Public Safety Committee on June 18th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

Mr. Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You say that you cannot answer the direct questions we have for you as part of our investigation because it could compromise other investigations under way. As far as I know, there are only two investigations under way at this time. One is being conducted by Foreign Affairs and focuses on the fact that the Minister left classified documents in an unsecured location. The second investigation is the one being carried out by this committee.

I don't see how the Foreign Affairs investigation prevents you from shedding light on the inquiry we are conducting to ascertain if the Prime Minister in fact chose to run the risk of seeing one of his ministers develop an intimate relationship with a person who over an extended period of time, had close, ongoing ties with organized crime members.

Which investigation is stopping you from answering the questions that we want answers to?

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Mr. Chairman, I did not at any time say that we are either investigating or not investigating. There are other reasons also why we would not want to be specific about either Mr. Bernier or Madame Couillard. There are privacy-related issues. There are conclusions that get drawn from half answers. There are conclusions that get drawn from things I may say or may omit saying, and it's just not fair. These people are not here to represent themselves.

I believe that everyone here understands our process and fairness, and for me to start either giving you half statements or statements that may lead you to conclude or may suggest that I'm not being forthright would just not be right.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

But we ask nothing more than to get complete answers. You say that we might draw the wrong conclusions from half-answers. Maybe that's true now: since we're only getting half-answers, maybe we are drawing the wrong conclusions, or so you say.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Unfortunately, as you know, Mr. Ménard, I cannot give complete answers.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I don't see why not. The only investigations under way at this time are this one, and the one being conducted by Foreign Affairs, which is quite specific. Clearly, the Prime Minister wanted that investigation to be very specific.

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

Can I address that, sir, to talk...not about this case, but perhaps there is a need to understand the principle of not talking about investigations, the lack of an investigation, the existence of an investigation, or the intention to have an investigation. There's a pretty good principle at play there in terms of why that would be so, and again, I'm not talking about this case.

Hypothetically, if we were to have an ongoing investigation and come here to render some account to you folks as to what point it is at or what we're doing.... Part of the objective of the investigation is to collect evidence that is exposed at a trial, which can be challenged by those accused, consistent with the presumption of innocence. We would disadvantage not just the police but the justice system in terms of how we conduct our investigations.

I think it's a very important principle, not just for our investigations--

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I know you're an expert at using up time.

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

--but for the persons we investigate, and for the results that we seek in these investigations.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Our time is relatively limited.

The fact is that there are no other investigations under way.

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

I didn't catch that, sir.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

The fact is that there are no other investigations under way into this matter.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Mr. Ménard...

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

It's been quite clear to you since the outset what exactly it is we want to investigate. We want to know if indeed this country's law enforcement and security officials are capable of spotting a security risk when a minister carries on an intimate relationship with a person with close ties to organized crime.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

Mr. Chairman, once again, I never said that we were investigating or we were not investigating.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Let's go over to Mr. Norlock, please.

[A/Commr Raf Souccar]

That's precisely the case, Mr. Ménard.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to go back to something Ms. Jennings referred to. There seems to be a difference in interpretation as far as investigative protocols go in how you do one investigation compared to how you do another.

I'd like to think I have enough faith in our national police force to say they don't play favourites with any political party. However, if that's what you want to say, and if that's what you want to get out, just plain say it that way. Don't hint at it.

I think we need to realize that the police officers before us aren't providing us with the political information we'd really like to have out there, that salacious information, that stuff that maybe makes it through the polls. Maybe, just maybe, they're doing the best job they can, and they're trying to answer the questions as best they can, but they just don't fit our political requests. We can play Perry Mason with them all you want, and they may just not answer the question, but we may be able to make them stumble.

Here's the thing. If it's politics, bring it up in the right forum, but don't blame the civil servants. Don't blame those who are doing their best to provide us with the best service. I just hope we're not looking for some salacious information that we can turn to our advantage. Let's just let them do their job, and if there is a complaint as far as their investigative fairness and their ability to do their job go, bring it up in the proper place. But hoping to provide the press with some really good nuggets that will get our point across I don't think does us any good.

I just wanted to make a statement to say thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay.

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

Mr. Norlock, would you share your time with me so I can respond?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We're now going to go over to--

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

Give me one minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

You're out of order, Ms. Jennings.

Mr. Cullen, please.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Assistant Commissioner Souccar, Chief Superintendent Paulson and his colleagues.

I can understand why you can't talk about the specifics of this case, but I'd like to understand better the process involved with background checks. As we were told by the Privy Council Office, when there is a prospective minister, there is a background check by you and perhaps CSIS and others, and it goes through the Privy Council Office. There's an automatic update every two years that, again, is reported to the Privy Council Office.

I think it's been clear that--

[C/Supt Bob Paulson]

Can I interrupt you there for a second?

I just take exception, perhaps, to the term “automatic update”. From our perspective it may appear automatic, but we respond to the request. It's a PCO process, so if it's automatic for the PCO, it shows up on our request list.