Good afternoon. Bon après-midi.
Before we proceed to questions and with your permission, I would like to make this brief statement.
As you will note, I have provided the committee with a written statement that includes more detail; however, in the interest of time I would like to provide a very brief overview of the facts surrounding my actions with regard to the RCMP pension fund. I hope that in doing so I can set the stage for further questions and provide a necessary balance to the presentations and interpretations of facts that were brought forward to this committee three weeks ago.
I know the committee is both committed and mandated to review any and all information that is brought forward, with a judicious requirement for due process and proper balance. I am sure there are many who share my concern that uncorroborated and highly individualized input puts these principles at risk, as does premature comment before all of the information relevant to a careful and thorough review is put before this committee.
In the spring of 2003, Staff Sergeant Ron Lewis brought to my attention concerns he had regarding the administration of the RCMP pension fund. I responded by writing a memo to the head of internal audit directing that these issues be examined and that the matter be given top priority. My determination was that the best course of action was to initiate an internal audit.
In October 2003 I was given a copy of the completed internal audit. I summarized the identified problems, as they were of great concern to me, as follows: evidence of nepotism in hiring in management, improper billing of contracts and contract splitting, failure to comply with Treasury Board and RCMP policies regarding contracts and hiring, improper charging of administrative fees to the pension fund.
However, the audit report found no indication of criminal activity. The report clearly identified the responsible individuals as the chief human resource officer and the director general of the National Compensation Policy Centre. That day, Mr. Chairman, immediately after reading the report, I took the following steps.
I met with and requested and received the resignation of the chief human resource officer. I then appointed Barbara George as the new chief human resource officer. I directed Ms. George to remove the director general of the National Compensation Policy Centre from his position. I further instructed Ms. George to carefully review and act upon all issues outlined in the audit report. I briefed the deputy commissioner for corporate management and directed him to immediately review to ensure that all proper financial control systems were in place and to reverse any inappropriate charges against the pension fund.
I want to note very clearly here that protecting the fund was and remained my topmost priority, and no repercussions to the pensions of RCMP employees and veterans exist as a result of this situation. It was my belief that the implementation of this plan of action would result in the proper amelioration of the identified problems.
It came to my attention over the next few months that concerns were still being expressed about the process of response that had been put into place by Staff Sergeant Lewis, Chief Superintendent Macaulay, and others. After I consulted with Deputy Commissioner Garry Loeppky at some length, we decided to ask the Ottawa Police Service to carry out an independent criminal investigation.
This investigation began in March of 2004. Fifteen months later, in the summer of 2005, the Ottawa Police Service completed their investigation. The Ottawa Police Service consulted with crown counsel with the Ministry of the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario about the results of its extensive investigation. Crown counsel reviewed the facts disclosed by the investigation and advised the Ottawa Police that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction on criminal charges. The Ottawa Police Service report reiterated the problems as outlined in the internal audit, and furthermore, it went on to name a number of employees who may have been in violation of the RCMP code of conduct.
I immediately directed the chief human resource officer, Ms. George, to commence a review under the RCMP Act with respect to this element of the Ottawa Police Service report. During the time this review was under way, the Federal Court of Appeal handed down a decision on another case that now, for the first time, clarified the issue of when the clock should be considered to start ticking on the one-year limitation of action. As a result of the Federal Court decision, the deputy commissioner in charge of the process informed me that he was not able to proceed further on disciplinary action. Nevertheless, as I have already stated, the two people identified as having overall responsibility had been removed from their positions.
Before we proceed to questions, I would like to make two further comments.
The first relates to the very serious and, to me, offensive allegations that have been made to this committee and, subsequently, by some committee members outside of these chambers. That is that I personally engaged in a process of cover-up related to the pension fund. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the outset, all steps taken by me and by management were openly reported upon and documented.
Let me briefly itemize. I met on a regular basis with RCMP divisional representatives and their executive committee to report our actions vis-à-vis the pension fund. As I've already noted, an internal audit team was established, and their report was tabled and reviewed by the senior management team. In turn, this report was immediately forwarded to the Treasury Board and to the Auditor General of Canada. As I have also just described, the Ottawa Police established an independent investigative team, and their work was reviewed by crown counsel of the Ministry of the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario.
In 2006, the Auditor General reviewed the administration of the RCMP pension plan. Her report was thorough and complete. As she noted, she said, “The RCMP responded adequately to its internal audit and the OPS investigation.” She went on to itemize a number of unresolved matters and to say, “The RCMP has responded. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has agreed with each of our recommendations and is in the process of taking corrective action.”
A number of media articles have been published about this situation, clearly putting it into the public domain. There were a number of communications regarding the progress of this situation to all employees via my commissioner's broadcast, which is an internal e-mail communication to all 25,000 employees of the RCMP. I met on at least two occasions with the RCMP Veterans' Association and reviewed the pension fund issues.
Now, I want to make one thing clear: I have never been under the misapprehension that all parties were necessarily happy with the steps that were taken and the management approach to this issue that I was pursuing as commissioner. As you can imagine, there were very few of the thousands of decisions that I undertook during my tenure as commissioner that were unanimously supported. That is one of the burdens and challenges of leadership, of course. However, there is a significant difference between disagreeing with the steps taken by management and making allegations that management is covering up or acting corruptly, as Lewis, Macaulay, and others who disagreed have done.
Mr. Chairman, I do not plan today, or in the future, to grant any quarter to remarks made at this committee or elsewhere inferring corruption at the RCMP or associated with me. Such allegations are so completely baseless that I can only surmise that frustration and anger have badly clouded the thinking of the individuals who have made such unfounded and unsubstantiated statements. In my view, the responsibility of this committee and the purpose of my appearance here today is to assist the committee in discharging its mandate to carry out a careful, thorough, and judicious review of the problems and solutions found vis-à-vis the RCMP pension fund.
I would like to close these remarks with one final comment of a more personal nature. As you will have gathered from a number of my comments, I am deeply concerned about the inferences and accusations that have been levied against me in this committee and in the public sphere as a result. I have not had, before today, the opportunity to provide information or respond to questions, and yet, Mr. Chairman, it appears that many conclusions have been arrived at regardless. I am confident that this cannot have been the intention of the committee, and I look forward to clearing up the misconceptions that have been allowed to flourish.
Nonetheless, whether intended or not, my integrity has been called into question. This is perhaps, as some people view it, the unavoidable wages of leadership. But I cannot let this opportunity pass without once again stating without equivocation that nothing could be more important to me than honouring and protecting the men and women with whom I have worked. Any review of my work and record in management would reveal this as my top priority, even to the last complicated set of decisions I was challenged to defend, and for which I decided to resign.
My commitment has always been to my colleagues. Throughout the 36 years of my career, I have always held to an overriding commitment that remains as true today as it did on the day I first donned my uniform: to live by my values, exercise my fairest judgment, and carry out my duty, to the best of my ability as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for Canadians and Canada.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
