Evidence of meeting #46 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 senior.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Public Service Employee, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I mentioned it to Mr. Macaulay.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
You mentioned it to Mr. Macaulay, and subsequently, your...
Could you talk about that a little, please?
Public Service Employee, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I mentioned it to Mr. Macaulay. On September 23, when I heard he was supposed to go to the Department of National Defence, I was concerned about the fact that the audit would drag on quite a long time. I wrote to the Assistant Commissioner, John Spice, who was our ethics advisor. Mr. Spice then went to see the commissioner.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Why did you leave? Why was your position subsequently abolished?
Public Service Employee, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
My position was subsequently abolished. There was an attempt to get the investigation underway. I wrote another report that I submitted to Ron on January 5, 2004. In February, I was involved in a management meeting at which about 25 managers were present. There was discussion of a new human resources management structure, and I was the only person who did not have a position within that. In April I was given a letter telling me that my position had been abolished.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Do you have the impression that this letter was directly linked to the fact that you had spoken out against—
Public Service Employee, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I had been the director for 33 years. I would say yes, there was a connection.
Bloc
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Frizzell, on June 19 or 20, 2005, you were relieved of your duties as an investigator. Was this against your will? I am not familiar with the procedures, but I imagine that once an investigator begins an investigation as significant as this one, he must submit a report on the state of advancement of the investigation. Were you asked how much progress had been made in the investigation? What were you supposed to do? Why were you opposed, if that was actually the case?
Staff Sergeant, Strategic and Operational Support, National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It's not at all unusual in investigations for different people to want to go in different directions or for there to be differing opinions. It's why it's actually law in Ontario that every senior investigator take major case management training. It actually came out of the Scarborough rapist case, when Paul Bernardo got away with it and went on to greater things, as we all know.
It's very common for there to be different directions. They've built a dispute resolution mechanism into the major case management model to ensure there's no dictatorship and there's no one way of thinking on the file. There's a whole procedure in place. Unfortunately, we didn't follow that.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Since the procedure was not followed, did you have the impression that you were removed from your duties without being given any explanations? In your opinion, did this have some connection with the results you expected to find in your investigation, particularly regarding the breakdown of the funds between the insurance program and the retirement plan, as you discussed? Is there a direct connection between the fact that you were removed from your investigation and the information you discovered in the course of your investigation?
Staff Sergeant, Strategic and Operational Support, National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I had been assured that no more money would be coming out of the insurance plans, and for the money that was taken out, the authority would be sought to pay that money back. When I found out that I had been substantially misled, I tried to rectify that. I tried to find out why the decision was reversed and why this money was still coming out, and that took me to Ms. Barb George, and through her to Rosalie Burton, who reported to Barb George. I left a phone message for Rosalie Burton to get an explanation for this. I believe that is what had me removed from the investigation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much.
Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Laforest.
Mr. Williams, seven minutes.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First let me say how shocked I am to hear these statements by senior members of the RCMP who have come forward and in essence condemned their own organization for corruption, fraud, mismanagement, incompetence, and the list goes on. As you said, it's an icon of Canadian culture, a beacon around the world, and there looks to be something seriously wrong at the senior core of the organization. That shocks me, and I'm sure it shocks Parliament. I certainly hope, Mr. Chairman, that if we don't get to the bottom of this, we will be part of the process that finally gets to the bottom of this.
I compliment you all for coming forward and speaking out against the esprit de corps of the organization, because you're doing what you feel is right. Therefore, I compliment you on that, because I know it can't be easy.
Since this is coming out at this late stage, and I'm just going to go on to this, who was interviewed by the Auditor General on this?
Mr. Frizzell, were you audited, or did you tell the Auditor General all of this?
Staff Sergeant, Strategic and Operational Support, National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Yes. They told me it was outside the scope of their audit.
Conservative
Conservative
Assistant Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I gave them fulsome answers, and I sent them e-mails from Lyon.