Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 6th, 2007

[Paul E. Kennedy]

Obviously you're referring to the task that I think Mr. Brown has been assigned, which is to come up with some type of governance structure.

I think we're dealing with multiple things when we deal with an organization such as a police force. Through the history of the country, which obviously comes out of the British tradition, the Attorney General function and the policing function are recognized as having a special status in law in terms of the independence that we expect to flow from them, and certainly in my more than 33 years in public safety issues, every minister I've dealt with has been cognizant of the need to maintain the integrity of that function.

That having been said, you can still have a number of structures in place that give the public the assurance it needs, because the reality is that public expectations have changed over the years and are very high today. The function we provide in terms of a public thing is that a complaint allows us to go in and look at it. Separate from that is an issue of governance. There may be things that don't fall within my mandate in terms of review, nor within Ms. Ebbs's mandate in terms of review, but those go to how the force is managed. There are decisions there that clearly would be of interest to a manager but would also be of interest to a minister. There's nothing wrong. Other police forces have boards of governance in place that people report up to. Municipal police forces go up to boards that are separate from the city council, and they have mixed memberships on them, so you can do things like that.

I would just point out, though, from my own experience, that it is a touchstone and hopefully remains a touchstone in Canada that politicians do recognize a distinction in terms of the independence of the police. That independence, though, goes to whom to investigate and when to investigate in respect of what. So it's not as if the police force is autonomous in all regards; it goes to the discharge of its function, which is an investigative function.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Back in July when your predecessor--I believe it was your predecessor, Shirley Heafey--was asked by journalists about the appointment of Mr. Elliott, she had some pretty pointed remarks. Let me read a comment she made to the press. She told The New York Times:

The arm's-length distance that has been such a problem for the past few years and that is supposed to exist between the RCMP and the government has just been shortened to the point of non-existence...

Do you have any comments on whether you hold the same point of view? Are there any comments you'd like to make about your predecessor's views on this new appointment?

[Paul E. Kennedy]

Well, I think Madam Heafey can obviously articulate for herself what motivated her to say that.

I have known Mr. Elliott in a professional capacity, and I don't expect him to be other than a professional in terms of the discharge of his duties.

My job with the review agency is to bring it to the public's attention, as well to his attention and the minister's, if I find anything that is untoward.

I think Mr. Elliott is in the same position as every one of us is in: we have a public trust to fulfill, and we have to satisfy the public on a daily basis that we're credible in terms of how we do it. That's the same burden Mr. Elliott has. So we'll give him his opportunity. But my job is to be vigilant, and I'm vigilant.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Monsieur Laforest, huit minutes.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Ebbs, you are the chair of the RCMP External Review Committee. You said in your presentation that you had not dealt with the case involving the pension and insurance plan. The investigation into that plan is the subject of our meeting today.

Under the present structure, it is the commissioner who decides whether or not to refer a case to you for your review. In the case that we are dealing with, Commissioner Zaccardelli was briefed about the situation on several occasions and did not accept the accumulation of arguments that could have led to the process moving faster. So the cases of Sergeant Frizzell and Mr. Macaulay, who were demoted or transferred, were certainly not referred to you, nor the case of Ms. Revine, who was declared surplus. You were not able to consider these cases because the system requires the commissioner to refer a case to you. For a system that is supposed to protect members, I find that a little peculiar.

Would you say that the system should operate differently? We know that your organization was not able to defend those people. Do you think that we should have another mechanism?

[Catherine Ebbs]

First of all, it is true that it is the commissioner's responsibility to refer cases to the committee. But in fact, the act specifies which cases the commissioner must refer. That is how it actually works. Our committee is a tribunal...

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Should the act be amended in order to protect people in situations like these?

[Catherine Ebbs]

As my colleague has just mentioned, perhaps the working group should look at that question. With regard to our mandate, I can only speak about actual cases. We are involved with disciplinary cases at the appeal level only. As you said, since none of the cases in Mr. Brown's report dealt with discipline, they were not referred to the committee.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

In one sense, that is because the commissioner did not want to.

[Catherine Ebbs]

The other aspect of our mandate is to look at grievance cases. Grievances can be filed by members for a number of reasons. We also review grievances.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

As I understand it, that can be done without the commissioner requesting it.

[Catherine Ebbs]

For grievances filed at the second level, the act specifies five categories of grievances that the commissioner must refer to the committee.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you. We do not have much time, so I am going to put my next question to Ms. McLellan.

You were the minister responsible for the RCMP for several years. If you look at the state of affairs at the time, and at what is happening now, you will recall the Maher Arar affair, Air India, the incompetence in the Airbus inquiry, a kind of RCMP interference during the 2005 federal election campaign, investigations that were never finished, the scandal surrounding the Minister of Human Resources Development, the sponsorship scandal, and now the fraud involving the RCMP's pension and insurance plan.

Do you not have the impression that the whole thing is falling apart? I do not want to put those words in your mouth, but that is the distinct impression that the public has at the moment. Would a public inquiry not allow us to find out everything that really went on? We are finding out about one problem after another; dig around and you find monkey business and problems all over the place. I think that the public is losing confidence in the RCMP. Some people say so openly. I think that a public inquiry would let us really understand the situation and would rebuild the trust of Canadians. We all suspect that there are other problems, but we cannot quite put our finger on them.

[Anne McLellan]

You make a very important point, that public confidence in the RCMP is absolutely key to its ability to carry out its important policing and law enforcement functions in Canadian society.

I have been on record in a number of different contexts that I see the public inquiry as an extraordinary vehicle that should not easily be ordered or taken up by governments, because I think sometimes governments can offload their own issues around political accountability to a public inquiry, if you like to get them off the government's agenda and into a venue where in fact usually a judicial officer, or an officer with certain exceptional powers, is allowed to do his or her work without comment on the part, one would hope, of either government or opposition. So as I said, I've been on record; I think public inquiries can play an important role in getting to the bottom of matters.

Certainly when Paul Martin was Prime Minister, he specifically asked that I get to the bottom of what happened to Maher Arar, because there were so many conflicting and incomplete statements and rumours and things happening. So in that case, but only after a very thorough review of other alternatives, did I and my then colleague Minister of Justice Cotler conclude that the public inquiry was actually the right vehicle, and the only vehicle in the context of that case, by which you could get to the bottom of what happened.

I think it depends on the situation, and it depends on the minister recommending to his cabinet colleagues as to whether he or she believes it is a situation of such sufficient complexity, ambiguity, conflict in terms of the facts and other things—

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Were you still the minister?

[Anne McLellan]

Pardon?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Were you still the minister? You say that it depends on the situation.

[Anne McLellan]

I have read the Brown report, and Mr. Brown recommends a task force to look at cultural and management issues of the RCMP. He is now presently chair of that task force. He is doing his work. I think that it behooves all of us at this point to permit Mr. Brown to do his work, to complete his work, and let's see what he provides not only government and you, but the Canadian public and the RCMP most importantly, in terms of advice around management issues.

The force is a dynamic organism, it changes over years, and therefore one shouldn't be surprised at all that perhaps some of the management practices that existed 10 years ago may not be relevant in the world in which they operate today, especially after 9/11.

So for me, public inquiries should not be easily ordered. There are circumstances in which they are required, I believe, but I think it's up to each minister and each government in the situation before them to make that determination, and then to be accountable for the inquiry, or be accountable for the fact that they didn't call one.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Ms. McLellan.

[Anne McLellan]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams, go ahead for eight minutes.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I'll take the next round. I think Mr. Poilievre will take this round.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, Mr. Poilievre.

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

Thank you very much to all the witnesses for being here. Thank you very much, Ms. McLellan, for being here.

You were the minister responsible for the RCMP when this matter unfolded. As such, in our system of ministerial responsibility, you're the one who's accountable in this place, the House of Commons, for what occurs under your watch.

In the House of Commons, I'll reiterate a quote that you uttered when you were asked by Kevin Sorenson of Crowfoot. He asked:

Are the Ottawa police investigating the commissioner's conduct as well as the misappropriation of funds?

Your response was:

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure everyone in the House that there is no conduct on the part of the commissioner that needs to be investigated.

You said that before the investigation got under way. There was a statement by a minister about a police investigation into your own agency before the investigation got under way.

Do you still believe, given all that we've heard, that there is no conduct on the part of Commissioner Zaccardelli that needed to be investigated?