The MPs on the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee say RCMP Deputy Commissioner Barbara George is in contempt of Parliament for deliberately misleading the committee in her testimony on the RCMP insurance and pension scandal. This afternoon, George fired back, released this statement:
“During the past year, the Public Accounts Committee have used this forum to cause irreparable damage to me, my family and my friends. The committee process and its procedures are inherently unfair, as they provide complete immunity for members and no protection for witnesses by way of procedural fairness.
Since the Public Accounts Committee first undertook its review of matters arising from the administration of the RCMP pension and insurance plans, I have appeared before it as a witness on four separate occasions. During those appearances, I provided the committee with more than six hours of oral testimony on a range of issues. On many occasions, I tabled internal RCMP documents and correspondence which corroborated my perspective on the events in question and which proved I had done nothing wrong.
In the course of those four appearances, I answered every question honestly, accurately and to the very best of my personal recollection. Early in this process, before all the evidence had been presented, it became clear that certain members of the committee had already reached a different conclusion and would not allow themselves to be convinced otherwise. I was disappointed to learn that the report issued today by the Public Accounts Committee reflects their distorted interpretation of my testimony.
The report tabled today claims that I gave misleading testimony in response to questions about whether I had ordered the removal of Sgt. Mike Frizzell from the Project Probity investigation. Inexplicably, the report then acknowledges that there are still questions about whether or not Sgt. Frizzell was “actually removed‚” and the Committee ultimately concludes that “it is not necessary to determine whether or not he was ‘removed.’” It is unclear how the Committee could have been misled about whether I had a role in removing Sgt. Frizzell, if he was not “actually removed” from the investigation.
A final sign of the unfairness of this process became clear late yesterday when sources within the committee began discussing the confidential report with the media. I had asked to receive an advance briefing on the contents of the report, but was told that the rules of the House of Commons expressly prohibited anyone from disclosing or discussing a confidential report before it was tabled. By leaking the contents of the report, therefore, one or more members of the committee may themselves be in contempt of Parliament.”