PACP Committee Report

In accordance with Standing Order 108 (3)(g), the November 2006 Report of the Auditor General of Canada was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts. On 21 February 2007, the Committee proceeded to consider chapter 9 of this report, Pension and Insurance Administration—Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Committee met with various officials, namely, from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada: Hugh McRoberts, Assistant Auditor General; Gordon Stock, Principal; from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Beverley Busson, Commissioner; Barbara George, Deputy Commissioner, Human Resources; Paul Gauvin, Deputy Commissioner, Corporate Management and Comptrollership; Brian Aiken, Chief Audit Executive; from the Ottawa Police Service: Vince Bevan, Chief; Vince Westwick, Consellor; from the Treasury Board Secretariat: Phil Charko, Assistant Secretary, Pensions and Benefits Sector.

During this hearing, Deputy Commissioner George was asked who ordered the alleged removal of Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell from the Ottawa Police Service investigation, called Project Probity, into allegations of fraud and abuse in the management of the RCMP’s pension and insurance plans. D/Commr. George denied any involvement and stated she did not know who ordered S/Sgt. Frizzell’s removal.

The Public Accounts Committee subsequently decided to invite additional witnesses to appear on 28 March 2007, namely: Staff Sergeant Ron Lewis, Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell, Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay, Assistant Commissioner David Gork, Staff Sergeant Steve Walker, and Denise Revine. On 26 March 2007, two days before the hearing, Interim Commissioner met with this group. On the basis of this meeting, Commr. Busson asked D/Commr. George to step aside from her position as Deputy Commissioner, Human Resources, and take pre-retirement and educational leave.

At the hearing on 28 March 2007, the Committee heard evidence that appeared to contradict the testimony given by D/Commr. George on 21 February 2007. Witnesses alleged that D/Commr. George was involved in the removal of S/Sgt. Frizzell, and this was reinforced by several e-mails. On 29 March 2007, Commr. Busson decided to suspend D/Commr. George from her position and to launch an internal investigation to determine whether or not she had breached the RCMP’s Code of Conduct. On 3 April 2007, Chief Superintendent Bob Paulson, the RCMP officer mandated to conduct the internal disciplinary investigation, decided to initiate a criminal investigation into the allegation that D/Commr. George had contravened section 131 of the Criminal Code of Canada, that is, whether she had committed perjury by making a false statement under oath.

D/Commr. George subsequently filed an application with the Federal Court to have both of these investigations quashed and declared invalid on the basis that parliamentary privilege protects any statements made before the Public Accounts Committee. On 29 May 2007, Federal Court Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer released her decision. This decision upheld the principle of parliamentary privilege and ordered the RCMP to cease the Code of Conduct investigation as it related to the testimony before the Public Accounts Committee. The Justice wrote:

For the courts or the RCMP Commissioner to initiate an internal investigation on the question of perjury before the House, prior to any decision on the matter by the House itself, would be to trespass within an area over which Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction.^[1]

The Federal Court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on whether parliamentary privilege applied to police investigations, since such investigations fall under the jurisdiction of provincial superior courts.   In doing so it did, however, emphasize that in the context of investigations and prosecutions: “It is clear that any issue with respect to parliamentary privilege remains alive…”^[2]

As a result, on 5 June 2007 C/Supt. Paulson wrote to the Speaker of the House of Commons, Peter Milliken, asking the House of Commons to waive privilege. C/Supt. Paulson wrote:

Defending the integrity of the privilege by pursuing action against those who may abuse it is key to maintaining trust in Parliament. There are, of course, a number of ways through which Parliament may decide to pursue action against someone who has provided such testimony. One such avenue is for Parliament to waive the privilege and permit the testimony to be used in a criminal investigation and admitted as evidence in a criminal prosecution. … I am therefore respectfully requesting that the House of Commons consider waiving privilege surrounding Deputy Commissioner George’s testimony on the 21st of February 2007 so that it might be presented to a Criminal Court.

On 6 June 2007, Speaker Milliken wrote to C/Supt. Paulson saying that the Public Accounts Committee would consider this matter and provide its recommendations to the House of Commons. This report constitutes the response of the Public Accounts Committee to C/Supt. Paulson’s request.

Parliamentary privilege of the freedom of speech and debate within proceedings of the Houses of Parliament is one of the fundamental principles of Parliament. It dates back at least to the Bill of Rights, 1689, Article 9, which states “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.” This principle has been enshrined in the Constitution Act of 1867, Section 18,^[3] and the Parliament of Canada Act, Sections 4 and 5.^[4]

Freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings is viewed by most observers as the most significant aspect of parliamentary privilege. It allows Members of Parliament to speak freely, without fear that what they say will be later held against them in the courts or other proceedings. It is essential for the effective working of the House. Members must be assured that there is complete freedom of speech so that they are able to be as open and forthright as possible in parliamentary discussions and debates.

Witnesses who appear before parliamentary committees are entitled to the same protections.^[5] Without witnesses having the protections of its privileges, Parliament’s investigative function would be compromised as witnesses would be less forthcoming. Witnesses need to be confident that their testimony is immune from subsequent challenges elsewhere. Consequently, testimony before a parliamentary committee, including the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts, is protected by parliamentary privilege. Its use is prohibited in any proceeding outside of the House of Commons. On 30 April, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, Shawn Murphy, summarized the issue:

It is important that all witnesses before this Committee be assured that the testimony they give to this committee cannot be used elsewhere against them. The credibility given to witness testimony and to this committee’s proceedings as a result will be seriously compromised if witnesses can be intimidated by actions taken against them or by worries about actions that could be taken against them.

This is not to say that Members are prepared to treat with impunity allegations that witnesses misled or lied to parliamentary committees. If a witness is found by a committee to have given untruthful testimony, then the committee can refer the matter to the House of Commons to have the House of Commons waive its privileges over the testimony and refer the matter to the Crown to determine whether the witness should be charged with perjury for deliberately lying to a parliamentary committee, pursuant to section 132 of the Criminal Code, “Every one who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” However, until it is determined by the House of Commons that it ought to waive its privileges, all testimony by witnesses before its Committees is protected by parliamentary privilege, and therefore is unavailable for any other use in or for any other legal proceeding or process, including investigations.

In addition, untruthful testimony before a chamber of Parliament or a parliamentary committee may constitute contempt of the House. Misleading a parliamentary committee affronts the dignity and authority of Parliament because it can obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions. Contempt of the House can be punished with the various penalties at the disposal of the House, from reprimand to imprisonment.