Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 21st, 2007

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay, maybe I could have him do that then.

[Chief Vince Bevan]

Certainly, our investigation indicated that although the criminal standard was not met, the rules were breached. There was serious conduct going around the rules and playing fast and loose within the systems, if I may describe it that way.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

So if they were purely administrative problems, sending people to an ethics course to teach the difference between right and wrong wouldn't really resolve that problem. It has to be something more than an administrative oversight. It involves inappropriate conduct on the part of individuals. Am I correct in that assumption?

[Chief Vince Bevan]

The report that I took to the commissioner in June 2005 identified areas of misconduct.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Right.

I understand two employees resigned in 2003 because of this situation. In the same year--maybe the commissioner could confirm this--did these two individuals receive bonus payments from the RCMP?

[Commr Beverley Busson]

As to the timing of that, I'll have to defer to Deputy Commissioner George.

[D/Commr Barbara George]

To the best of my knowledge with regard to the bonus pay, bonus pay, as you know, is always for the past year. For 2003, I believe bonus pay may have been paid for work done. For anything after that, there was no bonus pay.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It seems to me I've seen something to the effect that one of them may have received a bonus payment of up to $13,000. They weren't asked to repay any of this bonus money?

[D/Commr Barbara George]

Mr. Chair, there is no mechanism. Once bonus pay has been paid, there is no mechanism to recoup those moneys. You're always working on the past year, so if information comes to light that would have made a difference in that decision to pay it in the first place, there is no existing mechanism that I am aware of.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I'm going to bring up Mr. Murphy's point, and I think it's a valid point too. Maybe it doesn't meet the standard for a criminal prosecution, but when you take property without colour of right--and I think every one of you would know that--on a balance of probabilities, I think we could probably meet that standard in this particular case. If you are disciplining people and sending them to ethics courses, that standard at least has been met, and in a civil court of law they would be found liable and be required to repay the money. The limitation period on that thing I know for sure is a lot longer than one year.

Has the RCMP given any thought to bringing these wrongdoers before a civil court to repay this money? I don't think it's fair that the taxpayers are on the hook to replace the money that wrongfully disappeared from the accounts.

[Commr Beverley Busson]

I think at the end of the day we will definitely...I believe you're right, that it hasn't been considered. We will have a look at that.

My estimate of the money that is still outstanding is around $300,000. My understanding is that it is still being considered whether or not that money ought to be paid back, but we will certainly look at the civil avenues.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Commissioner, if the taxpayer, let's say, had already paid $700,000 or $800,000 on this thing, and there's $700,000 that you're still looking at recovering, I think the taxpayer has been wrongfully hung with the bill on this thing. So the amount could be more significant than $300,000.

[Commr Beverley Busson]

We will have a look at it, but my understanding is, again, that the money never went missing or that it was never taken. It was vouchered in the wrong place in the government accounts. But certainly I take your advice, and we will have a look at that.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

This is the other thing I'm wondering about. You're into the RCMP investigation for two days, which isn't very long. It's terminated, and an internal audit is initiated. I'm not quite clear on the operations and processes that go on here, but it seems quite clear to me: why couldn't these two investigations coincide and carry on at the same time? Why would the commissioner, whoever it was at that time, terminate something two days into the investigation?

There certainly are, to me, a lot of lights flashing on this thing. It certainly wouldn't smell very good to any experienced police officer looking at this thing, I don't think. Could you give us some reasonable explanation of how this occurred?

[Commr Beverley Busson]

I would not try to get into the decision-making process of the commissioner of the day. I don't think that would be helpful.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

As an experienced police investigator, wouldn't you find this rather strange?

[Commr Beverley Busson]

I'm not sure what he used to make that decision, and it's difficult to say one way or the other. Certainly, to do two things at the same time can be difficult, but under those circumstances--

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I wonder, Chief Bevan, with your experience--you've had a long career--if you would find that rather strange. We're sitting back here, and here's an investigation. They're two days into it, and lo and behold, somebody says to terminate it and we'll start an internal audit. Wouldn't it have made a lot more sense to carry the two things on together? I don't see why they would conflict or what the problem would be with carrying out both at the same time.

[Chief Vince Bevan]

Well, sir, I don't want to comment on what the RCMP may have been thinking, but in my experience, they both lead to the same place. So I would not necessarily find it unusual that they would have an audit done before they commenced a full-blown investigation and decided how to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead, Ms. Busson.

[Commr Beverley Busson]

It's my understanding as well that the whole scope of what went on wasn't clear until such time as the internal audit did its work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fitzpatrick.

Thank you, witnesses.

We're going to now go to the second round of five minutes each. But before I go to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, I have just one question, perhaps to the commissioner and to you, Mr. Charko.

When I look at this audit, there certainly wasn't any problem with the rules. The rules were there, but the rules were not followed--Treasury Board guidelines were not followed. It's my understanding that senior RCMP have the right to override what I consider to be normal financial controls, and even despite the disturbing audit, they still want to retain that right to override normal financial controls. Is that an accurate statement, Mr. Charko, and if it is, does it not concern Treasury Board?

[Phil Charko, Assistant Secretary, Pensions and Benefits Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

I'm not convinced, from what I've heard this afternoon, that the RCMP, as an institution, is looking to override the normal controls of the Financial Administration Act, and so on. In fact, in looking at the corrective action that has been taken since the audit was found, as the Auditor General has indicated, they found that the corrective action has been taken and has generally been satisfactory.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

They still profess this right, this ability, to override financial controls. Do they or do they not? That's in the auditor's statement.

[Phil Charko]

No. I did not hear that.