:
At this point in time I would like to call the meeting to order.
Again, I want to welcome everyone here today. This meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is again dealing with the circumstances related to the RCMP pension and insurance plans, released June 15, 2007.
At this meeting, colleagues, we're pleased to have with us three witnesses. The first witness is William Elliott, the present Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. On behalf of the committee, Mr. Elliott, I want to congratulate you on your appointment and wish you all the best as you go on with your duties in this very important job.
We also have with us retired Commissioner Beverley Busson. Beverley Busson has been before the committee on several occasions before. I think I'm right in saying that this will most likely be her last appearance before this committee on this particular issue. Mrs. Busson is now living in British Columbia and she has made special arrangements to be here. As always, she has been very cooperative with the committee and I want to thank her very much for all the efforts she has given to this committee.
Third, we're very pleased to have with us Linda Duxbury, professor at the School of Business at Carleton University. Mrs. Duxbury has written articles and done extensive research into people management at the RCMP and she will be available to present her key findings.
I understand that Commissioner Elliott has some opening remarks as well as Mrs. Duxbury. I would add that we usually like to keep opening statements to five minutes.
Commissioner Elliott, I'll ask for your opening remarks.
I am pleased to be able to appear before your committee today. As you know, I became Commissioner of the RCMP less than two months ago. When my appointment to the position was announced on July 6, 2007, I said:
[English]
It is critically important for the RCMP to continue its long and proud history and to build on its many strengths, working with communities across Canada and with its partners domestically and internationally, to ensure that the RCMP is a modern, efficient and effective organization that provides Canadians with the highest quality police services.
[Translation]
A police force which fosters an environment of teamwork, integrity and respect and in which all Canadians can continue to be extremely proud.
[English]
The last few weeks have certainly confirmed my view.
My first priority has been to get to know more about the RCMP and the essential services we provide to Canadians and to meet with men and women of the RCMP where they work across Canada.
So far, I have visited employees in offices, laboratories, and detachments in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Quebec. I've also met with staff and with cadets at the RCMP Training Academy in Regina, recognized internationally as one of the finest police training centres in the world. I've also met with a number of employees here in Ottawa. My plan is to visit every RCMP division as quickly as my schedule will allow.
In my travels I have been greatly impressed by the professionalism and dedication of the women and men I have met, from regular members serving in remote detachments in aboriginal communities to detachment clerks supporting municipal policing, from scientists and technicians working to improve our laboratory services to dog handlers, from instructors at Depot and drug enforcement officers in Montreal to those supporting national security investigations, in all ranks and in all classifications, be they public servants or civilians or regular members of the RCMP.
I have been impressed but not surprised. The RCMP, admittedly, has its shortcomings, but it is widely respected in Canada and by our international partners.
[Translation]
The people I have met are dedicated to the RCMP and to the communities we protect. I am in no doubt that our employees provide first-rate policing services. They can be justly proud of the work that they are doing, as I am proud of the work that we are doing. I have also met the senior management team and the senior executive committee as well as the staff relations representative national executive committee.
[English]
The SRR program, as it is known, functions as the official labour relations program for regular and civilian members and special constables across Canada. In addition, I have met with representatives of the Union of Solicitor General Employees. In short, I have seen a lot of really good work being done by an exceptional group of people.
The RCMP certainly has it challenges. These need to be addressed if we are to continue to provide the level of service Canadians rightly expect from us. A number of issues have been brought to light as a result of this committee's study of the Report of the Independent Investigator into Matters Relating to RCMP Pension and Insurance Plans, by David Brown's report itself, and by chapter 9 of the November 2006 Report of the Auditor General of Canada.
As you know, on July 16 the government established a task force to examine governance and cultural change in the RCMP. The task force is chaired by David Brown, and its membership includes Linda Black, Richard Drouin, Norman Inkster, and Larry Murray.
I have asked Deputy Commissioner Bill Sweeney to lead the RCMP's work with the task force, aligning our activities to respond in a timely way to its needs. Early in August Deputy Sweeney and I met with Mr. Brown to extend the RCMP's full and unqualified cooperation.
An executive steering committee for the RCMP's work in relation to the task force has been established, composed of Deputy Commissioners Sweeney, Killam, and Bourduas. The task force's executive director, Bill Austin, will serve as an ex officio member of the steering committee. The staff relations representatives' national executive committee will also serve on a strategic advisory role to the steering committee.
[Translation]
My first meeting with the five members of the working group took place on August 22, 2007. We exchanged preliminary information about the mission, the structure, the government processes and the accountability framework of the RCMP.
[English]
At the request of Mr. Brown, on August 16 we distributed a letter electronically from the chair of the task force to all employees of the RCMP. The letter is also being distributed to members of the RCMP Veterans' Association. The letter provides information about the task force and solicits views on any of the matters set out in the task force's mandate.
In my discussions across the country and in my electronic broadcasts to all employees, I have encouraged employees to take advantage of the opportunity to communicate directly with the task force. In fact, the RCMP's Internet site contains a link to Mr. Brown's letter so employees can easily find the coordinates for the task force.
I have also stressed the importance of establishing and maintaining open lines of communication within the RCMP. I have encouraged employees to discuss their ideas and concerns, and to make their views known to their commanding officers, or directly to me. In fact, a number of employees have already communicated directly with me by e-mail. Their input will inform our work and that of the task force as we consider the eight specific matters set out in the task force's mandate.
As I said at the change of command ceremony that took place on August 10, the RCMP must build on our strengths, recognize and address our weaknesses, and live up to the highest standards that we set for ourselves and that Canadians rightly expect of us.
I look forward to our session today and to the committee's report, which I trust will assist the RCMP and me as commissioner in identifying steps to be taken in furtherance of these objectives.
[Translation]
Thank you for your attention. I would now be pleased to answer your questions.
:
That's not a problem. I understand. I have the rules.
I think I thank you for inviting me. I'm not sure. We'll wait and see how I feel at the end of the process.
I am an academic, and how I first got exposed to the RCMP was when we did a very big national study on work-life balance and stress. Thirty-three thousand people, 100 organizations, and the RCMP participated in that, because at the time the commissioner was Murray, and he was very interested in understanding about his people.
We then had several thousand people from the RCMP volunteer to participate in follow-up work. We interviewed 300 people who participated in the time one study. We surveyed them and we interviewed them at length about various things. So my observations are based on looking at the same individuals over two points in time, the first just after the change in leadership and the second several years after the change in leadership.
Before talking about our findings, it is really important for me to emphasize that in fact the majority of the RCMP are wonderful individuals who care about their country and really want to make a big difference. It is important to emphasize that, because members of the force I talked to feel, in many cases, that we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We're painting everybody in a negative light when in fact the majority care about the job. They care about what they do, and they are doing a fabulous job.
That being said, my report indicated that there were some pretty significant issues. For example, we found that almost 40% of people in the lower two ranks of the RCMP at time two said very bluntly that they would recommend that their own children not join the RCMP. And almost half of our sample said they were planning on leaving early and working somewhere else and not even collecting their pensions because of certain situations within the RCMP.
I had to read my report, actually, just before I came, which is why I don't want you to have to do it, because I hadn't read it for a long time. There are only a few things that I think are really important. Well, there are a number of things. You should all read it. Nevertheless, there are a few things that I want to emphasize.
The first is that I pointed out in the report that the culture of an organization--which is the way we really do it around here--as opposed to the policies that are on the books can be the greatest strength of an organization or it can be its biggest weakness. A real problem arises when an organization that has been hugely successful in the past doesn't recognize how the environment has changed around it. It keeps its culture the same and does not change its culture to adapt.
I note in the report that there has been tremendous change in Canada. There was 9/11, which affected the RCMP. There were very big demographic shifts in terms of there now being dual-income couples, increased family demands, labour force shortages, and so on.
The problem in the culture that I noted was a huge focus on work, not family, if you work for the RCMP. This increased over time. There was nothing more important to you than the force. Workloads increased phenomenally, and people put in phenomenal hours. People said that they didn't think the policies of the RCMP were supportive. They didn't feel comfortable. They thought they would be punished if they used the supports that were available. They disagreed that there were open and respectful discussions within the organization, and they all agreed that the RCMP in fact discouraged the use of the policies that were there that were supportive. They said that the culture emphasized work or family, and they thought that if they said no to more work, they would be punished or it would be a career-limiting move.
What was very interesting was that the interviews identified another facet of the culture, which I labelled at the time “playing the game”. It was about 15% to 20%. But if you looked at the constable, corporal, sergeant, and staff sergeant ranks, it was a much higher percentage who said they were irritated with the politics that went on in the organization. They really liked their own immediate work area. They liked their own bosses. How they were really buffering themselves was by staying where they were and concentrating on the job. They wanted to stay where they were because they were less likely to have to deal with the politics of the organization and less likely to have to play the game. A significant group perceived that a promotion within the RCMP was based on who you knew and how you played the game rather than on competencies.
The other really very interesting difference was that our research really shows that people don't work for an organization; they work for who they report to. We did see a dramatic increase in non-support of management and a decrease in support of management over time. That was most profound at the sergeant and staff sergeant level, who would be reporting directly into the top level. They went from 80% liking their managers and saying their managers were supportive at time one, to about 40% at time two, so a very significant drop.
What they were frustrated with was the top-down style of management, non-supportive managers who don't trust or respect their members, managers' inability to communicate effectively with staff, politically driven agendas, managers who are perceived to be careerists who are governed by their personal agendas, and managers who did not walk the talk. They also indicated that managers made it harder for them to be productive, because they had poor people management skills, used command-and-control style of management, made decisions with incomplete information, were not effective at communicating what was to be done, micromanaged their people, etc., and reduced innovation.
That basically is what I wanted to say.
:
Yes, and of course you've been here before too.
Just before we go to the first round, colleagues, again I want to urge members to keep all their questions brief, to the point, and relevant. We're talking here about the purpose of this meeting, which is, in my view anyway, to focus on the future, to consider governance issues and checks and balances so that the correct accountability regime is in place.
Again, to the witnesses, I would ask that the answers be short and relevant also. We have three, I consider, very helpful witnesses here today, so let's use them to our advantage.
The first round, seven minutes, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.
Thank you, Ms. Busson, for appearing before us again.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank you. You took on a very difficult job. Especially when it comes to the pension and insurance fund, the rigged contracting, alleged cover-ups, you weren't left with an easy task as an interim commissioner, but overall, I think you did tremendous things during that short period of time, and especially in dealing with what's at the core of a lot of this—the culture within the RCMP and what's been called the corrupted culture in the top echelons.
Human resources can be an incredible tool. As Ms. Duxbury seemed to reference, it can be used in positive ways and negative ways. We heard about punitive transfers, constructive dismissals, also wrongdoers who were rewarded and, when it no longer became tenable because they had been outed, provided with soft landings.
So I'd like to thank you, first of all, for acknowledging the people who had the fortitude in that particular culture to keep their principles and to step forward. You had that private dinner, but with a public commendation for those individuals.
But just before you left, you also dealt with Mr. Gauvin, and he's referenced in Mr. Brown's report. I guess his testimony was given a couple of days before the report was tabled, and that information wasn't available at the time. Many people feel that you provided Mr. Gauvin—it was untenable for him to remain—with a soft landing. I'd like to ask you why.
Just before you answer, I'd like to read from page 44 of Mr. Brown's report. He says:
While Commr Zaccardelli felt strongly enough to ask Mr. Ewanovich to step down when he was briefed on the results of the internal audit, he allowed Mr. Ewanovich to have what can only be described as a "soft landing". Mr. Ewanovich continued as an employee of the RCMP, drawing a salary, earning pension entitlements and working out of another nearby building. His constant visibility to those who had laboured so long to have the issues under his management exposed served to confirm some views that different rules applied to the management class.
We've read about that from the report that Ms. Duxbury had provided to us. Why the soft landing for Mr. Gauvin?
Mr. Elliott, the week of the Brown report.... I'm sure you're very busy, but I think you've probably read some of the transcripts, especially since there are serious issues at stake. Just days before, it became clear in an appearance here, from testimony from an officer that was well documented—we had testimony and documents that showed it—Mr. Gauvin had called this officer into the commissioner's board room, just before he was to release documents under an ATIP request for the commissioner's expenses. What he attempted to do at that time was this. He'd cooked up a different set of documents in the comptroller's offices, and he was trying to put pressure on this officer to do a switcheroo--to take away those original documents and supply the documents that had been prepared. We've heard that testimony.
If we were able to find that out in the committee here, then have you launched any sort of investigation into Mr. Gauvin's office? There must be other things. If we were able to shake that out, have you begun the process of investigating what the goings on were and what some of the things were that were taking place in Mr. Gauvin's office?
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. Elliott, I was quite surprised, shocked and disappointed when you made your introductory remarks earlier, such as when you mentioned “some shortcomings” at the RCMP. That shocks me. We need only remember the Maher Arar affair, Air India, the incompetence in the Airbus affair, never-ending RCMP sponsorship inquiries, the scandal involving the Minister of Human Resources Development and the fraud involving the RCMP pension and insurance plans. I feel that you are significantly playing down events that, in my view, have greatly tarnished the RCMP's image in Canada and Quebec. When you start your mandate by trivializing these shortcomings, it leaves me very skeptical.
Before being appointed RCMP commissioner, you were a special adviser to present Prime Minister Stephen Harper and to his predecessor Mr. Martin. You held the position of special advisor on public safety when a number of these events took place. In the Maher Arar affair, you even acknowledged that you were actively involved in the decision that led to a significant part of the O'Connor report being censored. Between 1,500 and 2,000 words of that report were deleted before it was made public, showing that the government knew what had happened to Mr. Arar. This was a complete lack of transparency. You are now the head of an organization that is need of reform and to become much more transparent to boot.
You said that you have met a number of RCMP employees in a number of places over the summer. I think that it is just as important that you also meet the public. That would let you understand that the esteem in which the RCMP is held has lessened considerably. Given that your past is marked by a lack of transparency, I am not confident that you are the man to bring about the needed reforms. Both my party, the Bloc Québecois, and I feel that only a public inquiry can uncover the shortcomings. You mentioned some, but I am talking about all the problems that the RCMP has experienced in recent years, and even those that remain concealed. I think the public needs to know, and that it has the right to know.
As to the Maher Arar affair, specifically with regard to the entire matter that led to Justice O'Connor producing his report, I would like you to tell us if you participated in discussions prior to the report and in the decision to censor it. Was that part of your work?
As I mentioned yesterday, I've been looking forward to these two days because it seems that we're now largely in the moving forward phase of this process. I understand there are still some loose ends to clean up.
But I want to start by saying, Ms. Busson, that I commend you for your leadership role. This is a tremendously difficult time. I can't imagine how difficult it was for you to do the work you had to do in an organization that you care so much about and to have to go through what you went through, and you did it tremendously, so I commend you for that.
Mr. Elliott, when I listen to Ms. Duxbury's comments, it hits home how tremendously difficult your job is going to be. I want to know a little bit about your travels and discussions with members across the country. What are you hearing from them? How is morale at this point in time, and what are they saying that they want to see changed?
First of all, the work that Ms. Duxbury did is very important work. We do have more recent relevant data. The RCMP has been quite engaged in conducting comprehensive surveys of its employees, and if I can, I will just give you a couple of those results.
The surveys that I'm referring to took place in 2003, 2005, and 2007, and the employees responded as follows. On whether RCMP employees are treated fairly, in their most recent response, 50% answered in the affirmative, up from a low of 42%. On whether RCMP colleagues treat each other with respect, the most survey results were in the affirmative at 69%, up from 59%. On whether they are strongly committed to making the RCMP successful, the response was 92%, up from 89%. And whether they are satisfied with their career in the RCMP, the response was 73%, up from 67%.
I'm not suggesting those results are as positive as we would like them to be, but I think there is some movement in the right direction.
As I've met with employees across the country, I've been quite struck by the positive response I have received. A number of people have candidly indicated they were disappointed that someone from outside the organization was appointed, but everyone with whom I have spoken has said that we need to address a number of issues, and they certainly have not been shy about raising issues with me. And I would say they take great pride in their work. There is certainly some hurt in the organization; I think there is some feeling that things were done inappropriately and that it has tarnished the reputation of the entire force and tarnished the reputation of all the men and women who are providing services. They believe they provide excellent services. I believe that as well.
The suggestion was also made that I should be speaking to Canadians. I have met with a number of our partners and stakeholders. I have met with representatives of provincial governments; I have met with municipal officials; I have met with aboriginal leaders. And again, no one is saying, either inside the organization or outside it, that the organization is perfect, as we do have some serious issues to address, but I think people are quite positive and quite optimistic. I think that with the work we are doing in support of the task force, people are looking at it with some expectations that real change can take place.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
I thank you all for coming today.
Let me comment that I heard my Bloc colleague, and I respect that that's what he hears, but I want to convey to you that Canadians have not lost their pride in and support for the RCMP. What they have is a crisis of faith in terms of its ability to live up to the standard that Canadians hold it to. I would disagree with our starting point.
I also want to say that in terms of your appointment, Commissioner, I don't think it's necessarily a negative thing that you're not from the RCMP. Bringing somebody in from the outside is sometimes the right thing to do. I don't think the fact that you're not a sworn officer and you're not a police officer, in and of itself, is a stopper. I do, however, think the government imposing both of those kinds of changes at the same time as we have another crisis going on was not prudent. I only want to put it on the record. I don't think this was the right time for those changes, and I think it's needlessly made your job more difficult.
Having said that, before I go back to comments to you, I want to thank former Commissioner Busson.
I agree with my colleagues. I believe and hope you'll feel unanimous all-party support in that you did a fantastic job. Every time you came here, it was clear in your eyes, words, and actions and in your responsiveness to Parliament that you were doing everything humanly possible to bring the RCMP back to where they needed to be. It's not always easy to do that. I understand the viewpoint. But you did a tremendous job for the RCMP and for Canada. This Parliament is proud of you. Thank you for what you've done.
To the current commissioner, on one of the big changes you need to make, you talked about the rank and file and everybody else, but quite frankly, most of the damage was done by very senior officers. If it weren't for the more junior ranks stepping forward and rising to the standard of the RCMP, we wouldn't be here today. Can you tell me what you see as the next steps to instill that in the senior officers? For the most part, overwhelmingly, they're stellar officers, but there were clearly many who were very disappointing and did serious damage. How are you going to go about changing it, recognizing that there are literally tens of thousands of uniformed officers out on the streets who are looking to you to fix the senior management so they can go on believing in the RCMP that they joined?
I must say that when I indicated I was struck by the positive response I have received, that applies not only to members serving in detachments in other places across the country, but also to the senior executive.
There have been a number of changes to the senior executive in the last while under Commissioner Busson's tenure and subsequently. We've just appointed a new acting chief human resources officer, Assistant Commissioner Clark. I guess you could categorize a number of the issues we need to address as human resource issues. I have brought in a very well-respected senior deputy commissioner from the northwest division, Deputy Commissioner Bill Sweeney. He is certainly a very good addition to the headquarters team. We have an acting chief financial officer. We'll have to take steps in the near future to fill that position.
So there are a number of changes. I would certainly say that the senior executive and the senior management team of the department, which includes the commanding officers across the country, have very much embraced the task force and the work we are doing to identify positive changes.
:
Of course, you do know that the proof's going to be in the pudding. It's going to be what happens after this report, whether it's fulsome enough, and then going about implementing it.
But again, I would strongly urge you to recognize that from our viewpoint literally all of the uniformed, on-the-street, front-line officers are looking to you for the change that will be brought not only by you as the commissioner, but by those senior ranks. Every time I talked to front-line officers, that was the most disappointing thing. It wasn't necessarily that there was human frailty--these things happen--but that there was so much of it in the very senior ranks. It's demoralizing, because if the top doesn't believe, why the heck should anybody on the street believe? They're the ones out there putting their lives on the line. So that is really critical.
I have so many questions.
Professor, I want to ask you two quick things. I'm curious. I went through your report and happened to notice--and I'm sure there's a logical reason, it just sticks in my craw, and I can't figure out what it is--pages 8 and 9 of the report that was circulated talk about male employees specifically. I couldn't find where there was a separation between females and males. All of a sudden there were these two comments about male officers, and I wondered why they were about males specifically.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I hope we can turn and look forward, rather than looking back and looking under every rug and corner to see if we can find something that can tarnish somebody's reputation.
Anyway, first of all, former Commissioner Busson, again, my congratulations for the job you did, which was a phenomenal job under the most difficult circumstances. It's very much appreciated by Parliament and indeed by all Canadians. As you go into retirement, go in with your head high, knowing you did a fabulous job.
Mr. Elliott, you're now in the hot seat. It was mentioned earlier in relation to the CFO, Mr. Gauvin, that it would take a couple of years of dismissal processes before we could get him out the door. We had that with Mr. Crupi and we had it with Mr. Ewanovich and others. Here are people who haven't lived up to the job--in fact, with Mr. Crupi, there may have to be some serious allegations of a criminal nature or whatever--and they couldn't get them fired.
Are you going to do something about that, so that people who have crossed the line in the RCMP, people who need to be fired, are going to get fired? Do you think it's appropriate that it takes two or three years to fire somebody if they obviously deserve to be turfed?
That concludes round one. We're going to start round two.
Before we go to round two, I have a question for Mr. Elliott, and it's a process-driven question.
I believe that at the end of the day we want a performance-driven accountability regime of the RCMP. We heard yesterday from the ethics adviser , the public complaints commissioner, and the other commissioner, and it seems to me that the checks and balances are—and I think most people agree with me—woefully inadequate and probably the governance structure has to be totally redone, although you did clarify, and you're quite correct, that the values are there and a lot of good work has been done. Going forward--and Mr. Lake asked you the question about your idea--you indicated that you wouldn't be making any changes until the task force reports, and that's very understandable. But on that process I have questions on basically three areas.
First, is the senior echelon of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police involved in the task force?
Second, you mentioned earlier talking to the public. I think that's a very important issue. This task force is behind closed doors. We don't know who they're talking to and what they're doing, but I believe there has to be a dialogue with the public, and especially the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The third one is perhaps much more complex—and it may be an unfair question because you've only been in the job for a couple of months—but at the end of the day, this is a very tough issue regarding the secrecy of law enforcement. We do not want politics driving the law enforcement agency of the country, but there has to be some tie-in with the Canadian people, and the best way is Parliament. Do you see any tie-in with Parliament, similar to what is done with CSIS, which you would be very familiar with from a previous life?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, maybe I could clarify one of the things I said, which you just referred to. I indicated, or meant to indicate, that I didn't see any major structural change being introduced prior to the report of the task force, but that's not to say that we are standing still or can stand still. As I said, I've already made some changes with respect to the senior executive committee and I anticipate more changes will occur. I mentioned specifically, as an example of that, the need for us to find and staff a permanent chief financial officer.
The senior executive of the force is very much engaged with the task force. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we have struck a steering committee to carry out work in relation to the eight areas the task force is mandated to examine, and that steering committee includes three deputy commissioners. Deputy Commissioner Sweeney is our lead in that regard. We also have Chief Superintendent Graham Muir, who is our policy and strategic planning executive. He's working virtually full time on the task force. And we're also regularly engaged, as the senior executive committee—the committee that I chair—with all of the deputy commissioners as members. And there are a number of other folks: the head of human resources, our chief legal counsel, and the executive committee of the SRR program.
I agree that we need to have dialogue both within the force and with Canadians. I also mentioned that Mr. Brown has invited, on behalf of the task force, all of the members and employees of the RCMP and in fact our veterans to communicate directly with the task force. I've also stressed the need for us to have discussions internally.
There are a number of formal mechanisms in place to engage Canadians more broadly. I am meeting in the next few weeks with the commissioner's advisory council on aboriginal issues. We also have an advisory council on visible minority issues. We have mechanisms to engage our contract partners.
With respect to the secrecy of law enforcement, certainly there is a balance to be struck. On the one hand, there is obviously a need that some things not be completely open when you're conducting a criminal investigation. For example, you don't necessarily want to tell the people you are investigating that you are investigating them, or to expose to them or to others the details of your investigation or investigative techniques.
There is certainly a requirement for independent oversight of the police and the RCMP. We have mechanisms in place. I think you've heard from Mr. Kennedy. I certainly would not argue that the mechanisms in place are adequate. We're engaged in some interesting work in that regard. We're participating in a pilot project in British Columbia, where we have Mr. Kennedy's folks involved or informed about investigations right from the get-go with respect to allegations of inappropriate behaviour on behalf of members of the RCMP.
Again, I think there were shortcomings demonstrated in Mr. Justice O'Connor's report in relation to the Arar affair. There is certainly need for improvement with respect to those mechanisms.
I don't know offhand, frankly, whether there should be some specific special parliamentary committee or process set up to deal with policing issues.
Mr. Elliott, I'd like to come to you with three different succinct questions. I notice from your background that your career is primarily that of a lawyer. You are a former general counsel of line departments in the federal government, I understand. So I want to ask you a question more in my own capacity as a lawyer and your capacity as a lawyer, as graduates of the same law school.
In the report that was written by Mr. Brown in two months, which was the extensive timeline given to him by the minister—two months to investigate this affair—the elephant in the room in this report is the fact that he is calling for the OPP to take a serious, serious look at what took place between the Ottawa Police Service...in its investigation of the RCMP.
First of all, can you tell us if there an OPP investigation under way today?
:
Okay. Can I go to the question, then, of rebuilding the trust-- page 47, chapter 8 of the report? It builds on the remarks made by the chair.
I have to tell you that I'm not comforted at all by your comments about consultation or engagement. I think the report written by Mr. Brown is rife with references to a culture of fear, a culture of authority, authoritarianism, a culture of risk--if one were to raise questions--a culture of taking orders, and that may be very well the culture of a paramilitary organization like the RCMP. I've never worked in the RCMP. I don't know that for sure, but I'm very worried by the fact that in the report Mr. Brown is now suggesting that even though the report that he writes is rife with references to secrecy and lack of transparency, he says the task force that is supposed apparently to oversee new governance and cultural change in the organization will be secret itself. In fact, all the serious deliberations are supposed to take place behind the scenes. You say that a letter has been electronically distributed to, I assume, 26,000 members of the RCMP, but I don't think anybody believes that is meaningful consultation or engagement.
I think most people will be very fearful about writing a letter in to you or to anybody else on the task force. Are you confident that this process, this task force of now until December 15--about three months--is being rushed by the government? Do we really know for sure? Are you confident that this is going to lead to blowing this wide open so the people inside the RCMP who are desperate to have their say are going to be able to say it?
:
I'd like to pick up on Mr. McGuinty's point as well. We're involved in a process here, a task force that's going to deal with culture and governance and so on. I'm going to observe something I see in Parliament quite often: there are a lot of members of Parliament who believe that as soon as they identify a problem, we can resolve the problem by ordering a result—by passing some legislation, and so on—and that magically the problem will go away.
It doesn't work that way, I don't think. There's too much involved in issues and problems just to order or command that they disappear.
The concern I have is that in modern organizations that are successful, high-quality organizations.... It seems to me the front-line people are very much involved and engaged in those organizations. They're the benchmark that people should be looking at for strong organizations. You build a team and you get their involvement in it.
I think it's crucial that when the task force recommends changes and we get involved in implementing changes, the thousands of RCMP members across the country be engaged in those changes and be onside and supportive of those ideas and understand what we're trying to do. If they aren't, I think we may end up not getting the results we want.
That's just an observation that I would pass on.
I also think it's very important.... There's a lot of fear in the RCMP organization, among the members. A lot of that fear is unnecessary fear, and I think it's incumbent upon the RCMP to eliminate a lot of that fear from their organization.
I want to also pass on to the former commissioner that I've talked to a lot of front-line police officers back in Saskatchewan, and they had a lot of trust and confidence in your leadership.
Now I want to deal with an issue. When I talk to RCMP members—this goes on over a lot of years, and it certainly didn't apply to the past commissioner, but it has applied to other commissioners and senior leadership people—they don't have trust in the leadership of the RCMP at that level. They say things such as Ms. Duxbury has said: that there's too much politics involved at the senior level of the RCMP; that It's not about law enforcement, and police work, and so on, but is about a whole range of other things. A lot of members aren't confident that rising in the RCMP is really based on merit or real performance on the job; it's other matters.
Could you perhaps enlighten us as to what is meant when members say there's too much politics in the senior level of the RCMP? What do they mean by that?
I'm addressing it to—
:
I'm sorry. I was just listening, saying, “Yes, yes, I agree.”
I think from my interviews—300 interviews of an hour or an hour and a half, or two hours, some of them—a lot of people thought that people were agreeing with leaders so that they would be perceived positively, when they didn't agree with what was going on. The idea of “politics” is.... The culture of the RCMP was one where we shot the messenger. So quite frankly, the politics meant that if you thought you were going to be shot, you ended up not saying anything.
The members at large, the rank and file of the RCMP, saw that as sucking up, being political—their language was sometimes much more colourful than that—and thought such people were doing things because they were protecting their own job, as opposed to protecting their members. That was not the case right across the board, but they definitely perceived that in the senior ranks.
I have a comment upfront about some of the conversation and questions that have been going on regarding the Brown report.
I think it's important to note on the record that Mr. Brown drew from multiple investigations, including the work of this committee, and in nine weeks brought together reams and reams of information. I think 35,000 documents and thousands and thousands of e-mails have already been investigated and have culminated into a report. So although the figure of nine weeks has been used quite a bit, it's been years of investigation at different levels.
Mr. Elliott, I'm glad to hear about the increasing numbers on trust and also your realization that there's still a substantial way to go. I'm also very happy to hear about a true, confidential, 360° review. You mentioned that this worked in other organizations you've been with. I hope it's something that's implemented. It's something that will bring a lot more trust, and people will be more open.
In that regard, yesterday we had the chairman of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as the chairman for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee, as well as Assistant Commissioner Conlin. The questions were around exactly what kinds of initiatives were being taken now to move towards providing a place for members like Denise Revine, Staff Sergeant Lewis, or Chief Superintendent Macaulay, so that when have a concern, they can understand that they have protected, unfettered access to a place where they can get resolution easily and fairly when the mission and vision values of the RCMP have been corrupted by another member. In every case when we were asking those questions, it seemed that there was no place to go. Assistant Commissioner Conlin mentioned that they could certainly go to her, but she had no authority to actually make changes.
My question to the assistant commissioner, and it would be the same to you, is this. This task force is working. I understand that you want to wait for the results of that and I understand you've only been in the position for a couple of months as well. However, as a leader now, are you formulating some ideas about some recommendations that you're going to make to the task force to make sure no member will have any fear in the future of coming forward with a complaint that goes to the core of the mission and vision values of the RCMP?
:
I certainly think we need to have mechanisms, processes, and practices in place for people to come forward. I think those need to be multi-layered. I think you need to start with internal mechanisms. It would be ideal if there was an ability for issues to be identified and resolved without going to extraordinary measures. Perhaps the word “extraordinary” isn't the most apt.
For example, we've touched on grievance procedures. To me, most grievances are an indication of a failure on behalf of the organization to resolve issues. Be that as it may, some issues don't get resolved and you need to have internal mechanisms like the grievance process. There is certainly a role for supervisors, CEOs, and executives, but I think we also need to look at the ability of people to go outside the organization.
One of the options that I think should be looked at is the potential for an ombudsman with more defined authorities than we currently have for the ethics adviser. Certainly one of the things the task force is looking at is the notion of a police board. I know that in the exchange yesterday, there was an indication that in other jurisdictions, including Quebec and British Columbia, there are mechanisms outside police forces for redress.
I certainly think the role of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner can also play an important role with respect to the RCMP, which of course is covered by the legislation and the mandate of the commissioner.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Again, to Commissioner Elliott, along the same vein as Mr. Sweet's question, I'd like to hear a little more about how you're going to try to separate those who are categorized as being disgruntled employees from those who have a legitimate complaint.
It's a very stark question. I've asked it in that way because let's not forget it wasn't that many months ago when, after hearing from senior police officers before we called anybody in or before we even agreed, we heard the world was wonderful and there were no problems. If there were problems, they were attributed to other things, but it was not because there were real problems.
The opposition all voted, in a formal vote against the government, to have Frizzell, Macaulay, Revine, and Lewis come to speak. Remember that when it happened, at that time, they were troublemakers. They were disgruntled employees. It's in Hansard. I won't name names, but government members said they weren't going to let them come here and be given a platform to launch against senior officers just because they were disgruntled employees. We brought them here and started to hear from them. It's when this started to unravel.
It wasn't that long ago that the names—and I'm going to say them again—Frizzell, Macaulay, Revine, and Lewis, who are now going to be legendary heroes in the RCMP, were troublemakers. It was a few months ago.
I'd like to know what you're going to do. I know you don't have the steps, but what's your vision of how you're going to be able to separate them? There are disgruntled workers and employees, and then there are legitimate people who are concerned about the organization. How are you going to do it?
I have one last thing, because I won't get another question.
We heard Chair Kennedy from the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, Chair Ebbs from the External Review Committee, and former Assistant Commissioner John Spice, the former ethics adviser, make a recommendation around an ombudsperson. I'd like to know what level of support you have for the recommendations they made.
I think you're going to find that our report is going to contain a lot of support for what they've suggested on both legislative changes and the creation of the ombudsperson. I'd like a sense of where you are on those and an early indication of how much support you're prepared to give their recommendations.
:
Thank you. I have several things to say in response.
There are various models out there, but I think we need to have mechanisms and processes in place so people can come forward and bring information or make allegations without fear of retribution. We need to be able to have an independent examination of that information and allegations. There are several ways that can be done.
I'm not yet in a position where I have a specific recommendation on what the best mechanism might be for the RCMP. I think you need to tailor your mechanism to some extent to reflect the reality of the organization you are dealing with.
The other comment I would make is this. I'm not suggesting this is a solution in and of itself, and I would be interested in the view of Ms. Duxbury, but in my view, leadership matters. It matters not only to the individuals you have named but to the entire organization that Commissioner Busson recognized them for doing what it did. I and others are saying to people that if there are issues, they should bring them forward. They will be treated with respect, and the situations will be appropriately investigated and dealt with.
My saying that is not enough. We need to have the mechanisms and processes in place to do that. I look forward to the recommendations of this committee and the task force to help us put those mechanisms in place. Some of them will be within the purview of the RCMP to do, and some of them, I anticipate, will be external to us and may require legislation.
:
I want to walk through this in terms of what happened. I want to be comfortable that if this were to happen again, things would be handled differently.
Taking a look at the order of things, we have Ms. Revine fulfilling her responsibilities. She is charged with this A-base review, and in the course of her work she finds a problem. She takes it to her direct supervisor, Chief Superintendent Macaulay. He advises the ethics commissioner. It seems that these are reasonable things to do. The staff relations representative, Staff Sergeant Lewis, gets involved and informs the commissioner that there's a problem. It seems that internally they're doing all of the things they should have done.
Nothing happens, so finally they go to what they see as their last resort. In February 2004, Staff Sergeant Lewis actually writes a letter to the President of the Treasury Board, the minister responsible for the RCMP—at the time, it would have been Anne McLellan—and the Auditor General with respect to the pension plan matters. In the letter he states that Commissioner Zaccardelli had failed “to meet his obligations under the RCMP Act and as our leader, in relation to serious accusations of wrongdoing by senior managers...”. He has basically gone everywhere he can go and done everything internal that he can do—they all have—and nothing happens. They finally go to the minister. It seems that the minister is as high as it gets, the absolute last resort.
I know there are other mechanisms in place now, but going back, what more could they have done? If you were the commissioner at the time, what would you expect the minister to do in that situation?
:
I teach the PhD class in managing change. I teach the MBA class. I think that if you looked at my report, the RCMP is definitely not change ready. The biggest issue, of course, is a lack of trust and a real doubt that the RCMP is actually going to stick to it this time.
The RCMP, like a lot of public servants, like a lot of other people, are change weary. They've had a lot of changes thrust on them in the last several decades, but very little follow-through.
My advice is, first of all, don't go in there expecting to change the world immediately. You have to build credibility. You have to build trust. You build credibility and trust not by what you say but by what you do. I think it's very important in the next six months to actually show that things will be slightly different, that there is a respect.
In fact I think the accountability frameworks need to be changed. There has been a real recognition that changing policies is a necessary first step, as is changing structures, but it will do no good if the culture remains one of policy and not practice.
I really think we need to recognize that this is an incredibly difficult task that—I did call him Bill as well, I'm sorry to say, but I'm an academic and inappropriate anyway. I think it's very important to recognize that while dramatic action is needed, there's a real risk. I would say that right now the majority of RCMP are sitting on the fence and saying “let's see what happens, not what they say but what they do”.
I emphasize that as being important.
I want to thank the committee for the kind comments they made about my leadership.
And I would echo what Commissioner Elliot said. I do believe that leadership does matter. And in this organization, that change, as Mr. Lake said, will not be easy and it will not be immediate. I do believe that leadership from the top and the kinds of changes and the kinds of initiatives and the kind of trust this organization is building from the top down and from the bottom up with the people of Canada is a very important step forward. Senior management in this organization exists to support the courage and the amazing work that gets done in the field every day. And I believe that the message from the top, as Ms. Duxbury said, reinforced over and over again by actions, will again build that trust both among the membership and among the public. There is amazing work to be done every day. It is dangerous work, and the safety of the country is at stake.
I want to thank the committee. It has been a true privilege to have served for over thirty-two and a half years and a real honour to have been commissioner for the short time I was. I want to thank the committee for its support in moving the force forward.
:
Yes. I want to provide a word of caution to this committee.
Cultural change is the most difficult kind of change. The majority of cultural changes fail. We know that even if all the stars are aligned, it takes five to ten years for cultural change to occur. And not all the stars are aligned here, so I would just caution the committee that we have to give the RCMP a chance here. We can't expect miracles and overnight things to happen.
The other thing is that leadership does matter, especially with respect to cultural change, because the leader sets the culture by his or her own behaviour. The leader also has access to the resources and the levers needed for this kind of change, such as changing the accountability framework, changing reward structures, and so on.
I also want to say that leadership is not positional. To be a leader you have to have followers, and I think we have to make that distinction. There can be leaders from every level of the organization. It is going to be a significant challenge, and I wish them luck.
:
Thank you, Ms. Duxbury.
Just to conclude, I want to thank you, Commissioner Elliott, for being here today. You've taken on a very difficult and challenging job. Everyone here on the committee certainly wishes you all the best. I certainly want to echo your comments about the 17,000 members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are serving Canadians every day and every night. The studies that we're doing really reflect on that top echelon and do not in any way reflect on the tremendous job that the members of your force are doing currently.
Again, Ms. Busson, I want to echo the comments that were made previously. You've had a stellar career with the RCMP. You have been before this committee four or five times on this particular issue, and we certainly want to thank you very much for your help and assistance.
Ms. Duxbury, again I want to thank you. Your report will be invaluable to the committee as we move forward on this particular issue.
Having said that, colleagues, I'm going to pause. I remind members that we will take a 10-minute break and then we'll come back in camera.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
[Public proceedings resume]
In your report and during the tabling of that report, you had two months to conduct this within the limitations of the mandate and within the limitations of time. You did the best you could; however, you made a couple of very categorical statements. When asked whether or not there should be a public inquiry, you said there was “nothing new, or at least nothing new in value” that it would provide. That's actually your quote.
It's interesting, because just a couple of days prior, you referenced Mr. Gauvin and the fact that he'd abdicated his duty of comptrollership and holding departments to account. Just a couple of days before that, and I guess when the final versions of these were written, we found out that it was more than just not fulfilling duties; he was actually quite proactive. In the commissioner's boardroom he tried to put pressure on an officer from the ATIP section who was about to release documents, and he wanted to replace those documents with documents he'd prepared in his office. This is a deputy commissioner.
Just yesterday we heard new allegations. Potentially we'll have to hear from witnesses who will contradict the commissioner's testimony before us here, so how can you have this tremendous comfort in stating that there's nothing new and nothing new in value to be found in a public accountable process and that in fact the preferred course is a secret behind-closed-doors task force?
:
There are several questions there. If I miss one of them, perhaps you could remind me at the end, and I'll try to circle back.
First of all, with respect to the time period, it's true that we had only nine weeks, and it was really only eight weeks of operating time, because it took us a week to get organized and up and running.
In order to accomplish the work that had to be done during that timeframe, I needed to be assured that I had the necessary resources to be able to do it. It quickly became clear that an awful lot of background material was already in existence. There had been a number of studies done previously, as you know. Your work here in this committee had been ongoing; there were witnesses who had come and testified here, so there was a great deal of information coming from those witnesses.
We were able, very quickly, to get all the information that we thought was necessary from the RCMP. It was delivered to us quickly. I was able to get a staff of people moving very quickly, within a couple of days of my being appointed. I interviewed the five largest forensic accounting groups in the country and selected one that had the resources and was able to put them on the ground here. So we had a tremendous amount of material available to us even from the start and we had the resources to be able to do it.
:
But I have to interrupt you there, Mr. Brown. I am tabling the copy of the memorandum of understanding for the committee. You mention a typographical error, but two paragraphs deal with the relationship between the inspector in charge and Assistant Commissioner Gork. In point 3.1 of the memo, it says—and I think the reference is to Inspector Roy:
The inspector [...] will be in charge of the RCMP investigation. He will report to Assistant Commissioner D. Gork while the investigation is in progress.
If there is a typographical error, we need to know where it is. Still on the subject of the lead investigator, point 3.2 says:
Assistant Commissioner Gork, representing the RCMP, will oversee his work, and may from time to time provide instructions to help him in his inquiries.
So I believe that Inspector Gork could direct the investigation any way he liked because, as the memorandum makes clear, he had the authority to oversee the investigator's work and give him instructions as needed. I see this as a long way from typographical errors. There are no incorrect words here: an entire paragraph clearly states that the RCMP was overseeing the work of the Ottawa Police Service's investigator.
I think that it is easy to conclude from this that the investigation was not independent. In fact, the OPS's investigation was not independently conducted because it was supervised by a direct superior in the RCMP. I do not understand why you were not aware of that. You were told about a typographical error, but it seems to me that you should have examined and analyzed such an important document. I find that this was really lax on your part.
:
The second area on which I want to touch base with you is one that I think troubles all the members of this committee. It's some of the civilian employees who are employed in the RCMP. Quite frankly, I think some of the conduct of some of these individuals bordered on the outrageous.
I thought my knowledge of law would say you had plenty of grounds to terminate immediately for cause with some of these individuals. We're told by everyone, from former Commissioner Zaccardelli to other people, that because of the collective agreements and labour regime that are in place and so on, you can't really do that anymore. You give people pay for two years to sit at home and collect their pensions and build up their benefits or get transferred to some other branch of the government. Apparently they're even recommended to other branches of the government, and so on, and they pop up somewhere else.
I find this very disconcerting. I would think, for the whistle-blowers in the RCMP, this would be extremely frustrating. They're demoted, they're transferred for doing the right thing, and the real culprits in many cases are people who are paying, really, no penalties whatsoever because of arguments about collective agreements and so on.
Is the task force going to look at this problem and try to come to grips with it to see what can be done?
Thank you, Mr. Brown. I met you for the first time just before the meeting started and I welcome you here.
I thought it was interesting that one of your first comments when you got here was that you didn't have an opening statement because you couldn't think of anything that we didn't already have. That's the premise of where I want to go.
As you know, many of us at a certain point in the deliberations of the committee felt that we weren't going to be able to get to the bottom of this with the tools that we have because this is a limited process. It needs to go into a full public inquiry. You've disagreed; you have that right. I have to say to you that when I read your report, I didn't read a whole lot there that we didn't already have.
I would suggest to you, sir, that had the government followed your process instead of ours, you never would have gotten anywhere nearly as far as you did, because you wouldn't have gotten as far as we got. The reason we got as far as we did was the persistence that we were prepared to put to this issue. We held people; we put them under oath. You didn't. You didn't put anybody under oath, and they may not have lied to you, but they may have. They may have told you the truth, but not the whole truth.
Here, we, the four different parties that are here, as well as our professional analysts, had a chance to go over that from all different perspectives. In addition to that, the public had a chance to see what we were asking.
One of the reasons we were able to advance this agenda was because of the public feedback we had, particularly from people in the RCMP watching our hearings and contacting us and saying, “Wait a minute, let me tell you about this”, and that would lead us to inviting someone in. We would put them under oath and subpoena documents if we had to. The documents are all there for the public record.
You had none of that, sir. So I would lay in front of you the argument that you haven't added much to this. I don't have a lot to disagree with in what you said, but you haven't said anything that we haven't already concluded.
So I would ask you what value-added that has given to the work of this committee--and I don't mean you personally as a professional, but your process--and whether or not you believe you could have even gotten that far without our work as a starting point.
:
I don't mean to be rude, but I am going to interrupt because of limited time. I don't even get a second round, so I have to push on.
I'm still having a great deal of difficulty understanding why your process, with or without the task force, is as good as and a legitimate replacement for a public inquiry. I suggest to you, with great respect, that virtually any journalist here who has been following these hearings could have written your report. The stuff was all there. Anything you may have added is suspect. Nobody is under oath.
We had people come in here under oath--honourable people, without question--and we had to chase them and tell them their answers weren't fulsome enough and we weren't getting the whole truth. Then people who heard that testimony called us up and said, “You might want to bring in so-and-so because they'll contradict that.”
You didn't have any of that, sir. How can you possibly say that what you have is value-added to the same degree as what we have done, given that the public has no more idea than we do who you met with or when you met with them?
Would you at the very least give us a list of all the witnesses you met with, transcripts of those discussions, all the documents you brought in, and the dates of the meetings with all of those people, so we and the public can get close to what you tell us? You can tell us, and I'll accept your word, but in terms of moving legislation it's not good enough. So I'm asking you, at the very least, to table all of that so we can take a look at it and see where you went.
:
Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.
Before going to Mr. McGuinty, I want to pursue one area briefly with you, Mr. Brown. I've gone over the mandate of the task force and the eight bullets in your mandate. One issue that I see missing is any review or deliberation on the whole issue of parliamentary review.
I know this is a very complex issue; it's not a simple issue. You have to balance the public's right to know and at the same time respect the arm's-length nature of police enforcement. I believe Mr. Justice O'Connor struggled with this issue. In part II of the Arar inquiry report he talked about it.
Your initial mandate was under the executive. You were mandated by the minister and you reported to the minister. Your second mandate is similar: you're mandated by the minister and you report to the minister.
One of the pillars of executive government is secrecy and concentrated power--not this government, but the previous government, the government before that, and the government before that.
Again, I think this is an important issue. It's an issue that should be deliberated upon--whether it's needed--because we're dealing now with a public that's less deferential; it's more informed. And I believe that going forward, there's going to be a necessity for some meaningful public dialogue with Canada's national police agency, probably through Parliament in some way. That is something I hope your committee would be looking at, but I don't see it in the mandate at all.
Do you have any thoughts on that issue?
:
As you know, I'd concluded that the investigation was not independent, and the Auditor General had found that it didn't have the appearance of independence. I went further. I found that it was not independent, but it didn't answer the question as to whether the investigation was flawed.
There's no question that the proper process of an investigation is to have as much independence as you can get. I understand there's a bit of a spectrum wherein you can have full independence and not enough expertise to do the job. If you have the necessary expertise, you might have a lack of independence along the way, and you have to find a balance somewhere. I don't know whether the balance was found.
I also don't know whether the result of the investigation was in any way tainted by that. When you think of it, part of the reason all of this came to light was that members of the RCMP who were part of the investigative team and were therefore not independent were the ones who brought it forward.
We had some very diligent work done by people within the RCMP. The whole issue on the insurance payments came up during the course of the investigation. It was uncovered by the RCMP people and ultimately by the RCMP internal audit.
I had indications on both sides. I had the crown attorneys saying not enough evidence came out of the investigation to lay criminal charges. I didn't know whether it was because the investigation wasn't good enough or whether the evidence wasn't there.
It seemed to me that the best way to do this was to get people who really knew what they were doing on investigations to audit what the OPS had done, look at the files, and see whether or not they believed the investigation was tainted. I understand such an audit is under way.
:
Mr. Brown, thank you for your report.
I'd like to first of all point out that the witnesses we've had in your chair throughout this extended process do not share the opposition's obsession with holding a public inquiry. So I want you to know that you are in very good company amongst many other distinguished witnesses--in fact most, if not all--who have not suggested that we need a public inquiry. In fact, only yesterday a former minister of the Crown and a former Deputy Prime Minister, Ms. McLellan, sat in that very chair and suggested that a public inquiry was not needed.
So simply to start out, I would like to give you some comfort in knowing that you are surrounded by many distinguished witnesses who share your view that there is another way forward.
I'm interested in another subject, though, and it has to do with personnel.
Jim Ewanovich, after an internal audit, was relieved of his duties back in October 2003, but he was not terminated for cause. He was allowed to stay on the payroll until a separation agreement occurred in April 2004, more than a year later.
Dominic Crupi was relieved of his duties on November 23, 2003. Through a combination of leave entitlements he was allowed to remain with the RCMP until June 2005, when he resigned. When he appeared before our committee, we learned, surprisingly, that he was still on government payroll until a couple of months ago when our government actively sought his removal.
These are people who were actively involved in this mess. Not only were they involved, they were known to have been involved. My question is, why doesn't anyone ever get fired in government? What recommendations can you make to see that when these sorts of acts of wrongdoing happen and we know the culprit, they lose their jobs and we don't keep them on payroll or give them promotions?
:
Certainly. We are five, as you know, Chair, and I'll go from east to west.
Larry Murray is one of our members of the task force. Many of you may know Larry Murray. He's a former deputy minister, having just taken retirement a couple of months ago. I think his last posting was as Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He has a long history with the military, and part of his responsibilities in Fisheries and Oceans involved the coast guard.
Richard Drouin, who was for a good part of his working career the CEO and chair of Hydro-Québec, has since retiring from that taken on a number of business initiatives, and he sits on a number of boards of directors. He also has served on one of the Quebec police oversight organizations. So he brings to the task force not only business acumen and knowledge of what happens in a boardroom, but some experience with oversight of police.
Norman Inkster, who's a former Commissioner of the RCMP, is a member of the task force. He's been consulting on police matters for police services since he retired.
Linda Black, who is a lawyer from Calgary, also sits on a police services board in Calgary. She's actually a native of Newfoundland and grew up and practised law in Newfoundland, but has been living in Calgary.
And of course there's me.
Those are the five of us. I'm very pleased with the range of backgrounds and skill sets we have at the table. Norman Inkster is the only member I had met before. In fact, we didn't as a group know one another, but we're interacting well, and the perspectives that are being brought to the table, I think, will really serve us well.
:
Thank you for pausing long enough for me to answer a series of questions, and I'll try to do that now. If you can show me the same respect as I'm showing you, which is to wait for you to finish and then to respond, I'd appreciate that.
I will repeat, I do find it ironic that this entire episode, taken place under the Liberal regime, during a period of time in which we saw zero action on a very serious matter.... And I am not pointing culpability at any elected person. I'm just saying there was zero action.
I'll repeat what I said. When I became aware of this and posed the questions first of all to the commissioner and heard from him that the matter was indeed being looked at by the Auditor General, I contacted the Auditor General and said I would be looking forward to her deliberations on this. As a matter of fact, we were all looking forward to her deliberations on this. I met with her in November on that, and she confirmed to me that she would be publicly making her observations known on the whole matter. She did that on February 21, I believe, in front of this committee. On March 28, at this committee, allegations were so serious about wrongdoing, which was a surprise to many of us, that the very next day, March 29, I announced that there had to be an investigation into this matter, and by April 12 we had announced that there would be an investigative body put together to do that. They began their work. They delivered their work on June 15.
I agree with the chairman. I don't think this should descend into political partisanship. You've certainly been known to take that position on this particular issue--again somewhat ironically given that it was a Liberal mismanagement--but that's your right to do.
I took action. I took swift action, not wanting, of course, to undercut the Auditor General but wanting to hear fully. She had a right to speak fully, not just to me but to the committee and to the public, about this. Knowing that no action had been taken for years, my colleagues and I determined it was time. We wanted action. We wanted answers. We wanted it as soon as possible, but we also wanted there to be prudence in the whole investigation so that we could make some headway on this.
That's in fact what I did, and I think the record shows that my movement on this was not only exemplary because it was recommended by people wiser than I, including members of your caucus, but also because the people of Canada wanted answers to the questions that were being posed--very serious matters. We took those matters very seriously, and we acted on them, and we continue to act on them.
:
Good afternoon. Mr. Minister. You said that problems arose when the Liberals were in power and that you have worked to resolve them. Yesterday, Mr. Fitzpatrick talked about how the RCMP came into the world, and I jokingly wondered if it had a conservative father and a liberal mother, or the other way around. In the same vein, I am suggesting to you today that the RCMP has some genetic problems, serious problems that have become apparent in the last few months.
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts is now holding its 18thmeeting on this matter. You may be the last witness that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts hears. Today we heard from new commissioner Elliott who told us about his strategy for restoring confidence and rebuilding. But the appointment of a man who worked to censor the O'Connor Report leaves a bitter taste in our mouths when we think about the need for transparency in the reform process.
We found out that Mr. Brown, whom we saw earlier, to whom you entrusted the chairmanship of a working group, and who wrote a report, was not even aware himself of all the information that I consider to be relevant. I am specifically thinking about the independence of the investigation conducted by the Ottawa Police Service on the problems in the RCMP. We have found out that he mentioned it in his report, but that he was not familiar with it himself. So there are some significant blunders.
I return to the need for a public inquiry—I stressed it this morning as did several others—so that we can shed real light on this. Frankly, I can tell you that we do not feel that we are any further along. We only have bits and pieces of information. After 18 meetings, we know more, I agree, but we believe that there is more to know. But we do not feel that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has the mandate to get to the bottom of these things. We are not investigators and our resources are limited.
Mr. Brown suggested a group working behind closed doors to solve problems that arose from a lack of transparency. That seems to us to defy logic. A number of people are asking for a public inquiry. We are not alone in asking for one, some newspapers have repeatedly done so.
What do you think? Do you feel that the public will really be able to regain confidence in the RCMP? There is a real crisis of confidence.
This morning, Mr. Elliott mentioned some shortcomings. I am afraid that—as I told him again—this is not about some shortcomings, this is about a basic structural problem.
:
On your first observations, I also noticed Ms. McLellan's remarks. I reviewed them yesterday. I will say it's difficult in an atmosphere of highly charged political rhetoric to take a non-partisan position. Now, I believe she did that when she was commenting on the way I'd handled the situation. Of course, if she disagreed with how I had handled it, I'd like to think I'd be able to make the same statement right now.
I think she was taking a fair view. She knows what it's like to be in this position, and she knows the length and complexity of a public inquiry. Though she and I may have disagreed on any number of things and issues and policies over the period of time when we sat opposite one another in the House of Commons, I do believe she was always wanting to find an efficient way to get work done, especially as related to security.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's face it, around this table we all know what political partisanship is. We all get into it as a necessary and vital, or vibrant, part of democracy. But when it comes to the safety and security of our country, the more we can set aside partisanship, the better for our citizens. I think they really expect that when it comes to safety and security.
So I appreciated her observations that I had discharged my duties in more or less the appropriate manner. I wasn't surprised to see that she agreed that it probably wouldn't be best to go to a full public inquiry, because of the length of time—and money is one consideration, but not the only one. But we want answers and we want solutions, and that's why we've moved on this.
On the latter part of your question related to the O'Connor inquiry, all of the recommendations related to the RCMP, if not completed, are in the stage of being fully implemented. I said, and the Prime Minister said—our government said—right from the start when those recommendations came out that we agreed with them and wanted to see them put in place.
I guess the silver lining, if there is one, in the dark cloud of these types of serious problems--the Arar problem and this one--is that changes do take place that make for a better system. With the changes that the RCMP has put in place—the memoranda of understanding and the operational understanding between the RCMP and CSIS that have been achieved, and the operational understanding between the security agencies in Canada and other countries, notably the United States, in terms of what type of information should be shared and how it should be shared—some great improvements have been made.
It took a tragic situation for those improvements to come into being, but in fact, just to answer that question, there has been very successful implementation of the recommendations coming from the Arar inquiry.
:
Great. Thank you. I have the floor.
Yes, I'll slow down for the translators. Thank you.
I want to open with...and Minister, I'll give you a chance to comment. There'll be a question. There'll be a number of things I'll say. I'll give you time. I just want to lay out why I personally think you went this route instead of a public inquiry, and I don't think it's anything particularly deep or difficult to figure out.
The fact of the matter is, if you ask anybody--current minister, former minister, ordinary working person, just about anybody in this room--“How would you like to have a public inquiry on the job you're doing?”, most of us would say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” That's understandable from a human nature point of view, and I would use that to say why former Minister McLellan took that position personally. She'd have been crazy to take any other position.
From a personal point of view, I think it was done because, quite frankly, Minister, you didn't want to have to deal with what would come tumbling out. You can't control it. Once you start these things, they take on a life of their own. We saw what came out in Arar. We saw what is coming out in Air India. And I believe you were trying to avoid all of that. You didn't want to open up a whole new front, and this was a way of containing it and packaging it.
It's worked politically to the extent that you still drive the bus and we don't have a public inquiry. So far you're winning. But I really don't think you've served the RCMP or the process well.
I gave your investigator a chance to respond to my allegation that he really didn't provide much value-added, that most of what he wrote about we found out and came from being in the public domain. He didn't refute that much. He had a couple of small details, and I think that's the proof of the pudding.
And that's why we're maintaining still that there needs to be a public inquiry, for the same reasons that the pressure was on for Arar, and for the same reasons that pressure was on for Air India. So I want to put that there as to why I think what's going on is going on, and to give you a chance to respond.
Here's what I'm curious about, as a question, Minister. And I accept totally that the actions happened before your time, before your government, and much of the responsibility belongs to the Liberals. There's only a small piece that yours, but nonetheless you are the minister of the day.
If history had unfolded differently, and if the first time we had witnesses come in on the Auditor General's report, when we were told by serious brass within the police community involved in this, from the Ottawa Police Service and the RCMP, that everything was fine with the investigation by the Ottawa Police Service, and that quite frankly anything wrong internally was really just internal administrative matters, we had accepted that, Minister, all the things that came tumbling out, that we found out, through this committee would not have come out. We would have addressed the auditing issue. It might have got a little bit of oomph in the media, but not a lot. That would have been the end of it. But for you, the issue would still be real and it would still be there in your ministry to be resolved, but without our playing a role in it.
My question to you is this. How would you have ultimately gotten hold of this issue and resolved it, given the current way you run your office, if we hadn't done the work we did?
:
On the first part of your question, David, let me say that it's a time-honoured tradition that.... Well, on both parts of your question, number one, we usually don't spend time, especially committee time, on hypotheticals, but I'm willing to do that to answer your question. The second thing is, we don't try to impugn or determine motives from the words of another member. We determine from their actions and what they do or say in the House, but the motive behind it.... So I'm somewhat fascinated that you would think that a motive....
If what you're saying were true—you have this public inquest, and all the truth comes tumbling out—and at the same time you say that none of this happened under our watch, then from a partisan point of view I should have jumped on a public inquest, because it's all going to be stuff about the Liberals, according to what you're saying. We had nothing and we have nothing to hide on this, because it didn't happen under our watch.
I agree, David, we have a difference of opinion. You want the full public inquiry route, which at best is a multi-year process. I share the views of many people that the problems within the RCMP can't wait that long to be addressed, and that the men and women of the force who do their jobs every day so incredibly well that this force continues to have one of the best reputations as a national police force in the world.... I think they want this stuff dealt with also.
I would say that one of the litmus tests of the process we've put in place, as I did when I announced Mr. Brown would do the investigation, is that the very officers who were instrumental in bringing forward the problems—and I understand this committee feels they should be commended for that, and we do too, and that was actually part of Mr. Brown's recommendation—are themselves, by and large, not saying that this is a bad process we're following. As a matter of fact, the ones I've seen interviewed said they want to move along with this process, that they want to get things done.
So the people who probably had the most at stake, the people who had the most invested—literally from their hearts, because they took a big career challenge in raising these things—are themselves not clamouring for the inquest, because they believe this is moving along.
Now, we'll see in December when the recommendations come out. If there's a strongly different view, if we're not able to achieve what we want to achieve, I might be saying to you that maybe you have a point or maybe that you don't. But the task force needs time to work and to dig to the bottom of this.
All information was made available to Mr. Brown. I said in my previous remarks that he saw almost 4,000 e-mails and 35,000 pages of documents; he reviewed 100 hours of verbal testimony, had access to every person. The RCMP commissioner—
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.
Before we go to Mr. McGuinty, I just want to clarify a last remark. I don't want to leave any misunderstanding out there.
This committee does go in camera frequently, mostly to discuss committee reports and committee business. Any time we're hearing witnesses, it's extremely unlikely and highly unusual for us to go in camera. We have in the past. Perhaps in hindsight, it probably wasn't the thing to do. It's something that has happened, I believe, once or twice in the last seven years that I've been on the committee. So it's not something we would do in the committee.
But I have a question, Mr. Day, and I just want to get your thoughts on it. I guess it's something I wrestle with, and I don't know if I have any clear answers.
You are the responsible minister for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and in addition to that, you have a lot of other agencies dealing with national security. You have a very large and important portfolio. The protocol that has been followed for a long time now is that there is an arm's-length relationship between you and the law enforcement agencies. That has perhaps worked well, but when you see things get off the rails—and we've seen that in the Maher Arar inquiry, and we've seen it in this particular instance.... This tradition has been with us a long time and perhaps has served us well, but perhaps it's something we should review.
You have a lot of agencies under your responsibility. Do you have any thoughts on this going forward?
Minister, thank you for coming.
I'll try to keep this on the up-and-up, Minister, although I have to admit to you that it's been very difficult. I think some of your comments here today have been cheap. I think that your penchant to play a blame game has been constant since you've been appointed to cabinet and since you arrived in government. For that matter, I think Mr. Poilievre, who worked for you for three years, has been well trained.
But I want to ask you this, having just had the author of the report in front of us tell us it cost $3.5 million and that he contracted his own or previous law firm to do $375,000 of work without RFPs, on the authority of the President of the Treasury Board. Did you know anything about that, first of all, and did you authorize it?
:
I do, and for this reason: you're asking people to come forward. As with the last piece of work that was done, similarly with this one, there are going to be cases where people are going to be coming forward, and they're going to be using real-life examples of where they feel their management has failed them or where they feel the structure has failed them.
As with many similar bodies, when you are asking information from individuals that at least they fear could be used against them by others who might not be, let's say, as liberal in their feelings of seeing improvements, then unless you can guarantee them some level of confidence, you limit the ability to have people really coming forward and saying, “Here are some changes we need.” Presumably, then, at that task force those members would say, “Well, why do you think we need that change?” Then they're going to be talking about individuals with whom they work. They're going to be talking about things that could affect promotions, their careers. Allowing that type of confidence to exist in a period of questioning, I think, for these purposes is vital.
It appears we have a disagreement on that, David, but I think it's important that this kind of confidence is there for some of the individuals to come forward. There are also going to be people coming forward representing labour positions on many issues and differences in structure. Again, whether on the corporate side, whether on the labour side, whether on the legislative side, or whether it's just people who are going to be talking about their work environment, they need to be able to do that in confidence.
The thing about this task force being independent is not that they have anything to hide. As a matter of fact, they want to find out what people are afraid of talking about and make their recommendations based on that. We appear to have a disagreement on that, and I respect that.
Minister, to clear the record up, the author of the report, Mr. Brown, stated categorically the OPS investigation was not independent. He spoke not about appearance or perception, he said it wasn't independent.
Finally, could you help Canadians understand why they should have more confidence now in punting this issue to the OPP and having them conduct such an investigation, when we know that the track record here, as illustrated by Mr. Brown, is hardly comforting in terms of the way it was done on the inside, at the RCMP? Why should we, why should Canadians, accept that punting it to another police force is going to solve this problem?
:
I guess it could be said that that's a bit of a risky question, but I think it's a fair question. To be honest with you, early on in the process, with all of the media that was surrounding the Arar investigation, certainly, and then this one, it crossed my mind as to whether the confidence level of our allies with whom we work, especially on the security side, was being eroded in any way because of this, especially the publicity.
I do meet with our counterparts--and not only our traditional allies, the so-called 5 Eyes, people in Great Britain and in New Zealand—but whether with them or the G8 securities ministers, as I met with our counterparts there, including our Russian counterpart, I actually asked that question. But I prefaced it by saying, look, I still have absolute and full confidence in the RCMP, but I'm just wondering, you folks, you're hearing a lot of stuff, is your confidence eroded? They said not in the least, each one independently, because I didn't ask that in a really public way. I didn't hold a conference of international police forces to ask that. But they said, we understand, and no police force is perfect, but it looks like there's some pretty aggressive work going on to fix any problems. They said that operationally it has not eroded their confidence one iota and that they appreciate the ongoing work with the RCMP.
:
One of the things I enjoy doing is stopping in not just at detachments, but even at roadside operations at various times, and not because I've been pulled over. As we all know, it's like when you go door to door in your constituencies; you're hearing from people one on one, without a filter. When I'm talking to members literally on the highways and the byways, or on the streets, or in the detachments, commanding officers aren't around, their superior officers aren't around, and they're pretty open.
One of the sentiments I hear fairly consistently is that they just want to see a system in place to clear all this, not to cover it but to clear it. It's almost universal that they recognize there were problems at the senior levels, and they have a concern. They're proud of what they do.
On Sunday, I'll be attending a service in Regina at Depot for officers killed in the line of duty, and the very next day, a graduation class. It's literally at both ends of the spectrum. For those going into the graduating class, neither the fear of literally dying on the job or the ongoing accusations that were in place before they were recruited and signed up for the class are enough to deter them from the fact that they feel called to care for and protect their fellow citizens.
So what I'm hearing from the rank and file is that they're frustrated. They want to see a system in place that deals with this kind of stuff. They are confident that the Auditor General has said, and it's been proven, that the pension fund itself is intact. The money that was inappropriately directed to other areas, to the disability plan and to the insurance plan, the $1.3 million, has been replaced. So they're confident with that, but they do want to see this dealt with. They want to see it dealt with properly. They don't want anything covered up, and they're looking for the day when there's a structure in place that allows them to do their work without this hanging over their heads.
It's that thing hanging over their heads that bothers some of them. But they all tell me to a man, to a woman, that they are proud to serve, they love their job, and they know that, like in any organization, the vast majority of them, the huge percentage of them, are honourable and are doing things in the right and correct way, and they'll continue to do that.
:
No. In terms of doing their job, they reflect positively on their training, on their desire to do a good job.
This is not partisan, but I have had a number reflect that they like the legislation we're bringing forward, things like mandatory jail terms for people who commit crimes with firearms, the ability to see the bad guys or bad girls who they go after and put in jail stay there and do fair time and not get out under the radar. There are some things with the system that frustrate them, the system that we are all responsible for, which I hope we can see changes to.
They're pleased to hear that we are going forward with our commitment for a thousand more RCMP officers across the country, which resulted in a $37 million expansion at Depot in Regina to accommodate that. They're pleased when they see the $64 million drug strategy that's going to put more dollars on the street for anti-drug problems, and the sexual exploitation centre, which is getting an extra $6 million. About those type of things they say, “Good.”
If they reflect negatively in a significant way, or if their frustration really comes to the fore, it's that they want to see the government clear away what are perceived to be obstacles to having people dealt with who want to hurt others. They want those people contained. They want to see recidivism rates drop. They are very much for the rights of citizens, and they are hoping to see the government working along in that direction.
I hope too, again in a non-partisan way, the Liberal Senate comes onside with some of the legislation that's being held up right now, because our RCMP officers, police officers in general, reflect very favourably on it, because it helps them do their job of keeping our country safe.