Public Accounts Committee on April 16th, 2007

[Dominic Crupi]

First of all, when we were looking at hiring individuals, my manager came to me and asked that.... We were down a road in terms of data cleanup, and it hadn't been done in the timeframe we expected. We were looking at hiring CR-4s, entry-level people. I advised him to go to staffing, which he did. Staffing gave him a process to follow, which basically was a casual process where you could hire individuals off the street without going through a formal process, but they had to have certain qualifications. They had no standing as employees in government. In other words, they could not apply for jobs, get jobs, or stay on after a certain period of time.

One of my managers at that time asked me if family could apply. I said I did not know. I had my manager ask staffing if family could apply. Staffing advised him that it would be discriminatory if family could not apply for these jobs. So as far as I'm concerned, we followed the process as described to us by staffing.

Suzanne Beaudin was hired as an HR strategist, and part of that duty was to define what the new jobs were going to be.

I should say that HR strategy was imposed upon us by Treasury Board. Our original TB submission draft basically had very little HR strategy. Treasury Board asked us to improve it and expand on it. They were worried about the employees who were affected. So they asked us to put in a robust HR strategy, which we did.

That strategy included what new systems we would require; how the individuals would be trained; what the new jobs would look like in transition, current, and future; and what tools would be required. That was Ms. Beaudin's job. Her job was also to assist our managers in getting the people who had those qualifications hired. So that's why Ms. Beaudin was hired. It wasn't to do staffing or classification, which is under the purview of the RCMP staffing and classification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

Thank you, Mr. Crupi.

Monsieur Laforest, sept minutes, s'il vous plaît.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is for Mr. Lewis. During our last meeting, you stated that you had met with commissioner Zaccardelli in May 2003 with regard to the pension fund, the nepotism issues and all of the outdated practises that you had encountered within RCMP management.

You also said — and we have received the documents — that commissioner Zaccardelli had invited you to somehow relay this request to Division A, which was under Ms. Gessie Clément's command, and whom you asked to undertake a criminal investigation, which began in the days following.

Did you, at that time, table with Mr. Zaccardelli and Ms. Clément these documents relating to all of your allegations?

[Ron Lewis]

I did not, because there was a previous request to have allegations of harassment of Mr. Ewanovich investigated, and the commissioner failed to do that. In fact, I'll categorize it as a lie, because when I came back months later he had totally changed his position, even though we had discussed the investigators who should do it--the rank level, and everything. He delayed it for six months. When I came back to see him he said, “I don't remember that.” So when the members who came forward—

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Did you or Mr. Macaulay provide documents later, at some other time? Did you provide documents setting out—

[Ron Lewis]

Mr. Zaccardelli pounded on the desk and said, “Why are these officers not coming to me?” I said, “The reason for that is that you treat them poorly when they come forward. As a result, I will not give you documents until you appoint an officer. They will all come forward at once, not individually, because as they come forward they get punished. And Fraser Macaulay is a good example.”

So the same thing happened. I had learned my lesson two years earlier, so when I went to him in May 2003, I said I would provide the documents when a proper investigation was official. It was official, because he told me. I have it in two documents to him that I went to Gessie Clément, the commanding officer of A Division, and had an investigation started. But I didn't find out until three weeks later that Mr. Zaccardelli had stopped the investigation. I found out on Saturday the exact dates. He stopped on the 25th of....

So the whole problem was that nobody would come forward, and I couldn't identify anybody until there was an official investigation going on, but he kept stopping them or would not have them go forward.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I will stop you there.

Mr. Zaccardelli, could you explain to us why, after having recommended to Mr. Lewis that he call upon Division A to carry out an investigation, you then closed this investigation to have it replaced by an internal audit? I find this somewhat inconsistent. You tell Mr. Lewis to go and see the commanding officer of Division A in order for her to launch an investigation, but once the investigation is under way, you cancel it. This, to my mind, shows a lack of transparency.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

Mr.Chairman, I'll pick up on the point of Mr. Laforest when he says it doesn't make sense. He's absolutely right, it doesn't make sense, because that is not what I did whatsoever.

Mr. Lewis came to me. I met with him twice to discuss some concerns that he had. During the first discussion that I had with him, I was having difficulty actually understanding what he was talking about. I actually went to the NEC, which is the national executive committee, of the divisional representative system. I said, “I'm trying to understand what Mr. Lewis is trying to complain about here.” They said to me, “We have trouble understanding what he's trying to complain about on this also.”

In any event, I met with Mr. Lewis a second time. We went over the same issues. I tried to find out and identify exactly what he was talking about. I was able to discern from the discussion and from his complaints that he was worried about nepotism and he was worried about contract splitting. He was alleging that some charges were made against the administration of the pension fund that were inappropriate.

At a certain point during that meeting I said, “Ron, I think I have an understanding of what you are trying to tell me. I'm going to get up and I'm to go to--”

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Zaccardelli, but that only answers part of my question.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

Mr. Chairman, please, I'm entitled to answer the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm going to allow Mr. Zaccardelli to continue.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

We only have seven minutes, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I will add it to the time. I am going to allow him to continue.

Briefly, Mr. Zaccardelli, if you could finish your thought, then we'll go on to the next question.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

I went to my desk and I wrote down and summarized what I believed were Mr. Lewis's allegations and concerns. I showed it to him and I asked him, “Do you agree with this?” He said, “Yes, I agree. Those are my concerns.”

I then called in my chief of audit and directed him to start the investigation immediately. I never ever instructed or told Mr. Lewis to go to A Division to ask for a criminal investigation. That would be ridiculous because I'd already decided, as the senior manager of the force who had received the complaint, on a course of action. My course of action was the audit. There were never any instructions to go anywhere and to start a criminal investigation.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I will continue.

I would remind you, Mr. Zaccardelli, that you have just stated that that is not what you said to Mr. Lewis. We therefore have here two individuals who have sworn here today to tell the truth, but whose versions of the facts diverge. I would also remind you that you are starting off with two strikes against you, with the statements you made last fall in the context of the Maher Arar affair.

I wonder if Mr. Lewis might perhaps provide some details in order to outline exactly what Mr. Zaccardelli told him to do when he, for the first time, made him aware of this problem.

[Ron Lewis]

Mr. Chair, I have two documents in front of me that I had already tabled the last time I appeared, which I believe was earlier this month.

One is a document dated June 5, 2003, signed by me, directed to the commanding officer of A Division. That was seven days after I met Mr. Zaccardelli for the second time, and it is a very complicated matter. I understand why he would not understand it fully the first time, but it was clearly stated the second time.

In this memo, which I delivered to the commanding officer, the fifth paragraph says:

The Commissioner instructed me to contact you to investigate the matter.

In the first paragraph I explained:

I met with the Commissioner on 28 MAY 2003. We discussed the complaints I was receiving from multiple senior officers within the HR Directorate. Many of these complaints related to incidents of harassment, nepotism, abuse of authority and misappropriation of funds.

In addition to this matter, he split it in two parts. He said to go see Gessie--now, that was Gessie Clément, who was the commanding officer of A Division--and start a criminal investigation. I did that through this memo.

Three days short of a month later, after talking to the officers who were conducting the investigation, it struck me that he hadn't called me back yet, because on the same date, May 28, he said, “On the other issues, I'll get back to you within one week”, because they were internal matters such as nepotism, abuse of authority, and harassment that were allegations against Mr. Ewanovich.

On June 25, 2003, at 10:20 p.m., after talking to the investigator several hours earlier, I wrote another e-mail to Mr. Zaccardelli, and it says:

On 28 MAY 03, you also indicated that you would contact me regarding your decision relating to the other allegations such as abuse of authority and harassment. I have been AOD [which means absent on duty] much of the period since our meeting and I understand you are as well. I will be taking annual leave soon and would appreciate an update on your intended course of action. This will enable me to provide further details to the appropriate parties.

Earlier I mentioned in the e-mail that as a result of our meeting on May 28 he had directed that I bring the issue of pension outsourcing to the attention of the CO of A Division, and I go on to say that I forwarded it to her on June 5 and in subsequent meetings with the criminal operations officer and Inspector Burnside, who was conducting the investigation.

He called me the next morning, June 26, and he said, “Oh yes, those other allegations, I'm going to give them to our ethics officer and Assistant Commissioner John Spice.” I said, “That's great, because he'll get to the bottom of it.” He at no time ever indicated that I shouldn't have gone to the commanding officer of A Division. In fact, I put in an official document, put in another official document directly to him, spoke to him on the phone. He never said, “I never told you to do that.”

I have another report that was also tabled on January 5, 2004, after the investigation was stopped. It covers that as well. It can be reviewed. That's January 5, 2004.

And if he has the notes he says, I'd like to see those notes, because I have mine with me and they're already tabled. I can table them again if you wish.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis.

Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Laforest.

Mr. Poilievre, for seven minutes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

One of the most troubling aspects in this matter is the contracting that was carried out through the NCPC, and we have here the director, Mr. Dominic Crupi. The Auditor General has signalled that many of the contracts were given out with ultimately little or no value in return for the money that was paid. These moneys came from the pension fund and in many cases paid for matters that were not related to pension administration.

I have here in my possession the KPMG audit on Consulting and Audit Canada, relating to 45 specific contracts. Many of them involved your organization, Mr. Crupi. This document has until now been largely blocked out through its ATI, but here it is in full, and I'll table it later on.

I'd like to start by asking you who approved using Consulting and Audit Canada services instead of RCMP or PWGSC contracting services? Was that you, Mr. Crupi?

[Dominic Crupi]

That was approved by our senior management. I brought it to their attention.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Who?

[Dominic Crupi]

It would have been the advisory committee, the pension advisory committee. I was told by our procurement people that they could not handle our work anymore--there was too much--and to go to Public Works. I went to Public Works, who told me that they could not get the work done within six to nine months.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

But you wanted to go through Consulting and Audit Canada, is that right?

[Dominic Crupi]

No.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

You didn't?

[Dominic Crupi]

Here's what I was given. One of our contractors from Consulting and Audit Canada told me that Consulting and Audit Canada does this kind of work. My person approached them to see if they did that kind of work. They confirmed that they did, and they confirmed that many departments do that work and use them. I approached our procurement people and asked them if it was okay—