Public Safety Committee on June 18th, 2008

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Thank you for your question. You make an excellent point. This is why organized crime and terrorism are both strategic priorities of the RCMP. They're two areas that we focus on and put much of our attention toward.

The process that is in place is what it is. It's a question of government machinery, government policy. As for whether it's the best process or not, I'm sure every process can be improved upon. Can this one be improved? I'm sure it can. To what extent? It's going to be a question of balance, and a question of the extent to which individuals subject to pre-appointment checks--ministers, cabinet ministers and so on--are willing to expose themselves.

We don't go around and do spot checks on ministers, or anybody who is subject to a pre-appointment check, to determine whether or not they have anybody in their lives--whether it's a child, husband, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, whoever that may be--who has had a questionable past. Perhaps if we did that, we'd come up with things, perhaps not. I hope not.

The process is what it is. If it's not the right process, then it needs to be changed, and government has to make that decision. I take your point. We are alive to what organized crime does; we are alive to what terrorist groups do. As I said, this is the reason they are both strategic priorities for the RCMP.

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

Can I take my heroin example back?

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Yes, please do.

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

I was using it to illustrate how the connection would be made in our indices, but it shouldn't be construed as the threshold that one should shoot for to come to our notice.

I should probably apologize to my wife as well.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

There are any number of things that could attract attention. Based on our experience and, as the deputy explained, based on our assessment of the information that comes to our attention, we would, in the course of our reviews and background checks, be alive to the kind of situation that you described in respect to the terrorism concern.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

In your earlier testimony, somebody from the RCMP said that they had noticed Madame Couillard at the time of the swearing-in of cabinet, and that she was a person known to you. Now, I don't want to cast aspersions on Madame Couillard, because I believe everybody has the right to move up, to improve their life, etc. But it still surprises me that, with a second background check done about nine months after she first appeared on the arm of the minister, and knowing of her background as you do, that would not cause the exact red flags to go up, even just on a cautionary note. Maybe you've got nothing serious, but just a cautionary note. It seems surprising to me that there was absolutely nothing in that minister's second check to describe somewhat of a change of circumstance in his life and a liaison with someone you know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Let's allow for a brief response, if you wish to have a response.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Please do.

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

I think I was the person who said that I saw her at the swearing-in ceremony. I think the deputy said, and explained already, what “known to us” was, the institutional knowledge. At the time that I saw her at the swearing-in ceremony, I had none of that knowledge and didn't make that connection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We have come to the end of our list. So we'll start again from the top.

Mr. Dosanjh, I think you will, for the second day in a row, be batting cleanup. I hope I don't get cleaned up here.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I'm a gentle guy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Yes, yes. I remember yesterday.

Go ahead.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I'm a lawyer, which means that I'll fight and argue, and then we're friends.

Mr. Souccar, first of all, let me dispel any notion in your mind that by saying that you weren't forthright I meant that you were less than honest. That was not my intent. Maybe I misused the term.

I was left with the impression, after today and the other day, that you were simply pursuing and following a particular policy, regardless of whether or not any damage might have been done, for disclosing to us that you had not gone to PCO. That's the impression I'm now left with. But when push came to shove, and PCO, an arm of government, said to you that they were going to actually confirm that you did not contact them with respect to any concerns in this matter, you weren't concerned at all about any damage you might be doing vis-à-vis this matter. I'm not asking whether you are or not.

As a former Attorney General, I can tell you that when the RCMP were pursuing important matters of state or were dealing with issues with government, they would come to the Attorney General and say quietly, “Get your premier off this issue”, or “Get that particular minister off this issue. We don't want you to talk about it. There is something sensitive going on.”

If you had something serious going on, you could have told PCO. That's what I'm puzzled about. Obviously there was nothing serious going on. You were simply pursuing a policy and following the policy to the letter. That left me with the impression that you weren't prepared to level with us. That's not an accusation; that's the impression I gained. I'm not looking for a comment, and I absolutely didn't mean that you were less than honest. I just felt that you felt compelled to not share with us that information that you confirmed after PCO went out.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Let me say, then, that I appreciate your clarification, Mr. Dosanjh. Thank you.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

I don't want to put you on the spot. The RCMP has been known to veer from that policy of its own volition. Is this a recent directive, that you are to follow that policy come what may?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

It's not. There were lessons learned, I suppose.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Those were the words Mr. Elliott used in appearing before us at another time.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

I was not aware of that.

Our policy is our policy. If it is veered away from sometimes, it's not done intentionally. Sometimes it may be out of our control, as in this case. But certainly our policy not to talk when something is before the courts--

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I appreciate that.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

--or when something may be investigated or is being investigated is typically our policy.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

I appreciate that.

Here is the ultimate question. If in your mind something serious were at stake, you would have told PCO, as the centre of government, so as not to jeopardize an investigation or something important--because you have an obligation, sir, as a servant of the public. You can't say that to a private individual, but you can say that to the cabinet secretary, the head of the Privy Council. Am I right? You would have an obligation to do that.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Yes, if irreparable damage would be caused, I would have been inclined to probably share it with them or to be a little stronger in my discussions.

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

Excuse me, but balanced against all those other factors--