He did.
Evidence of meeting #53 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #53 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:50 p.m.
Criminal Operations Officer, Winnipeg, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes. On Monday. This was enough, as far as he was concerned. Based on the previous actions of Sergeant Frizzell and his interrelations with Inspector Roy on avenues of investigation, he wanted it dealt with. It was over.
My understanding at that time was that the investigation was over; it was wrapping up. All that was left to be done was the packaging up of e-mails and those sorts of things.
We don't hand out written orders every day. I don't come into work in the morning and have my list of orders.... A written order to someone is a very serious thing within the RCMP. It shows that you haven't followed verbal direction and it is the next step to “we've got to do something more with this person”.
I didn't have enough from the conversation I had with Deputy George and the confirmation I had with Inspector Roy that the harassment--the obsessive and aggressive behaviour--was truly substantiated so that I could go ahead and demand Sergeant Frizzell take what's called a “special medical assessment” from health services. If I had felt in my brief time I had to deal with it that it was there, I could have gone to health services and demanded it.
I made a draft of the initial order, because there is no template for them. I had to make it up on the go and spit out in the order what he needed to stop doing based on what I had learned, what he needed to continue doing, and then that he needed to go on.
That's why there is some confusion around what's in the order and what some people think should have been in the order. It's because that was developed after I had the discussion with Assistant Commissioner George and after I then had a discussion with Assistant Commissioner Gork, who said, “Make it a written order. Make it happen. Have it done by Monday.” Then Inspector Roy and I went through the details of what does he need to do to finish off and to put what he was supposed to be doing to bed, and a day that was applicable for him to go back to his old post. I think someone else has testified that he had been gone for a year and there wouldn't be a seat for him, so I had to talk to the receiving inspector to have him there.
Most of the conversation I had with Sergeant Frizzell during the serving of the order was stuff that I couldn't refute. I didn't know the investigation. So his complaints of not being heard, not being listened to, being stymied or turned back and no one wanting to listen to him, were what I believed at the time something like having tunnel vision, whatever, on the file and sort of substantiating what other people were saying.
But I was not in a position to second-guess all those things. That was why the order was written as it was by me, that Assistant Commissioner Gork had ordered these things. For the order to be lawful, it had to have grounds to it. I wasn't in a position to contradict the legal stuff or the investigative avenues on the investigation, because I wasn't supposed to know that. That's why the order was written as it was, that was Assistant Commissioner Gork was making it and I'm doing it on his behalf and this is what must be done, blah, blah, blah, in a step.
I hope that clarifies it as quickly as possible.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you very much. Therefore, Deputy Commissioner George was aware of the fact that the order was being served, why it was being served, on what grounds it was being served, and so on?
5:55 p.m.
Criminal Operations Officer, Winnipeg, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Not until after the service. There is a timeline in there that is slightly confusing. One of the e-mail messages that Deputy George refers to is an e-mail message at 11:23 asking for the follow-up of what's happening.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I thought you told me you had discussions with Deputy Commissioner George about removing Staff Sergeant Frizzell and then you went and implemented that.
5:55 p.m.
Criminal Operations Officer, Winnipeg, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
No, I had discussions with her about the complaints, about the facts. Sorry.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Okay, you had discussions with her about the complaints—
5:55 p.m.
Criminal Operations Officer, Winnipeg, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
—that resulted in the removal order. Your discussions with her about the complaint were before you issued the removal order.
5:55 p.m.
Criminal Operations Officer, Winnipeg, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Okay. To be very clear, Deputy George had no role to play in the building of that order—
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I wasn't worrying about the role. I said you had a discussion with her regarding the complaints, and from there, at a subsequent time, an order was issued to remove Staff Sergeant Frizzell.
5:55 p.m.
Criminal Operations Officer, Winnipeg, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Okay, thank you.
There are clear rules within the RCMP when a harassment allegation charge is being made against a member. There are clear rules as to how that shall be disposed of. Were these rules even instigated or ever followed for Staff Sergeant Frizzell when you had this allegation of harassment laid against him?
5:55 p.m.
Criminal Operations Officer, Winnipeg, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Not to my knowledge. The complaint was referred to as borderline harassment. The problem in this particular situation was we have an RCMP member investigating other RCMP members during this investigation.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Chief Superintendent Macaulay, you were also mentioned in Mr. Rogerson's report. As far as it pertains to you, do you agree with what he said?
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Staff Sergeant Frizzell, I think you were also mentioned in Mr. Rogerson's report. As far as it pertains to you, do you have any disagreement? Do you agree with what he said?
5:55 p.m.
Staff Sergeant, Strategic and Operational Support, National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I have no dispute, no.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
No dispute whatsoever.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Macaulay, Ms. Revine said that when you were talking to her you said, “Mr. Ewanovich is coming after you next.” Do you agree that you would have said that?
5:55 p.m.
Chief Superintendent, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes, I told her, “They're coming, and you'll be next.”
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Okay, “you'll be next”.
Mr. Estabrooks, you said it was highly unusual for people named in an access to information request that was going to be released to review the document before it was released. Did the people whose names were in there make any suggestions for changes to the ATIP before it was released?
5:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I believe Deputy Gauvin had in a memo.... A memo was written to Superintendent Lavoie with opinions on what should be released and what shouldn't be. That's why I had replied and was getting frustrated with the whole situation.
6 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
So Assistant Commissioner Gauvin actually made some suggestions about changing the ATIP release, even though he was named in the ATIP himself?