Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 6th, 2007

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Good. Thank you for the fulsome answer.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Ebbs.

Mr. McGuinty, four minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have a specific question I will put to Mr. Brown tomorrow, but I'd like your feedback.

In his report on page 47, he talks about rebuilding the trust through his task force on governance and cultural change. In his report up to page 47, the whole question of cultural change is almost like a golden thread that weaves its way through the report. It goes from the personality of the former commissioner all the way through the culture of the organization and its paramilitary roots, etc. But in his recommendations on establishing the task force, which I assume have been picked up by the government and have been funded by the government, he talks about there being “a great deal of work to be done to develop an appropriate governance structure and to create an appropriate culture”. Now, I would assume one of the challenges in terms of the culture at the RCMP is its secrecy, its lack of questioning, its requirement to take authority at face value.

Then he goes on to say that we ought to create this task force, and we'll have the RCMP and the public service and outside experts, and the chair of the task force himself would be independent. And here's the kicker: “The Task Force should deliberate privately in order to encourage full frank discussion.” Now, I read that and I ask, why would anybody or any government in their right mind create a task force that is dealing with secrecy and hold all deliberations in secret?

Does this make any sense to either of you sitting on the panel today?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Any response?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Here's the question. There are 26,000 members of the RCMP watching these proceedings. It's amazing what you can do with cruisers today and cell phones and text messaging. Let's be honest. There are a lot of people counting on this process. They want this thing blown open. We're getting feedback from all sides of the House. They want this opened now. Is it possible to open up if we're going to do this behind closed doors?

[Anne McLellan]

Look, you have both Minister Day and Mr. Brown before you tomorrow. Those are legitimate questions to ask them. The minister put the process in place.

I do, however, think that there are probably reasons, if you were in Mr. Brown's situation, why you might want to conduct at least significant parts of your inquiry in private. You're dealing with cultural issues. These are not quantifiable scientific issues; these are qualitative issues about this organization, and you want people to come forward and be honest about how they see that culture, the problems they've seen in the past with the culture, how they might like to see changes take place in that culture. And Mr. Brown probably has at least some concern about whether you hear as much as you need to, as candidly and frankly as you need to, if this is all televised day after day. You do run the risk of it becoming a bit of a sideshow.

You should ask Mr. Brown the question, but I can understand why he would make the recommendation.

At the end of the day, it is a balance, and the minister and Mr. Brown, the task force chair, have to work that out, just as you work out the terms of reference of a public inquiry. The person who is chairing it won't take the job if he or she believes, after their discussions with the minister and the department, that the terms of reference don't permit them to do what they need to do in the way they need to do it. Mr. Brown and the minister must have talked about why Mr. Brown felt this was appropriate, and the minister must have reasons why he agreed with Mr. Brown that this was the right way to go.

And I respect that process. Having been a minister, I respect the fact that this discussion takes place and they get to decide. Having said that, I don't know why Mr. Brown felt that way initially.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. McGuinty.

Mr. Poilievre, four minutes. That'll conclude the round.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

We recently brought into effect the Federal Accountability Act , one component of which was protection for whistle-blowers. When we were doing that, we actually ensured that there was going to be whistle-blower protection for RCMP personnel. That's now in the statutes. It exists. It's there.

When we were in the process of creating that legislation, we heard testimony from RCMP officials that they needed a separate path for whistle-blower protection that would cause personnel in their organization to go internally first.

Everywhere else in the public service we structured the whistle-blower protection in a way that public servants could go directly to the independent officer of Parliament for both a disclosure and for subsequent protection. But we made an exception in the RCMP because of the unique paramilitary structure, and allowed for them to go through the internal process before going to the independent officer of Parliament.

It's an improvement, because before that there was no whistle-blower protection in law for RCMP personnel, period. However, the more I've gone through this process, the less convinced I am that we--and I mean all of us, because all parties supported that--made the right decision in stipulating that RCMP personnel had to go through an internal process first.

I can't see any reason why RCMP personnel should not have the ability to go straight to the independent Public Service Integrity Officer with their disclosures or with their complaints of bullying. Can any of you persuade me to the contrary, or do you agree?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

What would be the issues that they would want to bring up by way of whistle-blowers?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The act defines whistle-blowing as denunciation of (a) breach of statutes, (b) waste of public funds, (c) public health dangers. There is a whole list of things against which someone can blow the whistle, according to the statutes. So presumably RCMP personnel might find a situation where they would spot such activity on which they would want to blow the whistle.

Do you believe they should be allowed to go straight to the commissioner, or do you think they should have to go through the internal procedures first?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

I can't comment on that, but you asked if at least we could put factors up, and I wouldn't want to weigh.... But normally with agencies such as an intelligence agency or an organization like a police force, you may in fact be carrying out investigations. And the issue they're whistle-blowing on may in fact disclose things dealing with investigations that are going on.

I say that from real experience. I won't get into it here, but it can be that the two are intertwined. So if there was a concern, it might well be the concern that, “Well, if that goes, how public will it get?” as opposed to “Does the individual know what all the facts are so that we can put it into the proper context?” It's the only thing that I've seen in my experience where there was a concern about going to another organization, because in this case it was dealing with the guts of a very highly secret operation that was under way. But as long as the safeguards were there.... But I leave that to--

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

You see, the act really defines wrongdoing very clearly, and it defines it as “breaching statutory law, waste of public funds”. So we're not talking about exposing operational secrets; we're talking about exposing wrongdoing.

Ms. McLellan, do you think that RCMP personnel should have the ability to go straight to this officer of Parliament without exhausting all of the internal procedures first?

[Anne McLellan]

Unlike Mr. Kennedy, I would want to think a lot longer and harder about that, and also listen to and hear from various organizations, including the RCMP, as to the kinds of situations that they feel require a different approach. And then I would want to assess those very carefully to determine whether they had merit or whether it was actually a cover for the fact that they simply wanted to continue a separate process that suited them at a given time. And obviously I can't do that this afternoon.

But I think you raise a very interesting point, and I think it's one that Mr. Brown should probably be looking at when he has the opportunity, to really try to put together all the pieces of review and oversight and protection for those who are whistle-blowers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That, colleagues and witnesses, concludes the second round, the final round. I want to thank everyone for their attendance here today.

Before we adjourn, I'm going to ask if Chair Ebbs or Chair Kennedy or Ms. McLellan have any concluding remarks they want to make to the committee.

Chair Ebbs, is there anything you want to add?

[Catherine Ebbs]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Chair Kennedy, is there anything you want to add?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

Actually, I want to thank you for your engagement and interest in the topic. I appreciated appearing here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Ms. McLellan, is there anything you want to add today?

[Anne McLellan]

Like Mr. Kennedy, I just want to say thank you. I'm always happy to return to Ottawa and get a sense of perhaps how little has changed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Do you miss us?

[Anne McLellan]

All the time, all the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I do want to thank you very much.

As a number of witnesses said this afternoon, this is part of a process. We're all very much part of that process.

We are going to break for 10 minutes, and then we will resume in camera at 4:10 p.m.

[Proceedings continue in camera]