:
I would like to call the meeting to order at this time.
I want to welcome everyone here. Colleagues, members, witnesses, pursuant to Standing Order 108, this is a meeting on chapter 9 of the November 2006 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension and insurance administration.
Before we start with the witnesses, there are a couple of items I want to address. There's some confusion as to the role that this committee plays in our parliamentary system, and the role that other investigative bodies play, including the courts. I'm going to read a prepared statement on the whole issue of parliamentary privilege, just to get this on the record, because it is very important:
There is considerable Parliamentary, public, and media attention in the current proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee. There may also be a lack of sufficiently precise information as to the exact nature and manner of these proceedings. Therefore, at the outset of today's sitting of the Committee, I would like to sketch out some of the ground rules under which I consider our work to be conducted.
The Public Accounts Committee is a creature of the House of Commons; it is not a court of law. Therefore, the nature of the Committee and of its proceedings is parliamentary, not judicial. The rules of procedure of House of Commons Committees such as this one, the rights and powers of its members, and in particular the rights and obligations of witnesses before the Committee are guided by the branch of constitutional law known as the law of parliamentary privilege.
Pursuant to parliamentary privilege, witnesses who are asked to appear are obliged to do so, as if they had been subpoenaed before a court. Pursuant to parliamentary privilege, while witnesses are, in usual circumstances, not required to be sworn in, they do have the obligation to be truthful in response to the questions addressed to them and to give complete answers, as if they had been sworn in. There should be full and frank disclosure.
And I should point out today that the committee has adopted a policy that in this particular hearing everyone is going to be sworn in.
Witnesses whose testimony before the Committee is believed not to be truthful may become the subject of proceedings in contempt of Parliament or in perjury, at the behest of the Committee itself.
It is very important to note that testimony given by witnesses to the Committee speaks for itself. It is one of the fundamental principles of parliamentary privilege that testimony given before a committee can neither be used in any other forum, such as a court of law, nor can its truthfulness be questioned in another forum, such as a judicial inquiry or a court of law. This principle is a factor of the independence of Parliament and the courts and of their separation from each other. The counterpart of this principle is that lack of truthfulness or lack of complete answers in committee proceedings will not absolve witnesses from their responsibilities to the Committee.
The Committee will instruct the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons to advise the Committee whenever there is doubt as to the truthfulness or completeness of testimony and second to ensure, through whatever steps may be necessary, that testimony given before this Committee is not used in judicial or other such proceedings.
In other words, the committee will, as it has in the past, protect its parliamentary privileges.
That's just a brief thumbnail sketch of the nature of these proceedings. Again, as I indicated in my opening statement, the committee has made a policy decision to swear everyone in, so I'm going to ask the clerk to swear the witnesses in at this point in time. We are then going to go right to the opening statements.
Mr. Williams.
:
No, it's a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman.
In these last few weeks, while we've had a break, my name has been in the media. This was not by myself, Mr. Chairman; it has actually been by another member of the committee, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. For example, on the CBC morning news on March 29, he stated, and I quote:
It's incomprehensible. When you take a look at the allegations, month after month and motion after motion in front of the public accounts committee, they blocked, including Mr. Williams. It's incomprehensible. What were they hiding?
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj has gone on at great length in the media, Mr. Chairman, to talk about me blocking the investigation into the RCMP.
I would like to quote, Mr. Chairman, from the February 26 public accounts committee testimony, where I said:
We had a hearing with the Commissioner of the RCMP and the chief of police for the Ottawa Police Service. They told us that nobody had benefited from the misaccounting of the funds in the pension fund. There was no evidence that they felt they could use to go to court to obtain a prosecution. This is with about 16 people being assigned to this case over a number of months. Therefore, I don't know what we can do that they couldn't do.
I continued on, Mr. Chairman, to say:
I just have one final point, Mr. Chairman, and it is that with perhaps one exception, if the letter comes back from the RCMP saying there was some serious mal-administration regarding the removal of Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell from the case, then I'm prepared to revisit. At this point in time, though, I think we'll just have to say we're done with it.
Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj having his point of view. Whether it is correct or erroneous, that is up to him to defend it. But when he uses my name, Mr. Chairman, to bring the spotlight to himself, to try to claim that he was the architect of this investigation when he knew that nobody else appeared to be in command of the facts that he had.... He didn't share them with us. He didn't use the opportunity to enlighten us. And now he takes my name and uses it as if I was trying to block this investigation. That is completely false, Mr. Chairman.
I would ask that you ask Mr. Wrzesnewskyj to withdraw his remarks and apologize for the remarks he has been saying in the media and taking my name in vain.
:
Good afternoon.
Bon après-midi. Before we proceed to questions and with your permission, I would like to make this brief statement.
As you will note, I have provided the committee with a written statement that includes more detail; however, in the interest of time I would like to provide a very brief overview of the facts surrounding my actions with regard to the RCMP pension fund. I hope that in doing so I can set the stage for further questions and provide a necessary balance to the presentations and interpretations of facts that were brought forward to this committee three weeks ago.
I know the committee is both committed and mandated to review any and all information that is brought forward, with a judicious requirement for due process and proper balance. I am sure there are many who share my concern that uncorroborated and highly individualized input puts these principles at risk, as does premature comment before all of the information relevant to a careful and thorough review is put before this committee.
In the spring of 2003, Staff Sergeant Ron Lewis brought to my attention concerns he had regarding the administration of the RCMP pension fund. I responded by writing a memo to the head of internal audit directing that these issues be examined and that the matter be given top priority. My determination was that the best course of action was to initiate an internal audit.
In October 2003 I was given a copy of the completed internal audit. I summarized the identified problems, as they were of great concern to me, as follows: evidence of nepotism in hiring in management, improper billing of contracts and contract splitting, failure to comply with Treasury Board and RCMP policies regarding contracts and hiring, improper charging of administrative fees to the pension fund.
However, the audit report found no indication of criminal activity. The report clearly identified the responsible individuals as the chief human resource officer and the director general of the National Compensation Policy Centre. That day, Mr. Chairman, immediately after reading the report, I took the following steps.
I met with and requested and received the resignation of the chief human resource officer. I then appointed Barbara George as the new chief human resource officer. I directed Ms. George to remove the director general of the National Compensation Policy Centre from his position. I further instructed Ms. George to carefully review and act upon all issues outlined in the audit report. I briefed the deputy commissioner for corporate management and directed him to immediately review to ensure that all proper financial control systems were in place and to reverse any inappropriate charges against the pension fund.
I want to note very clearly here that protecting the fund was and remained my topmost priority, and no repercussions to the pensions of RCMP employees and veterans exist as a result of this situation. It was my belief that the implementation of this plan of action would result in the proper amelioration of the identified problems.
It came to my attention over the next few months that concerns were still being expressed about the process of response that had been put into place by Staff Sergeant Lewis, Chief Superintendent Macaulay, and others. After I consulted with Deputy Commissioner Garry Loeppky at some length, we decided to ask the Ottawa Police Service to carry out an independent criminal investigation.
This investigation began in March of 2004. Fifteen months later, in the summer of 2005, the Ottawa Police Service completed their investigation. The Ottawa Police Service consulted with crown counsel with the Ministry of the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario about the results of its extensive investigation. Crown counsel reviewed the facts disclosed by the investigation and advised the Ottawa Police that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on criminal charges. The Ottawa Police Service report reiterated the problems as outlined in the internal audit, and furthermore, it went on to name a number of employees who may have been in violation of the RCMP code of conduct.
I immediately directed the chief human resource officer, Ms. George, to commence a review under the RCMP Act with respect to this element of the Ottawa Police Service report. During the time this review was under way, the Federal Court of Appeal handed down a decision on another case that now, for the first time, clarified the issue of when the clock should be considered to start ticking on the one-year limitation of action. As a result of the Federal Court decision, the deputy commissioner in charge of the process informed me that he was not able to proceed further on disciplinary action. Nevertheless, as I have already stated, the two people identified as having overall responsibility had been removed from their positions.
Before we proceed to questions, I would like to make two further comments.
The first relates to the very serious and, to me, offensive allegations that have been made to this committee and, subsequently, by some committee members outside of these chambers. That is that I personally engaged in a process of cover-up related to the pension fund. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the outset, all steps taken by me and by management were openly reported upon and documented.
Let me briefly itemize. I met on a regular basis with RCMP divisional representatives and their executive committee to report our actions vis-à-vis the pension fund. As I've already noted, an internal audit team was established, and their report was tabled and reviewed by the senior management team. In turn, this report was immediately forwarded to the Treasury Board and to the Auditor General of Canada. As I have also just described, the Ottawa Police established an independent investigative team, and their work was reviewed by crown counsel of the Ministry of the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario.
In 2006, the Auditor General reviewed the administration of the RCMP pension plan. Her report was thorough and complete. As she noted, she said, “The RCMP responded adequately to its internal audit and the OPS investigation.” She went on to itemize a number of unresolved matters and to say, “The RCMP has responded. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has agreed with each of our recommendations and is in the process of taking corrective action.”
A number of media articles have been published about this situation, clearly putting it into the public domain. There were a number of communications regarding the progress of this situation to all employees via my commissioner's broadcast, which is an internal e-mail communication to all 25,000 employees of the RCMP. I met on at least two occasions with the RCMP Veterans' Association and reviewed the pension fund issues.
Now, I want to make one thing clear: I have never been under the misapprehension that all parties were necessarily happy with the steps that were taken and the management approach to this issue that I was pursuing as commissioner. As you can imagine, there were very few of the thousands of decisions that I undertook during my tenure as commissioner that were unanimously supported. That is one of the burdens and challenges of leadership, of course. However, there is a significant difference between disagreeing with the steps taken by management and making allegations that management is covering up or acting corruptly, as Lewis, Macaulay, and others who disagreed have done.
Mr. Chairman, I do not plan today, or in the future, to grant any quarter to remarks made at this committee or elsewhere inferring corruption at the RCMP or associated with me. Such allegations are so completely baseless that I can only surmise that frustration and anger have badly clouded the thinking of the individuals who have made such unfounded and unsubstantiated statements. In my view, the responsibility of this committee and the purpose of my appearance here today is to assist the committee in discharging its mandate to carry out a careful, thorough, and judicious review of the problems and solutions found vis-à-vis the RCMP pension fund.
I would like to close these remarks with one final comment of a more personal nature. As you will have gathered from a number of my comments, I am deeply concerned about the inferences and accusations that have been levied against me in this committee and in the public sphere as a result. I have not had, before today, the opportunity to provide information or respond to questions, and yet, Mr. Chairman, it appears that many conclusions have been arrived at regardless. I am confident that this cannot have been the intention of the committee, and I look forward to clearing up the misconceptions that have been allowed to flourish.
Nonetheless, whether intended or not, my integrity has been called into question. This is perhaps, as some people view it, the unavoidable wages of leadership. But I cannot let this opportunity pass without once again stating without equivocation that nothing could be more important to me than honouring and protecting the men and women with whom I have worked. Any review of my work and record in management would reveal this as my top priority, even to the last complicated set of decisions I was challenged to defend, and for which I decided to resign.
My commitment has always been to my colleagues. Throughout the 36 years of my career, I have always held to an overriding commitment that remains as true today as it did on the day I first donned my uniform: to live by my values, exercise my fairest judgment, and carry out my duty, to the best of my ability as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for Canadians and Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Many terrible and hurtful things have been said about me in this protected room, published in the newspapers, and spread across the media. I thank the committee for the opportunity to provide my side of the story. I have not had the opportunity to do this beforehand.
The first 22 years of my career were in progressively responsible HR positions as a public servant in the RCMP. I spent 12 years in the Treasury Board Secretariat in the HR policy branch, during which I was responsible for HR planning, business planning, departments, and led major initiatives, including interdepartmental committees for the renewal of the personnel community, the science community, and the IT workforce.
Recollecting my 34 years before rejoining the RCMP, I do not remember ever receiving a complaint or a grievance from employees, and definitely not ever discipline from management. I did receive awards, letters of commendation, and the Head of the Public Service Award. Indeed, my reputation was one of success, especially in building relationships with senior managers, departments, bargaining agents, and associations.
I was appointed in October 2000 following a competition as chief human resources officer. There appears to be a misconception about my role in the RCMP. The director of the National Compensation Policy Centre, NCPC, Dominic Crupi, did not report directly to me; he reported to the director general of human resources programs, a chief superintendent, who in turn reported to me. Indeed, there were five DGs who reported to me, with approximately 300 employees under my direction and another 1,000 across the RCMP.
When I arrived at the RCMP in 2000, the HR challenges for an organization of 24,000 members and employees across Canada were enormous. Quite frankly, it was described as the hardest job in the RCMP. I was recruited following the recommendation of the former commissioner to add civilians to the senior administrative positions in the RCMP. However, it is evident to me that, for whatever reason, there is still a certain faction within the RCMP that believes public servants should not hold office in senior positions.
Time does not permit me to discuss them all, but I'd like to discuss and explain a few areas that worked.
We established leading-edge succession planning, senior staffing, mentoring, and management and executive development. An overburdened grievance system, which had hundreds of grievances more than two years old, was revised and streamlined. RCMP Depot was refitted, ramped up to 1,200 candidates. We also proudly graduated the first Inuit troop for Nunavut.
Part II of the Canada Labour Code was implemented. Diversity in management exceeded government standards. We modernized an outdated classification system. A new comprehensive learning strategy was developed. Compensation issues were negotiated with Treasury Board. With the division representatives, we overhauled the labour management regime with a new constitution, bylaws, and assigned protocol with the commissioner.
We improved human resources information systems and had extensive workshops on internal investigations. We improved the promotion system. We resolved many issues for members in the north. An extensive project was undertaken to combine two categories of civilian employees to save $4 million to $5 million. We resolved HR issues surrounding summits, the G8 and other major events, including research completed on establishing a reserve force to handle unusual demands.
Firstly, I mention some of these because I am proud of the success we have with the long, hard work and cooperation of HR employees, division reps, and managers in resolving these issues.
Secondly, I mention them because, as far as I'm aware, none of the other programs or these issues or policies or projects under my responsibility had the financial issues or employment issues of the pension area. There was never any corruption that I was aware of under my responsibilities, and I deny any allegations that I was corrupt.
The pension initiative was only one of hundreds of issues on my plate. I became chair of the pension advisory committee in March 2001, wherein the pension outsourcing initiative was already in place. The committee consisted of deputy commissioners, two division reps, outside representatives, a retired member, representatives from the Solicitor General of Canada, legal service, and members from the office of financial institutions. This committee was supported by the director of NCPC and secretarial staff.
With respect to contracting, I did not participate in the selection or the management of contractors. I would like to explain, however, the actions that I took when flags were raised.
When I was approached in, I believe, early 2002 by senior representatives of finance and the director general, they advised me of irregularities and breaches of contracting rules by the director of NCPC, Dominic Crupi. As a result, I asked them to remove his contracting authority.
In June 2002, issues were raised by procurement and staff verbally about contracting expenditures, costs, and charges surrounding the pension project. As a result, I initiated the A-base review of HR funding and expenditures. This is the review that Ms. Denise Revine undertook and subsequently reported on in 2003.
A pension accounting unit approved by the pension advisory committee was set up in July 2002 to prepare financial statements to record, track, monitor, and report on financial activities. As well, the committee approved the creation of a PAC finance subcommittee to review the financial statements and monitor investment returns and administrative costs.
In April 2003, the advisory committee hosted officials from the Office of the Auditor General who reviewed the financial statements of the plan and stated that transactions of the plan that had come to their attention during the audit were found to have been in accordance with the RCMP Superannuation Act and Regulations.
In June 2003, the internal RCMP audit was launched, the results of which were not given to me until late November.
I'd like to discuss the hiring practices and the nepotism. I was approached by the director of staffing policy, I believe in April 2002, concerning the director of NCPC not following staffing rules. He apparently quoted me as saying that he could hire casuals. Yes, he did have the authority to hire casuals, but not to bypass RCMP staffing rules and regulations. I personally spoke to the director of NCPC and told him he must use staffing and the staffing process. Approximately six months later I specifically asked him if he had gone through staffing, and he stated, yes, he had followed the staffing rules.
In early 2003—April, I believe—I spoke to his supervisor, the director general, because it had come to my attention once again verbally that there were problems with the staffing in NCPC. I asked him to investigate. He advised me there were problems with the hiring of friends and family. I asked him to identify all the employees who had been improperly staffed and that none of them were to be extended or rehired. Once again I spoke to the director of NCPC and confronted him as he stated that he had followed the RCMP rules. I did not take further action as at this time I was advised that an internal audit was being launched.
It has been stated that my daughter was one of the hires in the pension area. I believe it is important to make clear that my daughter did not work in the pension area or anywhere that was under my direction. I state emphatically that I did not influence, ask, direct, or get involved in the hiring of my daughter. Anyone who says differently is simply not telling the truth.
There have been and are many generations of police officers and civilians who have a tradition of working in the RCMP. As well, there are many spouses and children of public servants who work in the government, all staffed through proper process.
I have now been through four Auditor General reviews, an RCMP internal audit, an internal investigation, and a year-long investigation by the Ottawa Police Service, which was conducted by thorough and professional investigators as well as an independent forensic auditor. It was found that all moneys were accounted for and that issues, while serious, were administrative in nature rather than criminal. I have not read in any of these reports that I was corrupt or responsible for fraudulent practices.
This committee is about accountability. When I read the draft RCMP audit report in October 2003, I was shocked at the seriousness of the findings. Although not directly responsible, I discussed it with the commissioner, and in spite of all the other successes, it happened under my watch, so I took accountability, stepped down, and resigned. Not satisfied with my leaving, three and a half years now after I retired, certain witnesses to this committee have turned to using vindictive character assassination as their offence.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
:
First, I would like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to speak here today.
When I was recruited by the RCMP, I was given a mandate to implement a web-based, industry-outsourced pension administration for members and retirees of the force. The RCMP had been advised by Public Works that the current system was obsolete, increasingly difficult to maintain, and could no longer be supported. In accordance with the mandate, we delivered a state-of-the-art system and administration for the RCMP, which currently has a pensioner satisfaction rate of over 90%.
This was done transparently and under the guidance and direction of the Treasury Board Secretariat, the senior management of the RCMP, and advisory and operations committees. All briefings, presentations, status reports, and factual matters were delivered to the senior management of the RCMP, Treasury Board, division representatives, advisory committees, Solicitor General staff, and Department of Justice representatives on a regular basis.
Treasury Board submissions were extensively reviewed by RCMP and Treasury Board Secretariat experts on a line-by-line basis, whereby budgetary requirements were demonstrated as where spending was to, and did, take place. Modifications and additions were made at the direction of Treasury Board and senior management of the RCMP.
It must be noted that when I was appointed director, the responsibility for budgets, financial coding inputs, spending authorities, and administration for the group fell under the purview of Chief Superintendent Macaulay. I no longer had individuals under my control who could do that. During this time, we were not permitted direct access to financial records or reports. Not until a pension accounting unit was created and given full access to the financial system in 2003 did this change. At no time was I ever told or asked by Mr. Macaulay or any of his staff to explain an action or a process, nor was I ever advised that we were doing anything wrong. I was not provided with any information or training in any of these areas.
I cooperated fully with the police investigations, the investigation that the allegations evolved into. It is my intention today to try, to the best of my ability, to assist in yours. I welcome the opportunity to explain the role I played in delivering and implementing this system.
Thank you.
:
Mr. Chair, I have two documents in front of me that I had already tabled the last time I appeared, which I believe was earlier this month.
One is a document dated June 5, 2003, signed by me, directed to the commanding officer of A Division. That was seven days after I met Mr. Zaccardelli for the second time, and it is a very complicated matter. I understand why he would not understand it fully the first time, but it was clearly stated the second time.
In this memo, which I delivered to the commanding officer, the fifth paragraph says:
The Commissioner instructed me to contact you to investigate the matter.
In the first paragraph I explained:
I met with the Commissioner on 28 MAY 2003. We discussed the complaints I was receiving from multiple senior officers within the HR Directorate. Many of these complaints related to incidents of harassment, nepotism, abuse of authority and misappropriation of funds.
In addition to this matter, he split it in two parts. He said to go see Gessie--now, that was Gessie Clément, who was the commanding officer of A Division--and start a criminal investigation. I did that through this memo.
Three days short of a month later, after talking to the officers who were conducting the investigation, it struck me that he hadn't called me back yet, because on the same date, May 28, he said, “On the other issues, I'll get back to you within one week”, because they were internal matters such as nepotism, abuse of authority, and harassment that were allegations against Mr. Ewanovich.
On June 25, 2003, at 10:20 p.m., after talking to the investigator several hours earlier, I wrote another e-mail to Mr. Zaccardelli, and it says:
On 28 MAY 03, you also indicated that you would contact me regarding your decision relating to the other allegations such as abuse of authority and harassment. I have been AOD [which means absent on duty] much of the period since our meeting and I understand you are as well. I will be taking annual leave soon and would appreciate an update on your intended course of action. This will enable me to provide further details to the appropriate parties.
Earlier I mentioned in the e-mail that as a result of our meeting on May 28 he had directed that I bring the issue of pension outsourcing to the attention of the CO of A Division, and I go on to say that I forwarded it to her on June 5 and in subsequent meetings with the criminal operations officer and Inspector Burnside, who was conducting the investigation.
He called me the next morning, June 26, and he said, “Oh yes, those other allegations, I'm going to give them to our ethics officer and Assistant Commissioner John Spice.” I said, “That's great, because he'll get to the bottom of it.” He at no time ever indicated that I shouldn't have gone to the commanding officer of A Division. In fact, I put in an official document, put in another official document directly to him, spoke to him on the phone. He never said, “I never told you to do that.”
I have another report that was also tabled on January 5, 2004, after the investigation was stopped. It covers that as well. It can be reviewed. That's January 5, 2004.
And if he has the notes he says, I'd like to see those notes, because I have mine with me and they're already tabled. I can table them again if you wish.
:
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you all for coming today. We appreciate it.
I want to begin, Mr. Chair, by acknowledging that at the end of our meeting we'll be dealing with my motion to have this committee recommend to the minister that we go to a full public inquiry, that the shortened version, this quickie look, is not going to be sufficient.
I open with that to point out that the reason for that, in part—and I'll get into my arguments later—is to make sure that everybody here has a fair chance at fair representation. We are not a courtroom, and we're now getting to the level of detail at this meeting and subsequent meetings that we will continue to hold until such time as we get a full public inquiry, but this is not the place. I think the evidence is there, just from what we've had so far. So I hope members will keep that in mind when we deal with the motion at the end of this meeting.
My first question will be to point out that we have two main issues in front of us, and we keep going back and forth with the two. It has to be difficult for anybody watching to follow where we are, because part of it is what happened, was there wrongdoing, what are the details of that, and getting around to determining who perhaps conducted themselves in an inappropriate and unacceptable way. The second one is the allegation that there has been an attempted cover-up, an attempt to quash this, to keep it from seeing the light of day. Those are two very different issues. So I have questions on one stream, and then questions down the other stream.
In the first round, I'd like to deal with the issue of the alleged cover-up, and one of the questions that comes to my mind is to Mr. Zaccardelli.
There are at least four people I can identify—maybe more, sir—for whom it looks strangely and questionably coincidental that they were reassigned and taken off the investigation.
The four people I can identify are Denise Revine, whose position was structurally eliminated; Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay, who was transferred to the Department of National Defence; Assistant Commissioner David Gork, who was seconded to INTERPOL in France; and Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell, who was removed from the investigation--and in fact, his removal is part of our discussions here.-
Mr. Zaccardelli, are they coincidences? Is that merely a coincidence? It doesn't look good. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
The other thing is that your previous deputy commissioner, Barbara George, said when she was in front of us, regarding Staff Superintendent Macaulay's transfer, “It was felt at that time by the then commissioner”—that would be you, sir—“that Chief Superintendent Macaulay would benefit from a secondment. He was actually given a short secondment with the military.”
You know I'm going to ask Mr. Macaulay. So I will ask you to comment on it overall. Is this coincidence? Is that what happened and you'd like us to believe that? Secondly, I'd like the specifics around Chief Superintendent Macaulay.
:
Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer as quickly as I can, but these are not easy issues.
I've been given four names. I can tell you right off the bat that I know Ms. Denise Revine, but I had nothing to do with her. I never interacted with her. I was not involved in any discussions about what happened in terms of the reorganization. I gave no instructions whatsoever. I only learned recently from this committee that she's working at home.
In terms of Mr. Frizzell, I wouldn't know him if he walked in the room. That's not being disrespectful; I simply wouldn't know him. But you have clear evidence in front of this committee that was given to you by Assistant Commissioner Dave Gork, who testified before this committee that he was asked by Inspector Roy, from the Ottawa Police Service, to remove him for certain good cause from that investigation. Again, I was never consulted. I had nothing to do with that particular point.
I want to get to the issue of Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay. After I had discussed the matter with Mr. Lewis, I decided what my course of action on this, based on the information I had, would be, and it was to have the audit. Shortly after the audit had been initiated, Barbara George came to me and said, “Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay appears to have some problems about what is taking place relative to the pension fund. You should talk to him.” I said, “Fine, please bring him in.”
She brought Fraser Macaulay into my office. There were the three of us there. These, Mr. Murphy, are my exact words.
I said, “Fraser, I hear that you have some concerns about what happened with the pension fund.” He said, “Yes, Commissioner, I've had a lot of concerns about how this has been run and what's been going on.” I said, “Fraser, how long have you known about this?” He said to me, “Almost a year and a half I've known about these concerns.” I said, “Fraser, who have you told about his matter?” And his answer was, “Commissioner, I haven't told anybody.” I said, “Fraser, why haven't you told anybody?” He said, “Because Jim Ewanovich is my boss and I'm afraid if I told anybody it would affect my career.” I was clearly very disappointed and hurt by his statement. I said, “Fraser, I want you to come back to me here in a little while and send me a note and tell me what your concerns are.” He left the office.
I had Barb George in my office. I said to Barb George, “Barb, Fraser has made a serious error in judgment in this case. He's a good young officer. I've known him since he was a very young member. I believe in him. I want him to recover from this and I want him to move ahead. I need you to get him out of this environment that he's in, and I want you to find a good job for him. Find a good job. This is a man I want to save, because I believe in him.”
She left and she came back to me a few days later. A few days later she came back and said, “Commissioner, I think I have a recommendation on what we should do with Fraser Macaulay.” I said, “What is that?” She replied, “There is a secondment that's been requested by DND. It's a very good job. It's an important job. DND want this. Fraser has the expertise to do this work.” I said, “Great. I want him to move there because I want him to learn from this experience.”
Before he left, I had Fraser in my office and I said, “Fraser, I know you're not happy with this, but I believe in you. You're a good member. I want you to recover from this mistake. You go down to DND, show them what we're made of, and you'll come back and you'll have a very good job.”
Now, I know this notion has been thrown around about a punishment transfer. There are no punishment transfers in the RCMP.
When he came back—
Voices: Oh, oh!
Mr. Giuliano Zaccardelli: I'm glad to see we have a lively audience, but—
:
Well, I can tell you that I knew nothing of any of these matters until May 28, when I received a call from Jim Ewanovich after Ron Lewis had been in his office with Assistant Commissioner Spice. I was in P.E.I., and I got a phone call from Mr. Ewanovich. He was all upset that I had “ratted him out” to Ron Lewis about the hiring of his daughter. Subsequent to five minutes on the phone with him, where I told him I hadn't spoken to Ron and I didn't even know what he was talking about, I met Ron at a meeting in Niagara Falls around the reserve program, which was referred to earlier.
After that, between June 3 and June 6, I met with Denise Revine, who started to tell me what was going on based on the A-base review. At that point I spoke to Assistant Commissioner Spice, who is our ethics adviser. Mr. Spice had received a complaint from Suzanne Perron, who was referred to here earlier, about a threat to her made by Mr. Crupi. I spoke with her. She was very upset. She's a 28-year public servant in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and she had been threatened with what she felt was her job. I spoke to her for a few minutes, and then I went to Mr. Spice. I advised John that Denise had started to find a lot of things going on in the NCPC area, N2020, and to give me a little time, and we would keep digging and find out what we could about it.
Subsequent to that meeting there was a senior management meeting, which is the senior executives of the mounted police. At that meeting, John disclosed to both Deputy Commissioner Barb George and then Assistant Commissioner Vern White about my knowledge. The reason that came up is that she kept.... So she came to see me and told me about a little bird in A Division who had told her that there was a complaint or something laid in A Division. Unbeknownst to me, Mr. Lewis had laid the complaint in A Division.
On June 17, I met with Commissioner Zaccardelli--at Barb George's request, not mine. I was still trying to dig. I left him with three or four pages of documents, which we left with you at our previous meeting. At that meeting, and subsequent to that meeting.... That is the reason I was removed. There is absolutely no other reason. Deputy George made it clear to me that it was Commissioner Zaccardelli's decision. She told me it was for performance on HRMIS in the first place, and I have notes throughout the next three or four months where it continues to change.
The bottom line is that it was a very clear message to the employees that you don't put your hand up. Did we have the conversation about why other people weren't coming forward? Yes, we did. And it was made very clear to him that nobody was happy and that they didn't trust that anyone was going to do anything.
I'm back in the organization. If I was so afraid for my career, why would I be here today? Why would I have done what I've done in the last three and a half years? Why would I have continued along, hand in glove with Denise Revine, with a commitment that I made to her when she found this about my organization?
I've heard it many times. I've heard it many times from Mr. Zaccardelli. He let us down. He came in here...and he talks the values and he means them--most times. This is a leader who got to the top of this organization. He has made a mistake, and now we're back into the same stuff. We have the notes. We have the paper. We know what's going on here.
I was removed because I came forward. That is all.
Mr. Zaccardelli's opening statement in the statement he just made is not, I find, quite correct. I was personally involved in the removal of Mr. Ewanovich and Mr. Crupi, and here's how it happened.
After he cancelled the first investigation, the criminal investigation that I referred to earlier, Mr. Zaccardelli told me on November 26 that if the audit report showed criminal or internal violations, he would go into the appropriate forum, which would have been an internal investigation or a criminal investigation. When the audit was completed in October 2003, there was no documented evidence by the management. In fact, he indicated that he immediately initiated an internal investigation. I can tell you right now that there was no such document. I was going to make another formal complaint because I was aware of the allegations, but the problem I had was that under the RCMP Act, the only person I could go to was Assistant Commissioner Gessie Clément, CO of A Division. She was now implicated in the audit. She was subsequently removed from her position, so I had no way to go formally. I met with now Deputy Commissioner George, and I asked what was going to happen. She said nothing was going to happen. I asked why not, and she said she'd been in contact with Deputy Commissioner Gauvin, her civilian comptroller, and he'd told her that a couple of hundred thousand dollars had been misspent, that they were going to give them a slap on the hand and move on.
I represent senior officers. I'm their spokesperson. I said, “Pass this message on to the commissioner”. I also saw another deputy commissioner at that same time and passed it on through him that if there was no discipline, if there was no investigation, I would go public on behalf of the members I was representing.
She called me back in the office in early November and said Crupi and Ewanovich were gone. He described how they were removed.
Then I went back in on November 23 to Barb George, and I asked about the investigation. I was told, “There's not going to be any investigation.” I said, “Pass this on to the commissioner. If there is no investigation, it's going public.” She called me back into her office on November 24. She said, “I sat up last night with my husband, Tom”, who was also a member and just retired from CSIS. She said, “If he doesn't allow an investigation, because this is the only way we can get it done, through the act, then I will resign.” She said, “Okay, I had a meeting with him last night. Submit your reports.”
I submitted my report on January 5, 2004. Nothing happened. On February 16, 2004, my report, which I provided to the highest level of the RCMP, got leaked. It was photostatted and being passed around everywhere. I then went to the minister--Anne McLellan at the time--I went to the OAG, and I went to the President of the Treasury Board. On Saturday I received, finally, the circumstances of where that went, and it worked its way up to our deputy commissioner, and five days later, in March, the Ottawa city police were contacted.
At no time was an internal investigation ordered. At no time was a criminal investigation ordered, contrary to what Mr. Zaccardelli has said here. And when the internal investigation was finally ordered and the determination that we missed our year for charging members of the RCMP, it was 41 months after my first criminal investigation complaint.
Now, if that's immediate, then there is a whole new term for “immediate”--41 months later. Those are the events we have documentation on.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your getting this on the agenda.
I made a couple of comments earlier about the proceedings here. I think that what happened after I made those comments goes on to reinforce--and I think by the end of this meeting it ought to be crystal clear to anybody watching--that we do not have the means, the structure, the ability to do justice to the kind of investigation that needs to be done. But I also want to say that as far as the NDP is concerned, the appointment by the government of a contract person to conduct some investigation is equally unable to rise to the task. I believe we need a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act, for a number of reasons.
One, this individual has no legislative authority, no legal authority, no investigative authority that can be based on anything where Parliament has the power to give someone to do something. That's why we have the Inquiries Act. That means, Chair, that unless it's under this act, witnesses will not necessarily be under oath, and there will not be the ability to summon individuals to come. Certainly those who are outside government wouldn't have to pay any attention. The Inquiries Act allows summons that would supercede the Privacy Act and other matters that could hide information that needs to come out. Under a public inquiry, they'd have the ability to pierce through that.
It's far more arm's length. Certainly a retired judge would have a lot better standing in our mind, as opposition people. Notwithstanding that I don't know the individual personally involved, it's an appointee of the government with a limited track record. And even it has some questions around it, although I'm not going to focus on that a lot. It's not the greatest choice in the world, but it's a bad process.
I want to emphasize again that there's more protection for the witnesses. We see our witnesses today jumping to get their point of view across when someone has said something that may implicate them, and they want a chance to do that. We do not have the mechanism. It's not a court of law. We need that court of law to do it.
The last thing is that there's nothing at all that guarantees that all documents presented during this review will be kept as part of the permanent record of the investigation. That only happens under the Inquiries Act.
So for good common-sense reasons and good legal reasons, Chair, I hope that at least the majority of this committee...although I'd like to see the government come on side and recognize that we need to say to the minister--and that's what this is--that the investigation he's appointed is not nearly good enough and we need a full public inquiry. That's what the committee is asking the minister to undertake.
:
Well, I can assure you that the reason for my removal was based on my coming forward. What ex-commissioner Zaccardelli is talking about is his understanding, again, of a conversation on June 17, where there was no discussion, and at no time did I ever say that I knew for any length of time, other than May 28.
In October, when I went back in to see him just before I left, and we sat in there, we actually had a very interesting conversation. I even asked him, why would you think I would lie to you? I've known you for almost 20 years; I've never lied to you before, and I've never lied to you all the way up until then. All I got in response was very similar to, “Well, you'll have a good career”, the push of the garage door opener, and the door opens. And that's when you know it's time to leave. That's as simple as it was. I was removed because I came forward, period.
I went forward to the ethics adviser. The ethics adviser disclosed the stuff I had spoken to him about in the early, early stages to Mrs. George and to Vern White at an SMT meeting, because he...and I think it's maybe time we bring him in, because it's he who can then spell out why he told them what I went to the ethics adviser with, and then the next time, them taking me into the commissioner. It was not Fraser Macaulay going to the commissioner. I'm just getting going on gathering the evidence. That was the conversation I had with the ethics adviser. That is the conversation I had with Barb George, and she said, “No, you're coming in.”
When I first went into the room on June 17, the first question the ex-commissioner asked Barb George was, “Is that other matter taken care of?”, and she said, “It's on hold.” I don't know what that means, but if you put in all the scenarios of where things are at, that's where I linked it back to later finding out that Mr. Lewis had started the investigation.
I'm still troubled by this business of whether or not a criminal investigation was actually started, because to me it speaks not only to the credibility of two key players in all of this, but also to whether it addresses the issue of the alleged cover-up.
If there was direction given and then it was changed—and the former commissioner is saying that's not what happened—then we have some bigger problems here. If not, then Mr. Lewis's testimony has to be questioned. One of you has to be questioned. It cannot be that you had a meeting and came out of there and a staff sergeant started a criminal investigation.
So my question would be to Mr. Zaccardelli. You said that somebody—you forget who—told you that Staff Sergeant Lewis was telling authorities in the RCMP that you were authorizing a criminal investigation. Given the time I was with the police community—
You're saying no. Well, let me finish my question, and you can clarify it, sir.
Given my time in the police community, insubordination is huge. It seems to me that if a staff sergeant came into a commissioner's office, had a meeting, and walked out of there and said, “The commissioner wants”--and then whatever you say after that--“done”, and if it's not true, then the commissioner—you, as that commissioner—upon finding out about a staff sergeant who was starting a criminal investigation saying you wanted it when you didn't, would take action, I would think.
I'm curious as to why you didn't, Mr. Zaccardelli.
:
To frame what the situation is, you have to realize that I'd gone to him twice before. He failed to take action on complaints I made against Mr. Ewanovich.
There was another investigation, which is sometimes referred to here as the OPP investigation, that happened the same month. An assistant commissioner tried to notify the employees underneath him that they were committing criminal acts--conflict of interest guidelines--in violation of the code of conduct. The deputy commissioner in charge of him....
Okay, you have to understand the framework and why I go in and I put things on paper.
When he was removed from his position as assistant commissioner, Mr. Gauvin, his boss, sent out an e-mail--which I have here, and I'll table that too--chastising him for talking to his staff that way. He's told them not to do things that are criminal.
I sent information through our national executive to Mr. Zaccardelli in September of that year, 2001. Mr. Ewanovich was in the meeting. He chose to do nothing.
I went then to the formal process, which is A Division and Assistant Commissioner Dawson Hovey. I presented him with a formal written report, which is my obligation under the RCMP Act and my obligation as a member of the RCMP and a peace officer under the Criminal Code.
When I gave it to that assistant commissioner, who was responsible for discipline for headquarters, he dropped it down. He said, “I'm involved too.” He resigned. There was an OPP investigation, and there were 19 people who either went through the criminal system and were convicted or internally were convicted. Two or three resigned. The rest of them got informal discipline, such as Mr. Ewanovich and Mr. Gauvin.
So when I go back in to him the third time, what do you expect I'm going to do? I'm going to write this down. I did. I have the memo. Do you think I'm crazy enough to go to the CO of A Division again and say, “Mr. Zaccardelli told me to go to see you”, when he didn't?
:
The words in the office were “Go see Gessie. Get a criminal investigation going.” “Gessie” means Gessie Clément, the CO of A Division, the only person I'm allowed to go to under the act.
Then he said on the other matters, “I will get back to you within one week.” That's why I called him on June 25 that same year and said--no, I sent an e-mail, which I've tabled, and I talked about our conversation in the first paragraph: We had a meeting on the 28th; you told me to do this; you told me you would get back to me within a week; you haven't gotten back to me; please let me know what's going on. It's 25 days later.
He called me the next morning. He said, “I'm going to get John Spice to do the investigation on the internal issues.” In addition, he said, “Oh, by the way, I've stopped the investigation.”
I couldn't believe it. I couldn't believe he had stopped the investigation, so I said, “What are you going to do?” He said, “I'm going to do an audit.” Then I said, knowing the audit process, “If you find things that are improper, you'll have to go either internally or criminal.” He said, “Justice will be done.”
On the audit, Mr. Sweet asked a question that he never answered: what was the scope of the audit? The scope of the audit says--and it's in the audit of the RCMP--three years. They stopped after one year because they had enough to stop it and do a report that would invoke a criminal or internal investigation. He never did it. I had to go back in again through, I guess, coercion, threats, whatever you call it, and say that if nothing was done, I was going public, because I'm representing these members.
Nothing was done. He doesn't have a document saying that he ordered anything. I do. I have all the documents, written. He's read them; he's talked to me. He's never said anything, like “Why did you do that?” He had an opportunity on June 26 to say, “Why did you do that? I didn't tell you to do it.” It's right in the memo. It's right in the e-mail. End of story.