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.
NDP
A/Commr Raf Souccar
Anything that we're here testifying about. What we are, may, or will be doing with respect to the reason for which you have called me to testify, with respect to the Bernier-Couillard affair, I would not be prepared to share with you at this point.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Do you still find it offensive that we find you're not being fulsome in your answers to this committee?
A/Commr Raf Souccar
As I said, I understand your frustration, but I would also think, with the understanding and knowledge base that members of the committee have, that you would understand why I cannot share this information with you.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Let's go back to that knowledge base--and a lot of it's based on what you've already told this committee.
What is it in this file, when you talked to us before about the newspapers not being accurate...? And Madam Bloodworth has come before this committee and said that if they were accurate, she should have been warned by you. You're maintaining that it was normal not to warn based on the fact that some of the things that have appeared are not true, obviously. Otherwise there's a disjunct between PCO and the RCMP on this.
So what are the types of things that are not true in the newspaper reports?
Conservative
A/Commr Raf Souccar
Mr. Chairman, that's not what I said. I said that I caution you about believing everything you read in the media—it may not all be true—and that I caution you about taking hypothetical situations that you are asking me about and applying the facts of those hypothetical situations to the case before us and drawing conclusions
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Chair, I have very few questions to ask, because I think the officers were forthright when they were here before. I think they're forthright while they're here now. They've made it very clear that this whole issue the committee is looking at has been done with due diligence and that PCO has done their due diligence. Sometimes, somebody here simply can't understand that they've operated with what the rules are, not what members opposite wish the rules were.
It's a little bit over the top, I think, that we've cross-examined and have almost held an inquisition with witnesses today, and even yesterday with Mrs. Bloodworth. The witnesses have made it very clear. These questions were raised. The whole issue was when did the Prime Minister know. Well, it's been very clear that the Prime Minister never knew--and I think for good reason, because all of the agents quite properly followed the rules that are in place. They've done what was expected of them. They've done what was expected of them in this case and for the last twenty years. All of a sudden, people have 20/20 hindsight, when they think they know something or they believe they know something, and they've never passed it on. Some of these folks have indicated that they've known this stuff for years. Well, if they've known it for years and then, later on, they've seen pictures in the paper and they've read articles, I think it's not a fair statement to criticize the officials, who have done their job, to show up here and try to make some sort of a political message.
Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, if we want to change the rules, that's something we can do, but I don't think we should be haranguing people for having followed the rules, for having done what was appropriate, because it doesn't fit what you want it to fit.
Quite frankly, I have no questions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Okay. I presume, then, there would not be any answers.
Thank you.
Ms. Jennings, please.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I see that sometimes the rules change from one investigation to the next. Indeed, the RCMP followed a different set of rules or procedures when it investigated income trusts and the former finance minister.
I'd like to thank you and your colleagues for coming here today, Commissioner Soucar.
When you testified before the committee, you stated, in response to several questions, that if the RCMP were to learn that a minister was having a relationship with a person with ties to organized crime, then that would warrant informing the Privy Council Office. I realize that you were speaking hypothetically, but you also have to understand that this hypothetical situation was based on allegations and facts that Ms. Couillard herself had confirmed. This hypothetical case was therefore based on the relationship between Ms. Couillard and Mr. Bernier.
You answered that you would have a valid reason for informing the Privy Council Office. Yet, according to Ms. Tremblay and now, according to your own testimony, you apparently did not inform the Privy Council Office. So then, I have to ask myself this question: does this mean that the situation did not present any kind of national security risk? If someone can have such intimate relations over such an extended period of time with biker gangs and with organized crime, I can't help but ask myself that question. People are wondering if perhaps she was mole for the police.
Frankly, that's all I can think, given what we know and given your statement that the RCMP was aware of the fact that Ms. Couillard was known to police and given your response to the hypothetical case presented. Am I wrong here? I would be happy to learn that I'm wrong. I hope that these facts, the testimony you gave when you were here last, the statements and testimony of Privy Council officials—in short, this body of evidence—will not lead us to the conclusion that Ms. Couillard was quite possibly a police mole.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
You're again drawing conclusions based on information that you have read in the papers, that you have obtained in the public domain, and are not armed with all of the necessary information. Again it's hypothetical, and I understand the conclusions that you are drawn towards concluding, as a result of the information base you have.
Take, for example, my statement about being “known to the police”, or “the RCMP knows who she is”—I can't remember the words I used exactly. When I made that statement, the media and, I think, some of you automatically concluded that because somebody is known by the police the person is automatically a criminal.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I can stop you right there. That was not my conclusion, nor was it the conclusion, I believe, of anyone around this table. It meant that you knew of the person. The person had come to your attention and could have been a witness in a case, could have been a complainant in a case, could have been someone who was related, but the person was known.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Actually, your time is up, Ms. Jennings. I'm sorry.
Do you want to give a brief response before we go to Mr. Ménard or Ms. Thi Lac?