Public Accounts Committee on April 16th, 2007

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Zaccardelli, you said you take this pretty seriously. These are pretty serious allegations here. You also spoke a little bit earlier, and I sensed a little bit of a positive tone to your conversation about Mr. Macaulay and the fact that he was sent to what you termed “a very good job”. I'm wondering if he was asked what he thought of that job before he was sent there.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

No, he was not asked, because in my view...as a result of that discussion and based on his answers to me, I determined as commissioner that he had made a serious error in judgment in not reporting what he had known when he had said he had known it for almost a year and a half.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay.

Mr. Macaulay, can you comment on that year and a half? Did you know for a year and a half?

[C/Supt Fraser Macaulay]

I didn't know for any year and—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay, you didn't.

Let me ask you a question, Mr. Zaccardelli. You were very positive about Mr. Macaulay. It sounds like you think he made a mistake.

Now, on May 28 Mr. Lewis brought these allegations to your attention. On June 5, Mr. Lewis again made his formal written request to the commanding officer of A Division. On June 17--so now we're only three weeks later--Mr. Macaulay meets with you and brings forward pretty much the same allegations. On July 4, he sends a memo to you. In September, after his secondment, he meets with you again.

First of all, I'm curious--why would you send someone away who obviously had so much information regarding something that you deemed to be a very serious matter? I mean, he seems to be one of the few people who actually had the information you needed to get to the bottom of this.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

He did have the information; you're right. Denise Revine, as you've heard, also had a lot of the information—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Then you got rid of her later. I'm sorry, someone else sent her away later.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

Excuse me. No. Please, let's get our facts straight here. I didn't get rid of anyone.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Who did?

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

Well, I do not know. That was a reorganization. My understanding, after I heard the testimony before this committee, was that there was a reorganization.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I don't have much time here. Given the seriousness of the issue, and you just acknowledged that Denise Revine had some significant information as well, why would you even allow her to be let go? She's crucial to what you're trying to get to the bottom of.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

There are two points.

If you'll notice from the correspondence, both Chief Superintendent Macaulay and Ms. Revine provided documentation to support their concerns, so that was given to us. They then were spoken to by the auditor. The auditor spoke to them and so on to get the information from them. They weren't sent away so that nobody would speak to them; they were made available to the auditors and also to the Ottawa city police so that they could give the full information on what had taken place while they were there.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

To get to the bottom of it, though, as the leader of the organization in such a serious situation--forget who sent them away--why would you even allow them to be sent away?

The optics of this are really mysterious. These two people who had all of this information, and of course in their positions had access to the information, were removed from the positions from which they had access. You'd think the information they had and the access they had would be crucial for you to get to the bottom of this.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

It was crucial and it was made available to the auditors. I also needed to make some organizational changes; that's why I removed the two principal people who I believed as a result of the audit were responsible for many of the problems. They were removed.

Then I gave clear directions to make sure the financial processes were tightened up, the administrative processes. We needed a serious retooling of that whole area. In my judgment, the removal of Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay was part of that--not to punish him, but to reconstitute what should be done and improve it, and also to give him an opportunity to get out of there and to grow from there.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'm curious. What was more important in the RCMP at the time than the allegations that were being made?

Actually, I'm at the end of my time.

Mr. Macaulay, you haven't had much chance to comment on some of these things. I'd like you to comment on what you've heard today, if you could.

[C/Supt Fraser Macaulay]

Well, I can assure you that the reason for my removal was based on my coming forward. What ex-commissioner Zaccardelli is talking about is his understanding, again, of a conversation on June 17, where there was no discussion, and at no time did I ever say that I knew for any length of time, other than May 28.

In October, when I went back in to see him just before I left, and we sat in there, we actually had a very interesting conversation. I even asked him, why would you think I would lie to you? I've known you for almost 20 years; I've never lied to you before, and I've never lied to you all the way up until then. All I got in response was very similar to, “Well, you'll have a good career”, the push of the garage door opener, and the door opens. And that's when you know it's time to leave. That's as simple as it was. I was removed because I came forward, period.

I went forward to the ethics adviser. The ethics adviser disclosed the stuff I had spoken to him about in the early, early stages to Mrs. George and to Vern White at an SMT meeting, because he...and I think it's maybe time we bring him in, because it's he who can then spell out why he told them what I went to the ethics adviser with, and then the next time, them taking me into the commissioner. It was not Fraser Macaulay going to the commissioner. I'm just getting going on gathering the evidence. That was the conversation I had with the ethics adviser. That is the conversation I had with Barb George, and she said, “No, you're coming in.”

When I first went into the room on June 17, the first question the ex-commissioner asked Barb George was, “Is that other matter taken care of?”, and she said, “It's on hold.” I don't know what that means, but if you put in all the scenarios of where things are at, that's where I linked it back to later finding out that Mr. Lewis had started the investigation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Macaulay.

We only have time for one more. Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm still troubled by this business of whether or not a criminal investigation was actually started, because to me it speaks not only to the credibility of two key players in all of this, but also to whether it addresses the issue of the alleged cover-up.

If there was direction given and then it was changed—and the former commissioner is saying that's not what happened—then we have some bigger problems here. If not, then Mr. Lewis's testimony has to be questioned. One of you has to be questioned. It cannot be that you had a meeting and came out of there and a staff sergeant started a criminal investigation.

So my question would be to Mr. Zaccardelli. You said that somebody—you forget who—told you that Staff Sergeant Lewis was telling authorities in the RCMP that you were authorizing a criminal investigation. Given the time I was with the police community—

You're saying no. Well, let me finish my question, and you can clarify it, sir.

Given my time in the police community, insubordination is huge. It seems to me that if a staff sergeant came into a commissioner's office, had a meeting, and walked out of there and said, “The commissioner wants”--and then whatever you say after that--“done”, and if it's not true, then the commissioner—you, as that commissioner—upon finding out about a staff sergeant who was starting a criminal investigation saying you wanted it when you didn't, would take action, I would think.

I'm curious as to why you didn't, Mr. Zaccardelli.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

Sir, I can only tell you what I did. When I got the information, I made a decision to order an audit. That was my decision, as the manager. Mr. Lewis was aware of that.

Of course, why would I order a criminal investigation when I've already made a decision? The fact is that I called A Division when I heard that they were starting a criminal investigation based on what Mr. Lewis had directed them to do. That, in my view, was inappropriate action on the part of—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

And why didn't you take action on that staff sergeant? A staff sergeant is pretty small in terms of the highest rankings there are. If somebody is going around saying the commissioner wants this, and things start happening, and you find out it's not true, you don't do anything about it, sir?

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

Well, you know, that's part of what a leader does and what a manager does. He doesn't use the hammer on every situation. Every issue has to be looked at by itself.

I actually could have technically looked at Fraser's behaviour, at the time when we had the discussion and when he said to me that he had not disclosed anything for a year and a half, but I chose as the manager to do what I believed was the right thing to do.

With Mr. Lewis? Mr. Lewis, in my view, did the right thing when he came forward. He was a division rep. He's the person who digs out things and poses questions. I believed his action was inappropriate, but I was much more interested in getting to the bottom of this serious matter, not worrying about whether I was going to be able to take some minor sanction against somebody. I had a serious problem in how the fund that is responsible for the pensions of employees and veterans.... That was my focus, and that's what I determined.... That's what the captain of the ship does: he gets to the serious problem and solves that. The rest will look after itself.

I did not have any interest in going after Mr. Lewis, because he was doing his job by coming to me. But he made a mistake in judgment when he tried to get a criminal investigation. The organization had decided how this matter was going to be dealt with when I made that decision.

When I make that decision, everybody else has to fall in line. That's my position.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Understood. Thank you very much.

Mr. Lewis, tell me, please, under oath, with as much detail as you can recall, what the conversation was in that office that led you to believe that you had a mandate from the Commissioner of the RCMP of Canada to go out and start a criminal investigation, when the former commissioner is sitting beside you saying it didn't happen. Please give me your recollection.

[Ron Lewis]

To frame what the situation is, you have to realize that I'd gone to him twice before. He failed to take action on complaints I made against Mr. Ewanovich.

There was another investigation, which is sometimes referred to here as the OPP investigation, that happened the same month. An assistant commissioner tried to notify the employees underneath him that they were committing criminal acts--conflict of interest guidelines--in violation of the code of conduct. The deputy commissioner in charge of him....

Okay, you have to understand the framework and why I go in and I put things on paper.

When he was removed from his position as assistant commissioner, Mr. Gauvin, his boss, sent out an e-mail--which I have here, and I'll table that too--chastising him for talking to his staff that way. He's told them not to do things that are criminal.

I sent information through our national executive to Mr. Zaccardelli in September of that year, 2001. Mr. Ewanovich was in the meeting. He chose to do nothing.

I went then to the formal process, which is A Division and Assistant Commissioner Dawson Hovey. I presented him with a formal written report, which is my obligation under the RCMP Act and my obligation as a member of the RCMP and a peace officer under the Criminal Code.

When I gave it to that assistant commissioner, who was responsible for discipline for headquarters, he dropped it down. He said, “I'm involved too.” He resigned. There was an OPP investigation, and there were 19 people who either went through the criminal system and were convicted or internally were convicted. Two or three resigned. The rest of them got informal discipline, such as Mr. Ewanovich and Mr. Gauvin.

So when I go back in to him the third time, what do you expect I'm going to do? I'm going to write this down. I did. I have the memo. Do you think I'm crazy enough to go to the CO of A Division again and say, “Mr. Zaccardelli told me to go to see you”, when he didn't?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's exactly what I'm having trouble with.

[Ron Lewis]

Then I followed it up on June 25, because he said he was going to do another investigation internally within a week. He didn't. It was 25 days, 30 days later--