:
I would like to call the meeting to order, welcome everyone here, and ask all those with cameras to leave the room.
On behalf of the committee I want to extend to everyone here a very warm welcome. This is a continuation of the committee's hearings into chapter 9, “Pension and Insurance Administration, Royal Canadian Mounted Police”, of the November 2006 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
We have with us today, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Paul Gauvin, deputy commissioner, corporate management and comptrollership; and André Girard, staff sergeant, criminal intelligence and analysis section.
As individuals we have Keith Estabrooks; John Spice, assistant commissioner (retired), Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and Pierre Lavoie, superintendent (retired), Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There are others, too, who may be called up, depending on circumstances.
Before we ask for opening comments, I understand, Mr. Christopherson, you have a point you want to make.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On a point of privilege, I don't feel right about letting this go by. In light of the fact that we're either in the final process of or we've just concluded a report on leaks, and given that the government has decided that leakers need to be handcuffed and marched out of their workplace, I don't think it can be left untouched that somebody on this committee decided that it was more important for them to get some media. As a result, in the Friday paper after our in camera meeting, the reporter says in part of this.... And I don't fault the reporter; he's doing his job. But ours is also to respect the confidentially of matters we enter into. That's what we tell bureaucrats they have to do. It's much of the ethics we're talking about when we're dealing with our RCMP officers.
It says right here, “However, sources said the panel has decided to call back...” and it listed names. And if anybody wants to suggest that was public and available from the minutes that were posted, to the best of my knowledge they were posted on Friday at 3:50 p.m., which would be the afternoon of the morning of the day that the report was published.
Mr. Chair, people don't have to respond if they don't wish. I was very strong about this in subcommittee. I've calmed down a bit, but I'm not going to just let it go without commenting that at the end of the day, it makes members of this committee--some members--hypocrites. You cannot say to people who work for the people of Canada, through the Government of Canada, that you cannot release confidential information when that's part of your job. We're not talking about whistle-blowers identifying things that are wrong and protecting them and getting that out. We're talking about people whose job it is to maintain confidentiality, and if we don't stand by those standards respecting each other's rights and privileges, then what right do we have to stand on Parliament Hill and pontificate that everybody else has to meet that standard?
Mr. Chair, we can do better. We have to do better, or this committee will not have the moral ground to do the work we do. I'm asking colleagues to please show a little more respect when we give confidence and give our word, particularly to each other, if making your word publicly isn't enough.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say that I support everything my colleague Mr. Christopherson says. I was astounded to read this article in the Globe and Mail and the amount of confidential information it divulged.
I am quoted in the article because Mr. Leblanc asked me to give him some background and context for an article he was writing. At the end, he told me what he knew, and I was astounded to know what he already knew. It seems, if I read this article properly, Mr. Chairman, it says, “The Library of Parliament report said...”, and it would appear that he actually had a copy of the report from the Library of Parliament that we had given to us confidentially.
The rules are that deliberations and matter within an in camera meeting are in camera. The results of that can be made public, a motion passed and so on. But we all talked about the need for confidentiality on this particular file at the same time we're discussing a report on leaks--at the very same time, Mr. Chairman, which adds insult. The irony of it is just incredible.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that you should poll all the members of the committee to see who released the report and who talked to media. Yes, I talked to Daniel Leblanc, strictly on a background contextual situation. I say that, but somebody else was quite specific, giving names, quotations, and, I suspect, the report. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we should poll everybody and ask, “Was it you?”
And I just said it wasn't me.
:
Well, Mr. Williams, I'm not sure we have time to deal with it today. But I want to reiterate some of the comments Mr. Christopherson has made and some of the comments you have made.
This is something we take very seriously. Anything that's said in an in camera meeting is not to be disclosed outside the meeting, to the media or anyone else for that matter. The person who moves a motion, discusses a motion, votes on a motion.... These are items that are the very reason we went in camera. If we didn't do that we wouldn't be bothered with going in camera.
Obviously somebody did provide the reporter in question with a copy of the report we had produced by the analyst. That was to be discussed in camera, as we all know.
This committee, I should point out, has dealt with this previously. We had a very similar incident three or four years ago. The previous member for Toronto--Danforth disclosed items that were in camera and we reported that to the House.
Again, this is very serious. I'm disappointed it happened.
Ms. Sgro.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wish to take this moment to address the supreme efforts that have been made and continue to be made during these committee meetings that can only be perceived as attempts to discredit me and put into question my integrity by way of misleading testimony, allegations, and assertions that are seemingly being accepted without any efforts to ensure their veracity.
In the interest of fairness to me, I wish to address certain comments and allegations that have been made during the course of the recent committee meetings, namely, April 16, 18, and 30.
At the committee meeting on April 16, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj questioned Commissioner Zaccardelli whether a former chief financial officer for the RCMP, Mr. Gordon Clark, had advised him I had a book with the record of all requests he had made to me that were improper and illegal. This second-hand allegation by Mr. Clark is unfounded and completely without merit. I have been privileged to serve deputy ministers in some of the largest and most complex departments of our government, such as Employment and Immigration Canada and Transport Canada. As well, I've equally had the privilege of serving three RCMP commissioners: Mr. Murray, Mr. Zaccardelli, and Ms. Busson. All these individuals exemplified dedication and professionalism and at all times our working relationship was based on mutual respect and trust.
I wish to state without any ambiguity that at no time did I keep a book or any type of record containing requests I considered to be improper or illegal. Further, I want to make it equally clear that at no time did I receive either illegal or improper requests from any of these persons. I should add that Mr. Clark retired from the RCMP in the mid-1990s. I was appointed chief financial officer in November 1999. I have only met Mr. Clark at RCMP functions on a very limited basis over the past seven years. Since Mr. Clark and I never worked together, it is unclear how he would be sufficiently informed to allege anything about my conduct and why this allegation should be given any weight.
Suppression of ATIP request: At the committee meeting on April 18, a motion was passed to the effect that retired RCMP Sergeant Keith Estabrooks was to appear before the public accounts committee and that he should bring along all relevant documents and files that indicate the suppression of access to information requests by Mr. Gauvin. The committee member who proposed the motion, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, referenced seven numbers that purported to involve the pension fund investigation. As chief financial officer, I have no line authority for access to information and privacy. That branch reports directly to the assistant commissioner, public affairs and communications, not to the chief financial officer.
Further, RCMP policy states that only the access to information and privacy branch has the authority to exempt information in RCMP records and that exemptions are applied on a case-by-case basis by the OIC access to information branch.
I should also add that although I did request of the committee's chair that I be allowed to view the documents that are said to support this allegation, no access was granted. Regardless, I am confident that whatever records might exist contain no evidence to support this allegation, since it is without foundation.
On file number 3951-3-02914/05: I confirm that a request for that file was sent to my office from the access to information and privacy branch on March 14, 2006. I also confirm a response to that request on March 21, 2006. I should emphasize that the initiative to send this file originated within the ATIP branch and not me, as implied by Mr. Estabrooks. In my March 21, 2006 response, I provided my opinion for the consideration of the ATIP officials regarding the potential impact of releasing specific personal information relating to the OPS investigation. My opinion was, and it remains today, that the release of information that I perceived to be personal information pursuant to the Privacy Act could result in a breach of the act.
It was equally my concern that such a breach could result in civil litigation against the RCMP. As the process as to whether internal discipline should be applied to the individuals concerned was ongoing, disclosure of personal information could have highly prejudiced these individuals. To be clear, I was not one of the persons who was subject to discipline.
Legal opinions from RCMP legal services pertaining to the release of personal information: As it turned out, the RCMP legal services had conducted a preliminary review of this particular file as well as a more detailed review resulting in their opinion, and there would be privacy concerns regarding the release of the information that was being requested.
Although I did provide my opinion when asked for it, it was the OIC ATIP branch who ultimately determined what information should or should not be vetted. I have no additional knowledge of the decision-making process within the ATIP branch associated with this file.
I'll skip the next part in the interest of time, and I would like to go to page 7 of 18. The only information that I sought were the titles for seven individual file numbers in order to determine what, if anything, I could recall about these files, including whether my opinion had been sought on them.
I was advised by Inspector Cowan that when he arrived at the access to information and privacy branch, he was escorted into the office by Corporal Kent Swim, who introduced him to Corporal Lee Duchesne. Inspector Cowan spoke to Corporal Duchesne in person, then to Sergeant Jeff Hurry by phone. However, neither of them was able to provide the information that Inspector Cowan was seeking on my behalf.
These officers did, however, offer to try to reach an authorized official who might be able to respond to Inspector Cowan's request, and he returned to my office to report on these developments.
In total, he was in the ATIP branch for approximately ten minutes. All I was looking for from the ATIP branch was the titles of the files. All I had at the time were numbers, which had been provided to me late in the day.
I will not talk about Inspector Cowan's presence in the ATIP branch unless you have questions on it, and I'll be pleased to reply.
In terms of missing documents, Mr. Estabrooks stated:
When I went back to work part-time, as a casual employee, I was asked to look at the pension file again by Corporal Luc Poulin, and he suggested that I take a look because I was familiar with all these files. When I was going through the files, I noticed there were documents missing that I had written, with no rhyme or reason as to why they would be missing. The typed memos I had put on were there, but there was a particular one I had handwritten, which I have brought with me. It's not in the file that we can find.
I kept a copy of it when I left. When I retired I kept my notes. I've gone through them. I have a photocopy of the A5, which has been translated for the House.
It appears that a conspiracy theory is being promoted and fuelled by rumour and innuendo, and that Mr. Estabrooks has been feeding the member from Etobicoke false information regarding my alleged suppression of access to information requests.
Any such allegation is totally false, as is any allegation of inappropriate behaviour by Inspector Cowan.
It is unclear whose interest Mr. Estabrooks is serving in addition to his own. His unwarranted and vindictive attacks on my character and integrity appear to be accepted by the committee without any attempt to require him to adequately prove or substantiate what he is saying.
Sergeant Frizzell.... At the committee meeting on April 7, Sergeant Frizzell stated: “What I found Mrs. George referenced in her letter was that $540,000 had been paid back, plus interest, though Great West Life sent the cheque for $578,000...there's a little thing of a missing $36,000...”.
I think this is the important part, and I particularly want to table this with the committee. What I would like to do is present this, and I have attached it at the end of my statement. I think this is very important for the committee, and I'll stop there.
First of all, we got a cheque for $579,942.48. That amount, when we received the cheque, we credited the pension plan for $540,327.36, which is where it should have been. In addition to that, there was interest: $1,792.21. We also credited the pension account. The other $37,000—it was $37,822.91—that was for GST, and we credited the GST account where it should have been credited.
So I particularly want to emphasize that there is no money missing. It was a transaction that should have been done as we received the cash, and it was done. I think it's an important point, because members of the committee and others outside—not members of the committee, but people—have called about the missing $37,000, and I particularly want to lay on the table that there is no money missing. The $37,000 was always there, and it was credited to the proper account, which was GST.
Thank you very much.
:
I am satisfied with that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
I will now make my opening statement. To begin, I would like to thank committee members for inviting me to testify today, in particular with regard to requests I made under the Access to Information Act.
I have been with the RCMP for 31 years. My rank is that of staff sergeant. For the last 16 years, I was the Division C Staff Relations representative, and I represented regular and civilian members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Quebec, including at the Cornwall detachment in Ontario. I held the same position as Staff Sergeant Ron Lewis before he retired.
Divisional representatives are elected for two or three-year mandates, and since 1990, I was re-elected to this position by either a huge majority or unanimously. The last time the position was opened, I was prevented from putting my name forward because I had sent letters to the Minister of Public Safety, the Honourable Stockwell Day. I tabled with the clerk, in both official languages, the letters I sent to the Minister of Public Safety, the letters of reprisals I received afterwards, as well as the letter ordering me not to put my name forward for the position which I had held for 16 years.
I have also included copies of untranslated letters. I would appreciate it if the clerk could get these letters translated so all committee members can read them.
The irony in all of this is that my problems started, amongst other reasons, when I made an access to information request for the Ottawa police report about the criminal investigation which allegedly had been carried out by the Ottawa police into the actions of certain senior RCMP managers, some of whom have apparently already testified before your committee. I filed other access to information requests on the hiring, by the RCMP, of retired RCMP members as temporary civilian employees immediately after or shortly after they had left the Force.
There is no doubt in my mind that the fact that I made access to information requests and sent letters to the Minister of Public Safety to discuss the problems this committee is examining led to reprisals against me by RCMP members. I was transferred elsewhere as a punishment, and I was not allowed to run for an eighth consecutive term to represent Division C members who, incidentally, have no way of contesting the actions taken against me. Unfortunately for RCMP members, the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada not to hear the appeal of Mr. Robert Reed gives even more powers to senior managers and makes rank and file RCMP members even more vulnerable to reprisals when they denounce alleged wrongdoing by senior managers.
[English]
Before closing my opening statement, I would also like to share with the honourable committee members that actions taken against me also coincide with the outcome of a complaint I had lodged with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages concerning the fact that no simultaneous translation was requested by the head of the labour relations system in the RCMP, known as the DIVREP system, during an official meeting involving all representatives across Canada, the ex-commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Giuliano Zaccardelli, and Madame Barbara George.
I could provide the supporting documentation, complaint, and result to the committee relating to the above subject upon request. I understand that my divisional representative, Staff Sergeant Gaétan Delisle, met with Mrs. Barbara George to intervene in my favour, without results. Furthermore, the present commissioner, who could have rectified this unjust treatment, refused, up to now, to meet with him or me.
[Translation]
Once again, I would like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to assist it in its deliberations. I would now be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity.
In order to provide some insight about me, I was formerly the ethics and integrity adviser for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I retired from the RCMP in November 2003 after serving 35 years. I held the rank of assistant commissioner, and occupied the position of ethics and integrity adviser from February 2002 until my retirement in November 2003. I began my career with the RCMP in Manitoba, and also served in command positions in Ottawa headquarters, Alberta, and the Yukon.
I was approached by former commissioner Zaccardelli to take on the role of ethics adviser and reported directly to him. I was an adviser to the senior executive committee of the RCMP, as well as being the senior officer for internal disclosure on wrongdoing in the workplace in accordance with Treasury Board policy. I viewed my role as a quasi-ombudsperson and routinely dealt with behavioural issues internal to the force. Many of these included issues of harassment, abuse of power and authority, and unethical conduct.
I've been looking forward to appearing before this committee, and will answer to the best of my ability any and all questions you may have. I have some additional comments that I'll save for later, if that's okay.
:
I would like to thank committee members for inviting me to appear. Allow me to introduce myself. I was with the RCMP for over 28 years. I worked mostly in various operational and administrative areas. In 2001, I was promoted to the rank of inspector and transferred to Ottawa. After volunteering for the position in May 2005, I was appointed as the coordinator for access to information and privacy. I remained in that position until I left in February 2007.
As indicated in the backgrounder I gave the clerk, during my time as coordinator, I was faced with a very difficult task because there was far too much work and too few resources. Because of a severe shortage of staff, we simply could not keep up. Every month the backlog of access to information and privacy requests increased. This was due solely to the lack of human resources. It caused me enormous frustration because I could not fulfil my mandate under the two acts.
Since I was the only one who had the authority and delegated powers to carry out my mandate, I was the only person responsible for deciding what information would be released in response to information requests, including the one for the Ottawa Police Service's report, which is of interest to your committee. I would emphasize that as coordinator I was always did my work with conviction, in accordance with the law, and with a strong sense of ethics which I acquired and exercised throughout my long career with the RCMP.
I am aware of the fact that Mr. Estabrooks, who worked for me while I was coordinator, made certain statements when he appeared before your committee on April 30. I strongly object to several things my former colleague insinuated, including two in particular.
First, I do not agree with Mr. Estabrooks when he says that he was removed from the file. As described in my backgrounder, when I took over the file on March 21, 2007, I was only doing my duty as coordinator, which was to do personally what was necessary to ensure that the report would be released, especially after I made a commitment to the Director General of Investigations and Reviews at the Office of the Information Commissioner who had been asking for regular updates for some time.
Since I was the only officer working for the Access to Information and Privacy Directorate, and the person with delegated authority, it was my duty, and mine alone, to work with RCMP managers to deal with the file, to document every decision in case I would have to justify any actions taken, to respond to the pressing questions of Mr. Dupuis, the Director General of Investigations and Revisions at the Office of the Information Commissioner, to make the necessary commitments on behalf of the RCMP and then to finally release the report. That is exactly what I did.
Second, I also object to the fact that Mr. Estabrooks said that Deputy Commissioner Gauvin's involvement in the process represented a breach of ethics. In my opinion, even though it does not happen often, there is nothing to prevent a manager from taking part in the processing of an access to information request involving the RCMP and making recommendations.
RCMP managers have the right, if not the legitimate duty, to speak out in defence of the interest of the public and of the organization when any final decision is being taken by the coordinator to deny access or to release information in full or in part. So there is nothing illegal or unethical about this type of consultation.
However, it is up to the coordinator to take all these considerations into account before deciding to release or withhold information. That is what I did.
Thus I found the insinuations about my professional integrity and sense of ethics to be hurtful and malicious.
Having clarified these points, I would now be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
:
Just to support that, I appreciate the concerns Mr. Williams has raised, and that's why we had a lengthy discussion. To be fair, we had a written request from the Commissioner of the RCMP, who just suggested to us in very polite, respectful language that she felt that these two additional witnesses would be useful and would provide valuable information.
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj had at least three or four others. He had given us a heads-up on that earlier and we deferred it to the steering committee. We didn't want to just outright deny him an opportunity, given that we're trying to go subject by subject.
So there we were with the dilemma, and rather than split it into two or three meetings, we said that we'd let the original witness list invitees come forward, be sworn in, and take their places. Those other witnesses will be there, will be recognized, and are available to members to call.
The chair and the steering committee are trying to respect that so we don't have what we had last time, which was all those people crowded around. That didn't work. Really, all we were left with was to say to the commissioner and to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, “Absolutely no, too bad, artificial deadline, we can't do it”, or have two meetings, or go the way we've gone.
What we decided, to be fair to the commissioner and to be fair to our committee colleague, was that we would allow them to be in the audience and come up as necessary for committee members.
That's how it came about.
In terms of your second question on, I believe you said, travel claims, one day, across my desk came a pile about two feet high of all the travel of Mr. Zaccardelli. I believe it was travel and hospitality. I was asked to look through it to see if I had any problems with releasing this. I looked at it and said, “Before we release it, we'd better go through the financial system and make sure that it agrees with the financial system, that all the transactions here are in the financial system. Otherwise, somebody will come along and say, well, there's another entry here with no claim.” That was my only concern.
We did verify them, and then, as I understand, it went back to ATIP and was released.
:
First, I want to point out that this document has a preface. On March 21, 2006, as Mr. Gauvin mentioned a few moments ago, I received a memo indicating that personal information and certain people were under investigation, and that the Ottawa Police Service's report should not be released.
I immediately advised Mr. Gauvin's assistant that this would simply not happen and that if he had any concerns, he could raise them with me, that we would discuss them, but that the report would not be released. Furthermore, I had given my word to the Director General of the Office of the Information Commissioner that the report would be released. For several months, the report had been stuck in legal services and there no end in sight.
A few moments after Mr. McConnell, Mr. Gauvin's assistant, left, I received a voice mail message telling me that the report should not be released, period, and that they would not do as I had suggested.
About an hour later, I received the memo from Mr. Estabrooks which is at issue here. I basically told him that I disagreed with him, that Mr. Gauvin's recommendations were just that, recommendations, and that I intended to do my job. That is what I told Mr. Gauvin. I immediately put the report in the file to be processed because, as coordinator, I was accountable to Mr. Dupuis from the Office of the Information Commissioner. In addition, he had been on my case every week for six months. It was not in my interest not to include the document in the file, because I wanted to do my job to the best of my abilities despite the obstacles which stood in my way.
:
Yes, sir. Even though I was a divisional representative for 16 years, there is always a certain fear, if I can say so, in stepping forward to express yourself freely, even in this democracy, especially in a paramilitary organization such as the RCMP. There are repercussions, and we see them every day happening to our members.
We have a lot of members who have unfortunately been hurt on the field. My fellow DSRRP members, who represent all those members on a day-to-day basis, know about this. They know about the harassment going on. They know about the sexual harassment and all those anomalies going on in the field. They know about the cover-ups going on in the field, and they're afraid to come forward.
I wanted to assure myself of this degree of protection because I'm exposing myself by coming here to express myself freely to this committee. I have the same feeling as the members in the field. The only thing is, I have 31 years of background behind me. But I still have a way to go in the organization, and I want to do it with pride. I want this organization to have the same motto and really live up to its motto, Maintiens le droit, which is indicated on each and every member's badge. That's what I want for the future of this organization.
I was listening to Mr. Lewis's comments earlier. He mentioned not having any difficulties. I'll leave it to the transcripts, but I understand that he testified previously before this committee and expressed a lot of frustration about obtaining information and documentation, and about actions by upper management personnel. I was sitting at the back and heard Mr. Lewis mention that.
He talks about the DSRRP being independent, but I'm sorry, it isn't independent. It is a program of the RCMP under the responsibility of the Commissioner of the RCMP, who has the sole responsibility under section 5 of the act for all the programs and their application, including DSRRP.
:
Sir, you're asking me to answer questions, and basically with the questions you're asking me you're taking things here and there to try to get the answers that you probably want to hear.
What I'm going to tell you is that on March 21, when the report came back from Mr. Gauvin's office.... And I have not in any way intimated that Sergeant Estabrooks' or Sergeant Black's work was in question at all. In fact, I didn't even have a chance to look at it. It came back on the 21st with the recommendation that it be released. I told Mr. McConnell right away that with this report we'll vet whatever needs to be vetted, but there's no way it's not going out. So as I stated before, I got a phone call saying that, no, we're not going to participate in that exercise.
I immediately typed a memo, which I took to Mr. McConnell personally, telling him, “Here's the conversation we've had, here's the choice you're making, and there's no way this report is not going out. I have to do my job.” The following day, I approached my assistant commissioner, Mr. Corrigan, to tell him what had happened. I told him there was no way this report was not going out, that I was going to do my work and that was that.
On the 22nd, at some time later during the day, I was advised that Assistant Commissioner Corrigan had come to get the reports and send them back to legal services. But we had made a commitment. I had made a commitment to the Information Commissioner's office on March 24 that this report was going out. Now this report was being taken away and sent back to legal services for a second time. So I asked legal services when the report was coming back. I was told on the 29th. The 24th was a Friday, and the 29th was the following Wednesday. I thought, well, a few more days is not going to do much.
On the 29th of March until April 4, we moved the entire section, unplugged computers, unplugged phones, etc., so basically for five days or better, there was really no follow-up on my part. There basically was no work done by anybody in the section.
On April 5, which was the following Wednesday, I got a call from Mr. Dan Dupuis from the Information Commissioner's office, basically not very pleased that this report was not being released and asking me who he had to subpoena to come to his office to testify as to what was happening with the report. I told Mr. Dupuis that I would find out who he should send the subpoenas to, their availability, and I would get back to him. Mr. Dupuis was quite adamant that he wanted somebody to appear before him downtown by the following day, which was Thursday.
So this went back and forth. Mr. Dupuis followed up with an e-mail basically giving me a piece of his mind, so to speak. I turned around and sent an e-mail to Mr. Corrigan, to the lawyer who was handling the file in legal services, to Mr. Gauvin, and I copied also Mr. McConnell to be sure that Mr. Gauvin was receiving the message telling them that they were being asked to come downtown to explain what was happening with the report.
It wasn't ten minutes later that Mr. Gauvin's assistant was at my door and waving his finger at me, saying what's this, that Mr. Gauvin had nothing to do with this decision and it was my decision all along to make. I told Mr. McConnell about the memo of the 21st and said that it certainly was not the impression I was under. And secondly, I noted that I had asked them to participate in the vetting of the report to indicate any concerns they may have had, and they had refused to do that. So now he was telling me that it was my decision to make all along. I said, “Fine, but just keep that in mind in the future, it's my decision”, and that was that.
I called Mr. Dupuis back, and Mr. Dupuis agreed that if I could provide the report to him or to the requester by Monday, he would forgo calling us to the Office of the Information Commissioner.
As a result, I called the lawyer from legal services who was handling the file and I basically told him what was happening and that the report had to go out on Monday or else. I advised my assistant commissioner what was happening. He was entirely behind me. He said, “Whatever you need to do, you go ahead and so it.” As a result, on Friday afternoon I sat down with the lawyer from legal services and we went through the report and compared what we had done on each other. By that time, I had been at ATIP quite a few months. I had a very good idea of what I was doing. I had seen dozens of reports go across my desk, so I was not....
This was a 51-page report, nothing too complex. We sat together and we went through the report. On Monday we finalized the final release of the report. I was supposed to give it to Mr. Dupuis on Tuesday morning. On the 11th, he cancelled the appointment we had and he asked me to show up on the 12th, which I did. I gave him the report. On the 13th I came back to the office. I met with Mr. Estabrooks and the analyst who was working for him. I said, “Here's the release package. Can you ensure that it's mailed out to the requester?” That's exactly what I did.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have to say, I'm confused. Here we have a report by the Ottawa city police, assisted by the RCMP, into the pension plan, which is the money belonging to all the members. This thing has gone from legal opinion to legal opinion up to the commissioner or assistant commissioner. It has gone to the Information Commissioner. It has gone everywhere. It has been classified as secret. It has been removed from the files. It has been wiped off the computer. And this is just the report about the pension plan of the RCMP. Now, this boggles my mind. I just can't even follow how this thing is moving around.
Anyway, the thing I wanted to clear up, Mr. Chairman, is that Mr. Gauvin, in his opening statement, said: “As Chief Financial Officer, I have no line authority for the RCMP's Access to Information and Privacy Branch.” Then he goes on a couple of paragraphs later and says that he confirms that a request to review the file was sent to his office, and so on, and he started to review these files.
Mr. Gauvin, first of all, are you clear that you had no line authority on access to information?
:
I explained that before, I think.
There was an agreement made between the insurance committee, which was chaired by a deputy and the CHRO, I believe, at the time--or maybe he was just a member of it.... It was chaired by the deputy commissioner for centre region. They agreed that because the insurance recipients--40% of them were pensioners.... They made an agreement between the two of them that 40% of those costs would be charged to pension. They actually charged it there.
Now, we didn't know about that until we actually got an invoice that was required to be paid. They didn't tell anybody of this arrangement. All of a sudden we got an invoice. We looked at it and said, “What do we pay this against? This doesn't make sense.” So we looked for a contract or an MOU or something. Finally we found a letter that had been agreed to by the CHRO and the chairman of the insurance committee. Then we found an agreement with Great-West Life that had been signed by Great-West and Morneau Sobeco and signed off by Dominic Crupi. Then we looked at and said we can't charge it.... It doesn't make sense to leave this in pension, because insurance has nothing to do with pension. So immediately we took action to take it out of pension, because it shouldn't have been charged there.
We were left with two alternatives. Where do we charge it? We can charge it to appropriations or we can charge it to the insurance premiums. The first option for the commissioner and myself was to charge it to appropriations.
:
No; initially it was charged to pension.
So then we got a cheque back from Morneau to take it out of pension because it shouldn't have been charged there in the first place. So we credited the pension, as it should be, and then we had no place to charge it except for life insurance premiums, because in the meantime we also got a legal opinion—in fact, we got two legal opinions, one from Treasury Board and one from our own legal adviser—that said we cannot charge it to appropriations because the RCMP does not have authority to operate a life insurance plan.
Just to finalize—and I know it's taking a few minutes—now HR is doing a whole lot of work with the Treasury Board to determine what we're going to do with this in the future. Obviously, RCMP members have to have insurance. They're in a dangerous profession. So we have to decide now where we go in the future, and get authority, first of all, to operate this, and secondly, where we charge it.
:
—if this point is not made.
That is, we have these documents. I understand the clerk got them only at the last minute, so I don't blame him at all for getting them to us a few minutes later. But the testimony that Mr. Girard made earlier on would lead a lot of people listening to it, without access to these documents, to believe that his inability to present as a candidate for the staff relations association was in some way linked to this pension and insurance issue.
These letters, just for the record, indicate that it has nothing to do with the pension and insurance issue. There seems to be some considerable controversy over whether RCMP members should unionize. His organization or his lobby group seems to express the view that they should. I'm not really of a strong opinion either way; it's not my role. I just want to make it clear that this individual was not forbidden, according to this information, from running because of anything related to the pension or insurance scandal that we're debating and discussing here, but rather over some other entirely extraneous dispute over whether or not RCMP members should unionize and whether or not he should be allowed to advocate for their unionization.
I think it's an important distinction, and I just wanted to put that on the record.
Thank you.
:
Mr. Chair, I think you're misquoting me. I think the island comment was related to Deputy Commissioner Barb George and her conversation with Fraser Macaulay.
I did, however, have several conversations, over time, with the commissioner regarding both Mr. Lewis's concerns and Fraser Macaulay's issues. Indeed, I believe, if memory serves, that I forwarded a copy of an e-mail to the commissioner that I received from Denise Revine.
It became clear to me that things weren't progressing well, but as soon as the audit was called, I felt that we'd gone to the extent we could and that we should allow that audit to continue. The audit would then follow....
The process, for example, is that if you call for an internal audit--and I worked in audit many years ago, but I believe the principles still apply--you do the audit, and as soon as you determine that any criminality is involved or that there are code of conduct violations, you suspend the audit and proceed with the criminal investigation.
So the audit was ongoing. I had satisfied myself, certainly, that the auditors were going to be doing everything they possibly could to get to the bottom of this. I know that both Fraser and Denise had reservations regarding that, and we met with the auditors to spell out what those concerns would be. I reiterated to the auditors at that point in time that if I were dissatisfied with the results, I would then go outside to the Public Service Integrity Office, because as a senior officer for internal disclosure on wrongdoing, it was my obligation to do so.
Now, I didn't see the audit report when it was completed, and I was gone from the organization by the time the Ottawa Police Service investigation was completed.
:
“What the Public Accounts Committee is presently dealing with is a result of RCMP culture and behaviour. The unethical behaviour of certain individuals created this situation, in my view, because of the phenomenon of Noble Cause Corruption.” Noble cause corruption is simply the belief that the end justifies the means. “When employees do not see people held accountable for unethical behaviour, or they witness unethical behaviour that goes unchecked, they then sometimes begin to model the behaviour. Of note to this Committee is that in August of 2005, I returned on a personal services contract to examine RCMP Corruption.”
At that point in time, the file, Project Probity, as the Ottawa city police investigation was named--I made reference to it in that short 42-day contract I had.... I suggested to the deputy commissioner in charge of human resources, the chief human resources officer, Barb George--as well, I had discussions with the officer in charge of the criminal intelligence directorate about my project--that they look at that file as it related to corruption.
To move on, “I want to point out to this Committee that the actions of Ms. Revine are to be commended. She had the ethical courage to bring this matter to the attention of C/Supt. Fraser Macaulay despite the fact that she knew that she was opening a pandora's box. She is not a 'Whistleblower'.”
I know that she's been referred to as a whistle-blower in this committee and certainly in the media. She is not a whistle-blower, in my view. She's a dedicated public servant who did her job.
“The RCMP should be extremely proud of her dedication in this matter. The actions of Fraser Macaulay, Ron Lewis and Mike Frizzell should also be commended. Both C/Supt. Macaulay and S/Sgt. Mike Frizzell have weathered criticism and even disdain for their tenacity. That, Mr. Chair, is just fundamentally wrong. I find the behaviour of some senior managers, from whom you've heard testimony, very disturbing. Had this matter been dealt with appropriately, at the outset, in accordance with the RCMP's values of Honesty, Integrity“--and professionalism--“Compassion, Accountability, and Respect none of us would be sitting here today.”
As I indicated before, on the 21st I was told that this report should not be released, for the reasons we heard. My comment to Mr. McConnell was that there was no way this report was not going to be released; that we were taking into account the concerns they had, but that the report had to go.
I described the subsequent steps. On the fifth, when push came to shove, so to speak, when subpoenas were being issued or there was talk about their being issued from the Information Commissioner's office, I sent an e-mail to Mr. Gauvin with a copy to Mr. McConnell to be sure Mr. Gauvin got it, and that's when Mr. McConnell came up wondering what this was all about.
This was my decision all along. Theirs were only recommendations, and it was my decision to make, after all. I'm sorry, I had not felt at that time that it was my decision to make. I was intent on making it, but I had to take proper steps to be—
:
Well, you're entitled to disagree.
What I'm saying is that every organization is subject to the same frailties, I suppose, of human behaviour. The RCMP has had issues around abuse of power and authority. It's had issues around harassment. I've dealt with many of those in my 21 months as ethics adviser, but I was also a commanding officer of a division and an officer commanding a subdivision and an officer in charge of several branches. I can tell you, you can resolve issues very informally if you have good communication skills and a willingness to do that. I'm not convinced, in this particular instance, that the issues brought forward by Ms. Revine were dealt with in that fashion. In regard to the individual she was reporting—that being Mr. Crupi—and the irregularities, and so forth, she felt she was out there on her own, with the exception of Mr. Macaulay.
We shouldn't feel that way. If you feel that way in the environment you're working in, then, damn it, there's something the matter with the environment, there's something the matter with the individuals who are placed in positions of power, like Mr. Crupi. How did that come to pass? Why didn't anyone ever recognize the fact that the man was a tyrant? It came down to the fact he was marching to the drum of Mr. Ewanovich, who wanted to advance HR programs, and as a consequence of that they used whatever moneys were available. In this case, they took fence money from the pension fund and 2020, and used it to move forward certain programs. You can't tell me that Mr. Ewanovich was unaware of that. He had conversations with Mr. Crupi on a regular basis. Did the commissioner know? I'm not sure, but I know that I had conversations with the commissioner relative to that particular issue, the issue of behaviour as it related to both Crupi and Ewanovich. I can go into great detail, if you would like, on some of those conversations.
Did I answer your question?
Now, I'm in a real mushy area with some of your answers in a certain area here, and I'd like some clarity, so I'm going to give you some room to clarify this.
In one breath, you told me that you'd told this committee that Crupi was into Public Works, and I didn't really have to worry about that because Public Works would take care of it. At another hearing, you told us you had cancelled Dominic Crupi's ability to contract, and you really didn't know he was doing these things.
Now, which is it? Is it that you were confident that Public Works would have the checks and balances to control Mr. Crupi, or was it the answer you gave before, that you had cancelled his contract and privileges and you just didn't know that he was doing this? It was only $6 million. You knew all about the $580,000 and all the charging and re-entries, and so on, but $6 million could flow right through Mr. Crupi in contracts to this network he had created, and you didn't....
What's your answer to that?
:
Can I expand on that for one second?
Mr. Poilievre gave me way too much credit. I didn't really double the budget of the organization. I was certainly at the centre of the transactions, but there were a whole lot of other people involved. The fact that certain events happened, such as 9/11, obviously helped. It was not a good event, but it certainly increased the budget of the organization, as well as contracting police, and we got a lot of money. Anyway, no, I don't agree that it was the right thing to do.
If I can say one other thing, HR had a pretty big budget. On top of that, we also gave them additional funding every year because they had lots of issues. How they used that money was up to them, but I don't think it would have been fair just to say a position is cancelled versus another.
:
I believe this particular situation was the worst-case scenario.
I had a meeting with a lady--and I'm not going to mention her name here--but she worked in that environment with Mr. Crupi, and she was frightened of that man.
You have to understand my position as the ethics adviser. I was on the main floor of headquarters building and you would actually see people walk back and forth in front of the office until there was nobody in the hall, and then they would duck into my office. So there was a stigma attached to going to see the ethics adviser.
This poor woman agonized over coming to see me, but she did not want me to intervene, because if I was unsuccessful her life was going to continue to be miserable. The helplessness that you see in employees.... And believe me, I had a box of Kleenex in my office and I used to tell people that it was there to get rid of my Nicorette gum, so that I didn't put it through the wash at home, but it was there for the individuals who came in to see me. More often than not I had people break down in tears over issues that were occurring in their work environments.
I reported that. I spoke to the commissioner. I spoke to the deputy commissioners. God, I spoke to everybody I could speak to regarding the behaviour, and no one was held accountable. I was not in the position to hold people accountable. I was there to report upon wrongdoing. And in so reporting that wrongdoing, people ought to have been held accountable.
It went to a point that the commissioner spoke to me one day and said: “John, some of the COs and the deputies think you're being involved in too much, and they really don't understand this role of the senior officer for internal wrongdoing in the workplace.” I said: “Commissioner, it's not from a lack of communicating, because I've spoken at every new officers' course that comes out. I've spoken at SMT. I've spoken at SEC. I've sent out communiqués on the role of senior officers. So if they're not understanding it, there's something wrong.”
At any rate, I go on.
:
Okay. Thank you for that. And I was allowing you to go on.
I'm going to mention a couple of things. I know I'm going to run out of time before I'm finished, so I'm just going to run like hell.
I want to just say this to Mr. Estabrooks--and he may get a chance to comment. This potential delay, if the delay was purposeful in terms of the legal things and everything, if it's ultimately proven by the public inquiry, which I believe still will happen, that this was a delay, it could play into the statute of limitations issue we ran into, where people who were found to be held accountable couldn't be because the time limitations had expired. So it might be interesting to see whether or not there is a linkage to some deliberate ragging the puck, and then something that was key in all of this that just happened to turn on a statute of limitations issue.
Mr. Lavoie, what is your understanding, sir, of what happened on the day Mr. Estabrooks is talking about, when Mr. Gauvin's assistant went in? What is your understanding of what took place?
:
Chair, I seek a little guidance from you.
Given the discussion that we got talking about with Mr. Spice—which was very important, and we didn't know whether we were going to get him back, but I feel we spent some time there—we really didn't, in my opinion, deal with all the issues that have to do with what the focus of this particular hearing was going to be. And that was what happened inside the secure area and the allegations that documents are missing as a result of an executive assistant to a deputy commissioner appearing somewhere where it's questionable whether or not he ought to have been there, etc., etc. We don't have that particular EA here, and I think that was part of the issue Mr. Wrzesnewskyj raised about who got invited and who didn't. I don't have the name at my fingertips; I apologize. Mr. Estabrooks was away that day, but the staff person who was there when the EA went through--we should hear from that person.
That whole issue is really what this was about, and our serious concern is that the allegations, if true, mean that actions were being taken, even as we meet now, in an attempt to cover up. And if that's not what happened, then we need to dispel those allegations and take that pressure off and not just leave that cloud there.
So I'm in your hands, Chair. I know that time is a priceless commodity, but we really did not get to the essence of what we meant to today, through no fault of the committee. What do we do? Where does that leave us, Chair? I don't want to leave these questions unanswered.
:
May I just have one moment, please?
I'd like to talk to this committee just very briefly about the whole issue of this investigation that took place by the Ottawa city police and the response by the crown attorney.
It was indicated that the phrase “no reasonable prospective conviction”, as I understand it, was the reason that nothing was done. And I hope—and I'm sure that there are lawyers around this table who are far more knowledgeable than I—that does not mean that a criminal offence did not occur, merely that the evidence does not support a charge. So further investigation might well have brought the level of the evidence up to a point where a charge could be laid. And I don't know, I'm speculating, but I would suggest that's something this committee ought to think about.
I want to offer you a definition of police corruption, and this is in the documentation that I provided to you. It's important to hear this. When we looked at the RCMP internal corruption, the project that I was brought back to work on, we developed or through consensus came up with this definition of corruption: “Police corruption is any illegal activity or misconduct involving the use of occupational power for personal, group, or organizational gain.” That's a widely accepted definition, and it was by Sayed and Bruce in 1998. But I think it's important, if you're looking at corruption, that you keep in mind that definition and that you also look at the whole notion of “noble cause corruption”—the end justifying the means—in your deliberations.
I've come a long way for this, and I don't know that I'm coming back, so lastly, Mr. Chair, in my humble opinion, the RCMP requires oversight as it relates to complaints about senior managers, EX levels to the commissioner. There is a need for an ombuds role specific to the RCMP to ensure a level of accountability. And additionally, I believe that the RCMP Act has to be amended to increase the limitation of action on misconduct. If we don't do that.... That's been a problem for many, many years; it's not new. But those two things, whether it's an ombudsperson or some form of oversight committee, it has to follow through.
Thank you very much, and I apologize for taking too much time.