 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
Can you be more specific with your question? Relative to what, specific relative to what?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Well, I understand PCO had a conversation with you and that in the conversation they advised you they were going to go public with the fact that the RCMP had not contacted them in this regard. I have known in the past that when RCMP are conducting serious investigations or something might be jeopardized, they have been known to tell government agencies, particularly those that deal with the central government functions—national security and the like—not to say certain things.
If you were too reluctant to share the no-contact information with us—I understood you said nothing to the individual who was speaking to you when you were advised they were going to go public with the no-contact information—I would like to know what changed when you did not express your reservations to the person speaking to you.
3:55 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
Thank you for your question, Mr. Dosanjh.
Nothing changed. I did have a telephone conversation with Ms. Rennie Marcoux, and during that telephone conversation I was advised that PCO would go public with a statement indicating we had not advised them.
We discussed it. I failed to understand at the time why there was a need to do that, given that I had neither confirmed nor denied whether or not I had advised them of anything. All the questions I had answered were hypothetical questions that were posed to me, and therefore I had some difficulty understanding the need to go public with a statement indicating we had not contacted them. They nevertheless chose to do that, and that's their right.
Then the RCMP, with that in mind, had a very clear idea that our phones were going to ring the next day with the media asking questions about this statement, so we had media lines prepared simply to answer. With PCO having gone public with the fact that we had not contacted them, we were left with really very little choice. It was either to get into a he-said-she-said situation or to simply confirm that. We took the avenue of confirming it. That's simply it.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
If it was as easy as that, why could you not confirm to the committee when the committee was wanting to ask you specific questions and when that was an important aspect we were all pursuing?
3:55 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
My preference would have been not to confirm or deny whether we had contacted PCO. This is our position, and should we appear on another matter in a year, that will continue to be my position. I have no control over what PCO does. They chose to do that. We can live with the results.
3:55 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
Correct.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
We could have taken that avenue, but we chose not to.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
At that point—
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
If I may, sir, I'm actually somewhat incensed. Obviously there was nothing at stake when you were not being forthright with us. If something was at stake, you would have told the PCO not to go public with that information. Using that logic, you could have told us. You had the choice to tell us and you chose not to.
4 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
First, conversations I have with PCO in private are, I think, very different from conversations that we have in a public televised forum. Second, I didn't have much choice in whether or not PCO.... If I may finish, Mr. Dosanjh, I didn't have much choice. This wasn't a question that was put to me--would you like us to do it or would you like us not to do it? It was a decision made by PCO.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
But you could have told them. You had a choice to tell them that it could jeopardize what we might have done in the investigation, currently or in the future. You told us that. Why could you not tell PCO that? That's an arm of government.
4 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
PCO is well aware of our policy not to confirm or deny and the reasons behind it. That decision was made, and you would have to ask them why.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
So you could actually, in a sense, not be forthright with the committee—and there's no risk involved in being forthright with the committee, as I now gather—but you would not prevent the PCO from saying something publicly that might jeopardize an investigation, whether past, current, or future.
What I'm now left with is that there was absolutely no investigation, past, current, or future, but you didn't tell us. You didn't tell us that you didn't contact PCO.
4 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
Mr. Chairman, this may be a conclusion that the committee wishes to draw, or that Mr. Dosanjh wishes to draw. I had a whole bunch of hypotheticals put to me, which I have responded to.
Let me please finish, Mr. Dosanjh. I let you speak.
I made it very clear that I was not, and am still not, willing to talk about this particular case.
When you talk about not being forthright, I think you're implying that I intentionally misled the committee. I've been a police officer, Mr. Chairman, for 30 years. I've testified in court hundreds of times, and I've never been accused of not being forthright. Everything that I gave you, Mr. Dosanjh, and everything that I answered before this committee was said to the best of my knowledge at the time. Anything that I was not willing to answer, I was not willing to answer for RCMP policy reasons. The RCMP has a policy of not talking about anything we may or will be doing that could be compromised by what we might say. It doesn't necessarily mean that if I speak about something it will compromise; it may mean that it has the potential to compromise, so we try to stay away from it.
It is not accurate for you to suggest that because I followed that policy I was not being forthright with the committee.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
Let me reiterate. You chose silence before the committee. You chose to answer only hypothetical questions. You also chose silence with PCO when they were doing the opposite of what you would have done. That's my concern.