Evidence of meeting #72 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 brown.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:40 p.m.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
I don't know. A budget is being worked out between the executive director for the task force and the Treasury Board. I don't know where they're at.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
We're already into the three-month process and we don't have the costs.
2:40 p.m.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
I'm sorry?
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
We're already into the three-month process for the task force. We have a nine-week process for the report. I understand that you're reporting in mid-December.
2:40 p.m.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
Yes.
2:40 p.m.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
That is correct.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Okay. Can I talk to you about expertise and timelines? You alluded to it in a very honest and straightforward way a moment ago.
Please don't take this the wrong way, because I have a very profound respect for your background and your abilities. Have you ever conducted a multi-party engagement or deliberative process in your career?
2:40 p.m.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
I'm sorry. A multi what?
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
A multi-party engagement or deliberative process of the kind this task force is now undertaking.
2:40 p.m.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
I've spent my entire career doing it. I spent thirty years as a lawyer mainly on large projects involving multiple law firms and multiple parties, with multiple dates and timelines. I spent a good part of my career doing it.
At the OSC, among other things in the investigative side, I was in charge of the enforcement side of the RCMP. I also oversaw the investigation of some very large potential securities violations. In a sense, it was my stock-in-trade.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I understand.
Can I talk a little about the OPP and the Ottawa Police Service investigation? I'm really troubled by this.
I want to put this to you. As a QC, a Queen's Counsel lawyer with a distinguished career, how shocked were you when you discovered what you discovered about the Ottawa Police Service? What are the three reasons you gave to justify your conclusion that the investigation was not independent? I'd like to know not only how shocked you were, but why would the Canadian people believe that punting it to the OPP would now make any different whatsoever?
2:45 p.m.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
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.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Last, I'm fascinated and intrigued by your recommendation on page 47 on deliberations. You mentioned your background as a transactional lawyer. I respect that, having been one at one point in time. I couldn't really cut it, not as well as you did, but I went on to spend 10 years doing stakeholder engagement. I'm a little worried about your approach to this, particularly that these deliberations, which are multi-party deliberations, are going to take place in private.
Chapter 8 is entitled “Rebuilding The Trust”. How can we take it that having conversations behind closed doors, in private, is going to help rebuild trust in an organization that has had a lot of trust shaken out over the past several years? Is it really the right way to go?
2:45 p.m.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
As I said earlier, we are consulting quite broadly and in a quite open and transparent way. We're meeting with the entire caucus of the staff representative group. We're meeting with large groups of people internally, within the RCMP. We're meeting with the cadet corps and so on. We're hoping, and we're already seeing signs of it, that people see that we are out there and we're willing to listen to anybody. We're willing to listen to them privately if they want to talk privately, or in large groups if they want to talk in large groups.
The word “secret” has been used a few times here. I don't see this as being conducted in secrecy at all. What I had recommended in my report was that the deliberations be done in private, to give people the comfort that they could come forward and talk to us and tell us how they saw things and how things should be, without feeling that their jobs were in jeopardy. We had to play that balance.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
September 7th, 2007 / 2:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
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?
2:50 p.m.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
I think you make a very good point. What we found was that it depended on where you were in the hierarchy of the RCMP, how you were treated if you were found to have been guilty of misconduct. We found this to be one of the very serious cultural issues within the RCMP.
Like you, I was very concerned that the people at the top who ultimately were found to have breached the rules were given what I call in my report, for want of a better term, a soft landing. I think this conveyed some very serious and unfortunate messages throughout the rest of the force, where the standard of conduct and compliance is much higher.
People do get fired in the RCMP, but it tends to be more prevalent and easier to do at the lower levels than at the top. It's one of the things that I think this task force needs to look into very carefully, I agree with you.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
What legal instruments could be used to change collective agreements, or whatever it is that's blocking termination, so that we can get rid of the bad apples? You're a lawyer. I'm certainly not a labour lawyer, but I'd like to know if you can tell us what instruments we can recommend that would empower the leaders of government agencies and organizations to fire the bad guys. Give us some ideas here.
2:50 p.m.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
It would be premature of me. We're too early in our process for me to be able to tell you whether or not there are actually processes and procedures there that, had they been implemented, would have achieved the results you're talking about. So I need to know, first of all, whether the mechanism is there already and it wasn't used. And secondly, if the mechanism is not there, then I think we need to get into the kind of inquiry you're talking about. We're not there yet.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Since this sordid affair occurred, our government has introduced whistle-blower protection for public servants and RCMP personnel. That protection exists in statutory law, and it is overseen by, first, an officer of Parliament and, second, a tribunal of judges. How do you see whistle-blowers in the RCMP interacting with that new legislation?
2:50 p.m.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
Well, first of all, the new legislation applies to the RCMP. It applies not only to members of the RCMP, but also to public servants who are employed by the RCMP. I'm not an expert on the act; I have seen many of the parts of it. For the first time, it's very clear now that there is whistle-blower protection available throughout the entire range of employees of the RCMP, and that's very important.
As I understand it, the act for the RCMP allows the RCMP's own mechanisms with respect to their members to play out, but the whistle-blower has the ability to jump over and to deal with the parliamentary person who is responsible for it.
I think it's early days. As I understand it, the act was only proclaimed April 15, but I think this is a very positive step for the RCMP.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Do you worry about the fact that they go through the internal system first in the RCMP?
2:50 p.m.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
I can't say that I worry about it, but it is an issue we need to look at. As I pointed out in my report, merely superimposing a whistle-blower protection system on a system that has a code of conduct violation—that is part of a militaristic or paramilitary organization—doesn't quite work. That interface needs to be worked out.
One of the things we are proposing to do in the task force is to see whether there need to be changes either to the whistle-blowing part of it or to the code of conduct part of it, so that those two can work in harmony.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. McGuinty made some effort to point out the costs of your work. How would the costs of your work compare with the cost of a full-blown public inquiry?
