:
I'd like to welcome everyone here.
I hope the decorum and rancour of today don't extend over to this committee meeting.
This meeting is called pursuant to the Standing Orders. We are looking at chapter 9 of the 2006 Auditor General's report, “Pension and Insurance Administration--Royal Canadian Mounted Police”.
We are very pleased to have with us today, from the Office of the Auditor General, Hugh McRoberts. He's accompanied by Gordon Stock, principal, and of course we know Hugh is the Assistant Auditor General. Welcome, Mr. McRoberts and Mr. Stock.
From the Canadian Mounted Police we have the new commissioner, Beverley Busson. Welcome, Commissioner, and congratulations. With her is Barbara George, the Deputy Commissioner, Human Resources; Paul Gauvin, the Deputy Minister of Corporate Management and Comptrollership; and Brian Aiken, the chief audit executive.
We also have with us the chief of police for the city of Ottawa, Chief Vince Bevan. From Treasury Board Secretariat we have Paul Charko, assistant secretary, pensions and benefits sector.
I understand that the Office of the Auditor General, the commissioner, and the chief have opening statements. I will call for the opening statements, but before that, I do remind witnesses that this is a rather complicated issue. I want to ask members to keep their questions short and to the point, and I ask witnesses to keep their answers brief and focused on the questions. This committee has zero tolerance for any long-winded, irrelevant answers.
I should point out to members, before I turn it over for the opening statements, that I'm going to suspend at the end to present the minutes of the steering committee, which was held on Monday. However, if there is a vote, I would like to seek the committee's indulgence to put that over until Monday to accommodate Mr. Christopherson, who may have to rush to catch a plane.
Having said that, I'm going to call upon Mr. McRoberts for his opening statement.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to discuss the audit of the RCMP pension and insurance administration. With me today is Gordon Stock, principal of the public safety team, who is responsible for this audit.
I'd like to take this opportunity to provide committee members with an overview of our findings related to the RCMP's response to the abuses in the administration of its pension and insurance plans.
In 2003, allegations of fraud and abuse in the management of the RCMP's pension and insurance plans came to the attention of the commissioner of the RCMP, who then triggered an internal audit. Following this internal audit, the Ottawa Police Service carried out a criminal investigation.
In June 2005, the Ottawa Police Service reported to the RCMP that it had found abuses of the pension and insurance plans, nepotism, wasteful spending, and overrides of controls by management. Two senior officials resigned and the RCMP considered disciplinary action against others.
[Translation]
The objective of our audit was to determine whether the RCMP had responded adequately to the findings of its internal audit and the investigation by the Ottawa Police Service. We did not re-audit or re-investigate the allegations of abuse.
However, we did examine additional allegations that were brought to our attention during our audit. In addition, we looked at whether the Ottawa Police Service conducted its investigation independently of, and without undue direction or bias by, the RCMP.
[English]
We concluded that the RCMP had responded adequately to the findings and recommendations of its internal audit and of the OPS investigation by addressing issues directly connected to the abuses. In particular, the RCMP reimbursed or credited about $4.3 million that had been improperly charged to the pension plan. It also took steps to prevent future inappropriate charges to the pension plan and it strengthened staffing and contracting controls. However, we found that the internal audit and criminal investigation raised additional issues that remained unresolved.
Perhaps the most significant issue was the question related to the independence of the criminal investigation itself. We received complaints that the investigation lacked independence. We found that the RCMP does not have a policy on the conduct of external investigations of itself. While the RCMP had signed a formal memorandum of understanding with the Ottawa Police Service for this investigation, we noted that in previous investigations it had not.
The memorandum with the Ottawa Police Service was signed 10 months after the start of the investigation. We found that the organization of the investigation, with the lead investigator reporting to an RCMP assistant commissioner, compromised the appearance of independence. The RCMP justified this arrangement as being the best way to provide administrative support to the investigation, and the Ottawa Police Service told us it had not been directed or influenced by the RCMP. Our recommendation was that the RCMP develop and institute a policy for such investigations to ensure that future investigations are independent in both substance and appearance.
We also found that while the RCMP had reimbursed or credited inappropriate charges made to the pension plan, it had not completely reimbursed or credited the plans for wasteful and unnecessary expenditures charged to them. We estimated that about $1.3 million was charged to the plans for work of little value and that only about $270,000 of that had been reimbursed or credited to the pension plan. We understand that the RCMP has reviewed our estimate, refined it, and made additional adjustments to the plans since the end of our fieldwork.
We found that the pension outsourcing initiative, the project that led to most of the abuses, had not been supported by an adequate business case, and that the cost estimates had not been complete and had greatly underestimated the cost of outsourcing. The RCMP finance branch did not challenge the numbers presented by the National Compensation Policy Centre for inclusion in the RCMP's Treasury Board submission. The branch told us it had relied entirely on the advice and decisions of the sponsoring managers. We recommended that as part of its internal review process, the RCMP challenge all important program changes.
[Translation]
Just prior to the publication of our report, the RCMP informed us that it was no longer considering disciplinary action against RCMP members about whom allegations of misconduct had been received. This was because the RCMP had elected to begin its internal disciplinary processes after the criminal investigation was completed instead of at the same time.
During the intervening period, a court decision in another case clarified that the time limit on internal discipline should have started when the appropriate officer knew of the alleged offence and the identity of the member involved—well beyond the time allowed in the RCMP Act had elapsed. In its internal disciplinary investigation, the RCMP identified that disciplinary action was warranted against four of its members.
[English]
We did not make a recommendation on the management of internal investigations and disciplinary proceedings by the RCMP. It is evident, however, that these need to be clarified.
Mr. Chair, that concludes my opening statement. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this chapter. I will be happy to respond to the committee's questions.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My colleagues and I are pleased to appear before this committee today to discuss chapter 9 of the Auditor General's report on RCMP pension and insurance administration.
[English]
With that in mind, I wish to recognize and acknowledge the importance of the Auditor General's work and to thank her for her indulgence with respect to this matter.
I would also like to extend my thanks to Chief Vince Bevan for the professional manner in which the Ottawa Police Service performed its investigation into allegations of fraud and mismanagement in the administration of the RCMP pension and insurance plans.
I am accompanied today by Deputy Commissioner Barbara George, Human Resources; Mr. Paul Gauvin, Deputy Commissioner of Corporate Management and Comptrollership; and Mr. Brian Aiken, chief audit executive of our audit and evaluation branch.
As you are no doubt aware, I have only recently been appointed commissioner, and I have been briefed on this file by those who have been directly involved in implementing corrective actions. While I cannot provide you with firsthand knowledge of these events, I am confident that the questions put forward by this committee can be responded to by those present today.
It's important to note that the OAG audit was in fact one of four important reviews conducted during the past four years to examine allegations of mismanagement in the administration of the pension and insurance plans. After a 2003-04 internal audit identified issues related to the expenses charged to the RCMP pension plan, and the Government of Canada and the RCMP policies and procedures for contracting and staffing practices, the RCMP requested that the Ottawa Police Service lead an investigation into this matter to ensure transparency and openness.
At the outset of the investigation it was agreed that the RCMP would provide and facilitate access to the required information and personnel within the RCMP to the Ottawa Police Service. After completing its independent investigation in June 2005, the Ottawa Police Service informed the RCMP that no criminal charges would be laid in this case, as the provincial crown attorney's office advised that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on criminal charges. The Ottawa Police Service investigation thus corroborated the results of our own internal audit that determined that the irregularities identified were administrative.
In June 2005, the RCMP was then able to review the OPS investigation. After carefully studying the report, the RCMP conducted a third probe, an internal investigation under part IV of the RCMP Act. Under the act, this investigation was to determine whether a disciplinary hearing should be conducted to decide if any members had breached the code of conduct. As the Auditor General has observed, it was not possible to proceed with a formal hearing in this regard because the prescribed one-year limitation period had lapsed. This is something the Federal Court of Appeal clarified in February 2006, after the investigation had been initiated. I would like to advise this committee that we have taken a number of steps to ensure the timeliness of future disciplinary proceedings.
In September 2005, the OAG commenced a fourth review of this matter. This OAG report was tabled in the House of Commons on November 28, 2006. Chapter 9, while recognizing the RCMP had already acted in response to the issues raised in the internal audit and the OPS investigation, also provided recommendations to further strengthen the administration of the RCMP pension and insurance plans.
It was and remains an RCMP priority to take corrective action to address each issue raised through both the internal audit and the Ottawa Police Service investigation. In her report, the Auditor General noted that the RCMP had indeed responded adequately to the findings of the internal audit and to the Ottawa Police Service investigation.
As RCMP commissioner, I want to assure this committee that all recommendations stemming from chapter 9 of the Auditor General's report will be implemented. The majority of those recommendations have already been addressed, and corrective measures are being taken to address the few that remain outstanding. I would like to emphasize that the RCMP pension plan is not, and was never, at risk.
Our primary goal is to administer the pension and insurance plans in the most efficient manner, ensuring that all current and retired members are provided with the highest possible levels of service. The RCMP has demonstrated its commitment to achieving this goal by acting on the recommendations of its own internal audit as well as those of the Auditor General.
I might also add that we received only last week the results of the Auditor General's audit of the pension administration plan for the year ended March 31, 2006. The OAG provided the RCMP with a clean and unqualified report and commended the RCMP for the administration of the pension plans.
Thank you for your attention. I hope we will be able to respond to your questions. Thank you very much.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I am pleased to appear before you as a part of your consideration of the 2006 report by the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons.
[English]
In 2002, internal complaints were voiced within the RCMP about the management of the force's pension fund. Following an internal audit, the RCMP contacted the Ottawa Police Service to conduct an investigation into activities surrounding the administration of the force's pension fund. This was a criminal investigation.
A major case management model was used to manage this investigation. There are many aspects to that model. In this case it means that a crown attorney was consulted regularly at all stages of the investigation. The investigation itself was exhaustive. It included 238 interviews, including Commissioner Zaccardelli himself, and produced an investigative report the size of a banker's box, along with an additional 75,000 pages of supporting documents.
The Ottawa police investigation also ordered a third-party independent forensic audit as part of their work. Ultimately, the Ottawa Police Service, in consultation with the provincial crown attorney, concluded that the issues uncovered, while serious, were administrative in nature rather than criminal and that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on criminal charges.
I would like to draw to your attention that after a comprehensive review by the Office of the Auditor General, we received compliments to the investigators on the thoroughness and professionalism of their work.
I respect the important mandate of this committee, and I am pleased to extend my full cooperation to these deliberations and to answer all of your questions.
Mr. Chair, I have Vince Westwick from the Ottawa Police Service with me today. He is here to provide me with advice.
Earlier I realized my staff indicated to the clerk that I would have to leave after the hour that had been set aside. I recognize the importance of the deliberations today, and I am prepared to stay until released, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much.
Millions of dollars of rank-and-file RCMP officers' pension and life insurance funds were, in the words of the Auditor General, misused “due to management overriding controls”. Much of these funds have still not been repaid. This appears to be a tale with no best-case scenario and the worst case of fraud, obstruction of investigations, of whistle-blowers and investigators punished and constructively dismissed, of criminal investigations suspended, evidence buried, and of wrongdoers rewarded with fraudulent leave payouts.
Deputy Commissioner of Human Resources, Ms. George, during the criminal investigation of the RCMP insurance outsourcing project, Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell was the lead investigator. Staff Sergeant Frizzell has over 15 years of criminal investigative experience and an impeccable track record. On June 19, 2005, two superintendents arrived at his office. He was physically removed and his computer and files were seized. The 15-month Ottawa police criminal investigation was terminated the following week.
Did you or Mr. Zaccardelli order that Staff Sergeant Frizzell be removed, and was it you or Mr. Zaccardelli who ordered that the investigation be shut down?
:
Well, in that case, over to you, Police Chief Bevan.
The so-called independent Ottawa police investigation was based at RCMP Headquarters, also working out of the RCMP Orleans facility. Of 20 people involved in the investigation, only two were Ottawa police. Reports went to RCMP Assistant Commissioner Gork.
As well, I have a gag order here on RCMP letterhead and signed by RCMP Assistant Commissioner Gork, which was designed to silence investigators and that your officers presented to those being investigated. These facts do not support the claim of independence and non-interference by top RCMP officials in this criminal investigation. Do you agree?
:
Mr. Bevan, are you familiar with the letter from that time, from the lead investigator, that reads as follows:
Chief Bevan was right when he said that we should be moved out of here and set up independently from the RCMP. I was too naive then to realize just how right he was.
Because of time limitations, I'd like to move on to Deputy Commissioner Paul Gauvin, Corporate Management and Comptrollership.
Deputy Commissioner Gauvin, I understand some of your staff were charged criminally, some under the RCMP Act, and others resigned as a result of an OPP investigation. Were you disciplined under the RCMP Act in November 2002 for failure to act in dealing with staff receiving privileges? Were you and former Deputy Commissioner Ewanovich compelled to take one day of ethics training, and did Mr. Ewanovich even have to forgo the Queen's Jubilee Medal?
:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. McRoberts, you said that the RCMP charged about $1.3 million to the pension and insurance plan for work of little value, but that only $270,280 had been reimbursed or credited to the pension plan.
My first question is the following: In your view, why is that?
You've said that it is your understanding that the RCMP has reviewed your estimate, refined it and made additional adjustments to the plan since the end of the field work.
What should we make of that? That out of an initial charge for unjustified expenditures of $1.3 million, only $270,000 has been reimbursed? Did I understand correctly?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This Auditor General's report is a serious indictment of the administration of the RCMP, which is there to uphold the laws of the land. When they don't even uphold their own laws, what confidence can the general public have in our institutions?
I'm looking at paragraph 9.23 of the Auditor General's report, Mr. Chairman, which says:
Human Resources staff claimed that because of work pressures, they allowed the NCPC Director to hire casual employees on his own rather than following the regular staffing process.
Basically, the rules don't need to apply just because the guy is busy. Is that an appropriate response, Ms. George?
:
I'm glad you said it should never have happened, but you can't blame....
It's the institution, Mr. Chairman. These people are working for the RCMP. They are employed by the RCMP. They are wearing the uniform of the RCMP. To say it was individuals who broke the rules is not satisfactory, in my opinion.
I'm also looking at paragraph 6 of the opening statement of the Assistant Auditor General. He says in here:
The memorandum with the Ottawa Police Service was signed 10 months after the start of the investigation. We found that the organization of the investigation, with the lead OPS investigator reporting to an RCMP Assistant Commissioner, compromised the appearance of independence.
I can't imagine, Mr. Chairman, that the RCMP and the Ottawa police, when they investigate a crime, an alleged crime, or what is perceived to be a crime, would not keep all the people who were alleged to be involved up to speed and report to them on their investigation.
Why would the OPS be reporting to an assistant commissioner of the RCMP when they were investigating the RCMP, Mr. Bevan?
:
Mr. Chair, they were not on operational matters. They were on administrative matters. I will admit that the wording of the MOU leaves a lot to be desired, and I appreciate the fact that the Office of the Auditor General has drawn that to our attention.
I can tell you that it was an unusual situation. As Mr. McRoberts said earlier, this was the first time any such MOU had been in place between the Ottawa Police Service and the RCMP. We have had other occasions when we have investigated the RCMP. The situation in this particular case was that we didn't need an MOU at all to go in to exercise our jurisdiction.
We had the jurisdiction to conduct this investigation. What we needed was support to get the resources and to get access to documents. That was the purpose of having Assistant Commissioner Gork in place. He was to facilitate that.
The other thing is that under the Police Services Act of Ontario right now, whenever the Ottawa police go to another Ontario jurisdiction to do an investigation, we expect to be compensated for our costs. We needed the MOU in this particular case because we anticipated that we were going to do an independent audit, a forensic audit, which would be very expensive. We knew there was going to be travel involved, and I was also concerned, in the very early days, that a number of improprieties were identified. Initially we thought this would be a three-month investigation, and I was concerned that the lead investigator, the inspector from our criminal investigative services who was assigned to lead this investigation, was going to be retired before it was completed and had ultimately gone through court.
:
Thank you very much, Chair. My thanks to all for presenting today.
I want to follow up on Mr. Williams' concerns about the relationship between the Ottawa Police Service and the RCMP. I think both of you will agree—I'll give you an opportunity to disagree if you wish—that in performing your duties in your respective services, you not only have to be fair and just, but you have to have the appearance of being fair and just. The concern here is that this relationship does not look very good.
As a former Ontario Solicitor General who has called in the RCMP when I had issues with the OPP, I can say that the important thing is the whole arm's-length relationship. Otherwise it doesn't work. The whole point of it is to make sure there isn't this kind of overlap.
Chief, I just want to get back to this issue. You were talking about the reporting mechanism being on the operational side. Has that been standard any other time you've gone into other police services?
:
I think the opportunity to explain that fully, Mr. Christopherson, is necessary. I don't find it particularly unusual. I look to the Toronto example.
I can tell you that for administrative purposes it was necessary to have a senior liaison person within the RCMP to provide the resources, get the space, the cars, the computers, all of the things that make the investigation run. But when there are operational questions, the lead investigator comes to me.
That's why a crown attorney was assigned. We distanced ourselves from the federal Department of Justice. We went to the local crown attorney and used them. We didn't rely on the RCMP audit. We went out and obtained another independent forensic audit. That forensic audit came to the same conclusion that our investigators and the crown attorney came to about the threshold for criminal charges.
The internal audit branch stands ready at all times to go into a sector or unit and initiate a very in-depth audit that will look at any alleged irregularities. When the first investigation was called for, the commissioner of the day felt that rather than going in with a narrow focus, he wanted to know exactly what was going on. He wanted to know the depth, the scope, and the breadth of what was going on. He wanted to have it spelled out by professionals.
Our internal audit branch, as I said, went in and did a very exhaustive internal audit. When that report was tabled shortly thereafter, a criminal investigation was requested of the Ottawa Police Service.
I agree with Mr. Christopherson. This doesn't look good. This is the second situation that's cropped up. Something that didn't look good a few years ago is this sponsorship scandal, when it was shown there was money in a separate bank account and no clear mandate what happened to it. I think it ended up buying horses or something at the end of the day. But it didn't look good to me, and I don't think it looked good to the public.
I reiterate what Mr. Williams says, that the public have to believe that the senior levels of our police force and our criminal justice system are people who live by the highest standards of conduct in society. So in that sense, it just doesn't look good.
The people who were disciplined--I want to be clear on this because it seems we're talking about misconduct and about administrative problems and so on. Am I correct in assuming that their major sin was that they were more on the incompetent end as far as managing and administering things, or was it a question of people crossing the lines in terms of what I'd call the ten commandments?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Thank you, witnesses.
We're going to now go to the second round of five minutes each. But before I go to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, I have just one question, perhaps to the commissioner and to you, Mr. Charko.
When I look at this audit, there certainly wasn't any problem with the rules. The rules were there, but the rules were not followed--Treasury Board guidelines were not followed. It's my understanding that senior RCMP have the right to override what I consider to be normal financial controls, and even despite the disturbing audit, they still want to retain that right to override normal financial controls. Is that an accurate statement, Mr. Charko, and if it is, does it not concern Treasury Board?
Mr. Bevan, you referred to criminal standard. I would assume if there's evidence that shows the mechanisms, the actual calculations, and it's a concrete document showing how to go about misappropriating funds for personal benefit, that would be criminal. Is that correct?
How would you feel if days-of-leave documents were provided that could be shown to have been adjusted after the fact?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Under section 9.13 in chapter 9 of the Auditor General's report, it is written that $3.1 million was inappropriately charged to the pension plan. A little earlier, we were told that part of the money had been reimbursed. That amounted to $759,000. Apparently, that would leave a balance of $373,781. But that does not add up, a lot of money is still missing.
When will you reimburse the total amount? How come that has not yet been done? What was the exact amount that had been improperly charged?
:
If you had $10 billion under your administration, I'm trying to understand why you wouldn't have a serious plan by senior management to ensure that it was well entrusted. When I take a look at this audit that has no date, no page numbers, nothing, it says “their comptrollership responsibilities were neglected”, and further on, “the allocation of expenses to the pension plan, were questionable”.
It goes on to say:
procedures surrounding casual employees were not compliant with PSC and RCMP policies and procedures. These practices resulted in the hiring of individuals under conditions that may not meet public scrutiny.
I'm still trying to get my mind around the mentality of the RCMP in looking after this amount of money, where you investigate fraud each and every day, that you wouldn't say, “We have all this money; we'd better be squeaky clean on it ourselves.”
Does anybody have an explanation as to why there was this lackadaisical attitude, that somebody is looking after it?
I have to say that the circumstances keep mounting up, and I have no problems or qualms with the answers you've given, but I get a sense there's a whole other side to this thing. We start adding up things like the lack of the appearance of independence--notwithstanding what you said, Chief. I accept that at face value, but nonetheless you did acknowledge that it doesn't look very good. That was the first step.
The timing of cancelling the criminal investigation and moving to an internal investigation.... While I take the word of those who have given submissions to this point that that was done for good reasons, I can't escape the fact that at the end of the day it would have been very helpful if.... The real question we're asking here is whether there has been a cover-up. Nobody has called it that, but that's really what's in front of us. Was there a cover-up?
The actions themselves, as is true in most cases like this, can be dealt with one way. Once we start getting into issues of covering up, we're into a whole other thing. So the real issue in front of us here is, was there any attempt anywhere within the senior ranks of the RCMP, with or without the inclusion of the Ottawa Police Service, to cover this up in any way?
I look at that, and I look at the fact that the statute of limitations.... There's a part of me that says the Commissioner of the RCMP wouldn't make a decision like that without a legal person right beside him asking him what the unintended consequences would be here, what he needed to know. As one piece, it's not the whole thing, but it's yet another piece.
The initial whistle-blower has been reassigned, and my understanding is that was not something they wanted. They feel they've been treated very badly here.
As for the work of no value, we all know what happened the last time we started down that road. That's very troublesome, and again I'm having some difficulty. It's a legal matter between administrative and criminal, but boy, once you start hiring relatives and friends, and once you start arranging for work that doesn't need to be done, you've got to be getting awfully close to criminal intent. I'm just a layperson with a very poor formal education, but it seems to me that if you're not across that line, you've got to be snuggling up pretty close to it by then.
Then there is this whole business of Mr. Frizzell's being physically removed. Again, that's another piece. Then how many resignations, reassignments, health issues...? I headed into this open-minded, and again, if I had problems with your answers you'd know about it by now, but I still have this sense that there's more to this story.
If it was not the RCMP in particular--and part of this may be just my own background as Solicitor General responsible for police, and proud of it, and proud of the women and men I was responsible for--then it seems to me that you'd have to be held to the highest account that Mr. Williams was referring to, the squeaky clean, because it's the police.
I say openly that if it were another matter and this were circumstantial, I might still be persuaded that we could end it here and write a report, especially since the Auditor General feels that they have responded, at least from that point of view. However, given that it's the RCMP, and that it is absolutely critical that people have faith in the RCMP, and that the RCMP live up to their reputation, and that we not damage that, I'm going to be very open to a motion, at the appropriate time, to take a second round and bring in some people to see what the other side is. Then we'll match up the two and see where we are.
I don't have any further questions. I'll afford you a chance to comment on my remarks, but at this point, Chair, it's my intent that if Mr. Wrzesnewskyj presents a motion that has us take a second round, I'm supportive.
Thanks.
:
I'd respectfully like to make a response around that.
In my opening comments I spoke about four reviews, and each one of those reviews was not pretty. The findings of those reviews were less than anything anybody, from a constable to a commissioner of the RCMP, would be very proud of in the way those things were dealt with. I also agree with you that at the end of the day, the perception of what we call an arm's-length investigation may be out there in the minds of certain people.
We, in the RCMP and in other police forces across Canada, see a double-edged sword in the amount of trust that people see in the RCMP and other police forces. And often we investigate each other believing that people will trust us to do the right thing because we do live by a very high ethical code. I accept the fact that the perception of that might be very difficult for certain people, but that is the world we live in. We have to be aware of the fact that this trust is both precious and not cemented in stone, that we have to work very hard to move through that.
In the four reviews there were a number of things that were uncovered and shown to be, if not malfeasance, then misfeasance. As I said before, there's nobody in this organization who wants to defend any of what happened in that unfortunate part of time. The work that we've done afterwards, I believe, has been transparent. At the end of the day, the organization has done everything it can to give whatever assurances it can, beyond a total naïveté that nobody ever does anything wrong in this world after the first time.
We will work to make sure that this will never happen again. I agree with you that the RCMP does need to live up to a higher standard, and we strive to do that at every stance.
:
If there is a concern that somehow Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell was silenced by whatever happened, I can assure you that he wrote a key part of the final report that was submitted. He led the contracts portion of the investigation. The contracts portion of the investigation was that part that was scrutinized by the forensic auditor. So his report was included, given to me, and that was part of the information that was tabled with the RCMP commissioner at the time. I just want to add that, if there is concern that he was somehow muzzled.
Certainly there was no cover-up through any of this. And I can tell you that where the evidence has taken us...previously where we have done criminal investigations of members of the RCMP, criminal charges have been laid where that's appropriate. In this particular case, we consulted with the crown attorney. We had the benefit of an independent forensic audit and the conduct did not meet the threshold.
Regardless, all of the acts, anything related to mismanagement, all of the things we've talked about here today were fully documented and included in the report that both the Auditor General and the RCMP have had access to.
:
Mr. Gauvin, you made an admission of people going around the controls that were put in place, and you actually stated, and I noted down, that “action was taken”.
The action appears to have been, in Mr. Crupi's case—Mr. Crupi, St. Andrew's golf course, and Mr. Crupi, stepdaughter, niece—18 months of paid leave. He's now on pension; he got bonus pay. So it appears that people who are going around the controls did not suffer any consequences, had full bonuses paid to them, and paid leave under suspension until their pensions kicked in. Then we end up with the original whistle-blower, her supervisor, and Mr. Frizzell all removed from their positions in what appear to be punitive ways.
I look at this and I shake my head. Moneys have not been repaid into the RCMP officers' pension fund. There hasn't been full compensation into the pension fund. There has been a great deal of suffering by a number of the individuals, who had the courage to step forward when they saw top officials within the RCMP abuse rank-and-file officers' pension funds. It appears that none of these issues has been addressed. I think what we'd like to see is all those funds reinstated, and those individuals should have an opportunity to come before the committee and be questioned in a respectful way, so that hopefully we can clear the air here and once again look at the RCMP without doubt and with respect.
:
Thank you, Mr. Poilievre and Chief Bevan.
That, colleagues, witnesses, and members of the public, concludes the examinations. Of course, where we go from here is entirely up to the committee.
Before I conclude, do you have any closing remarks, Mr. McRoberts?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Very briefly, again, as we indicated in our report, we believe the initial response of the RCMP to the matters raised was an adequate response. With respect to the remaining ones, they committed at the time of making the report to dealing with them, and we are pleased at the reaffirmation of that commitment that we've heard from the commissioner today.
I would like to draw one other matter to the committee's attention. In responding to Madame Brunelle's question, I indicated that, over and above controls, the issue of management override is really a values issue. I would like to draw the committee's attention to another chapter that appeared in the same report and is, in a sense, a companion piece to this one. That is chapter 4, which deals with proper conduct of public business in the public safety portfolio, and it looks at, among other things, matters of values and ethics in the Border Services Agency, the corrections service, and the RCMP, and which I believe may be of assistance, at least in part, to the members in considering this matter.
:
On behalf of all members of the committee, I do want to thank you very much for your appearance here today and for answering the questions.
For you, Commissioner, I understand you are new in the job. Although this report, I think it's fair to say, is disturbing to the members of Parliament and it's somewhat troubling, I don't think it diminishes in any way the pride that we all have for the thousands and thousands of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who work for Canadians each and every day. I'm sure you are proud to lead the force, and you're new in the job, so I, on behalf of all members of Parliament, want to wish you all the best as you continue in your new role.
:
I would like to reconvene the meeting for another two or three minutes.
There are three things I'd like to deal with.
The first item, colleagues, is the minutes of the steering committee, which was held on Monday, and they've been circulated. There's one thing I want to add. The minutes talked about a meeting. We couldn't contact André Gladu. Since the minutes were prepared, we have contacted him and we have scheduled that meeting, although we haven't pinned down Janice Cochrane yet, and that is unfortunately because we didn't want to move the schedule. We put it as a third hour to a meeting on March 21.
We lost our meeting on March 19 because of the tabling of the federal budget, and Mr. Flaherty wouldn't defer to us, unfortunately. We asked him.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Also, colleagues, at the request of the Auditor General, and I know we've tried this before, this is a very informal briefing session that the steering committee agreed to have on Monday next week, just on the two chapters we're talking about. These are general broad-brush expenditure issues, and it's going to be a very informal briefing session for one hour for members and for their staff. Some of you may want to come, some of you may not want to come, but that notice has been sent around. And lunch will be served.
We should receive a motion for the approval of the steering committee minutes, as circulated, if someone's prepared to make that motion.