Public Accounts Committee on April 16th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Poilievre.

I don't see any other interventions, so I'm going to give the last minute to Mr. Christopherson and then call the question.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate everybody's comments.

In response to Mr. Poilievre's last comments, the problem is that in the meantime we're going to continue these hearings, because it's inadequate, and I've fundamentally always said that having both at the same time is a total waste. We have so much work in front of us. There are millions of other dollars of accountability we have to do work on, and we're not doing that while we're seized with this. Until we get a proper inquiry, I'm not going to vote that we don't be seized of this.

There is an issue of whether the status quo is okay or not. The status quo is going to cost this committee time and effort, and we're going to lose the opportunity to dig in other areas where we ought to. In the meantime, while you say you want to do it quickly, many of these officers have already been waiting three or four years. The last thing they want is any new effort that doesn't go all the way and give absolute, 100% accountability to the truth. This process is not going to get them that. We need a full public inquiry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.

At this time I'm going to call the question.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I want a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'll instruct the clerk to have a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 0 )

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Colleagues, we've been here for two hours so we'll take a break for a few minutes. Then we'll come back to Mr. Laforest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

All right, we'll resume the meeting.

Colleagues, it's now 5:32. On unanimous agreement of the committee, we're going to continue the meeting until 6:30. When we cut off the questioning, we were just starting round two. What I propose to do is go back to round two, start with Monsieur Laforest and make it a five-minute round, and then just keep going as far as we get.

Mr. Poilievre will be up next, and then so on and so forth.

Mr. Laforest, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Zaccardelli, you stated earlier that you acted quickly once you became aware of certain situations, and that you did so on the issue we are dealing with today as well as on other issues. So, toward the end of May 2003, Mr. Lewis informed you of problems in the area of human resources management. Then, in November 2003, Mr. Ewanovich and Crupi were removed from their positions.

Do you agree with me so far?

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

Yes.

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

You agree. You are nodding.

I have a hard time understanding. You say you act quickly, but at the same time, when Mr. Lewis came forward with information, you already knew that this would probably implicate Mr. Ewanovich and Mr. Crupi. Nevertheless, in July 2003, you agreed that Mr. Ewanovich and Mr. Crupi should receive an annual performance bonus at the maximum rate possible. More than that, Mr. Ewanovich's contract that was due to expire in October 2003 was prolonged until October 2004. This is information provided by Mr. Lewis.

I have difficulty understanding. You were in receipt of information implicating these two persons, but based on an assessment, you gave them performance bonuses in addition of renewing the contract of one of them. Then, four months later, you have these people removed from their position. It is a strange process that is hard to follow.

I would like an explanation.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

Mr. Chairman, on the point of performance pay, my recollection is that I never, contrary to what Mr. Laforest has said, authorized the maximum payable performance pay for Mr. Ewanovich and Mr. Crupi. After I had information from Mr. Lewis--that is correct. But that information was just information. I needed an audit in order to determine what really was there and what else I should do with it. The fact that somebody makes an allegation doesn't mean the allegation is proven. I needed an audit to do that.

In the subsequent year, in the most immediate performance appraisal of Mr. Ewanovich, after the audit was concluded and I determined that he and Mr. Crupi should be removed, in that year, the first opportunity I had, I authorized no performance pay for them.

Now, on the other issue that Mr. Laforest touched upon, I did remove them immediately. I removed Mr. Ewanovich from his position. As I said, Barb George took over immediately that day in his former position. I then instructed her to remove Mr. Crupi.

But as you know, in providing due process to people, the fact that you remove them from their jobs does not mean they are automatically off the books. People have leave, there are certain entitlements. That's part of due process that everybody's allowed, and that's what Mr. Ewanovich and Mr. Crupi were given. I gave my clear instructions as to what should be done on the day I received the audit--not two days later, not three days. The very day that I received the audit, I acted upon the information that I had.

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

Thank you, Mr. Zaccardelli.

Mr. Lewis, you provided us with information according to which Mr. Crupi and Mr. Ewanovich received an annual performance bonus at the maximum rate and that Mr. Ewanovich's contract was prolonged. When Mr. Zaccardelli just stated that there had been no performance pay, I saw you react.

Could you tell us about it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Lewis.

[Ron Lewis]

Mr. Chairman, I'm reacting to several statements that Mr. Zaccardelli has made in his opening statement and subsequent—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

If you could, be relatively brief.

[Ron Lewis]

Yes.

He says he immediately took action. That's not correct. Now, either Deputy Commissioner George or Mr. Zaccardelli is not telling the truth, because when the report came in, in October—that's when the report was tabled on the audit that he caused—nothing was done. When I went forward, for the members I represented, and talked to Deputy Commissioner George, she said, “Nothing will be done.”

That's when I sent the message forward that if there's nothing done, it's going public. Then on November 4...now, if that's immediate, I don't know. Crupi wasn't removed until about November 23, and the investigation was not going to happen.

He says, “I took immediate action.” I would like Mr. Zaccardelli to have produced any document wherein he requested an internal investigation immediately. I would like to know when he ordered a criminal investigation, because I know that it was my documents that were suppressed, and I could not get the investigation going without going to the government.

Now, if that's immediately.... He gives you the impression that on that day...and he says it: “that day”. It was not that day. It was November 4; that's several weeks after the audit came out. It was November 3; that's a month after the audit came out. And the internal investigation was ordered in 2005; that's two years later. And the limitation of action is only one year. By the time they started it, it was too late anyway.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You have a brief point of clarification, Mr. Zaccardelli, and I will ask you to be brief.

[Giuliano Zaccardelli]

I can only repeat again that the day I received the audit report, in front of my senior executive committee--in front of my senior executive committee--I made the decision, and I told Jim Ewanovich that he was being removed from his position. That day, I appointed Barb George as the new chief human resource officer, with the instructions to remove Crupi from his position. If that is not immediate action....

Now, Mr. Lewis may not have liked all that action that I took; that's his choice. But that is decisive action based on the report. And the report did not in any way identify anybody else, or—very importantly—find any evidence of criminal activity. That's what I had in that report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Zaccardelli.

Mr. Poilievre, you have five minutes.

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

Mr. Lewis, how do you respond to that?

[Ron Lewis]

I have a document that I received this weekend—Saturday—from the RCMP. It identifies that in October 2003 an internal audit was concluded, and they talk about the irregularities. It says that in November 2003, which is the next month, Mr. Ewanovich was removed from his job and Deputy Commissioner Barb George was appointed. That's not the same day; that's either weeks or months. On November 23, Mr. Crupi was removed.

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

Can you please table that?

[Ron Lewis]

Yes, I will.

So I don't get it. The same day? It's not; it's weeks apart. And it's only after my intervention; that's the key here. I hope everybody's catching on to that. I had to go in to talk to Barbara George and send messages to the commissioner that if nothing was done I was going public.

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

You said you intervened with the government at that point to get an investigation?

[Ron Lewis]

No, in fact, when Barbara George agreed to accept my complaint.... It was only after she went in and basically insisted. When you ask her whether she had a meeting with her husband and stayed up until 3 o'clock in the morning, and what the discussion was, it will be: “I was going in and I was going to resign if Mr. Zaccardelli wasn't going to start an investigation.” Now, there's somebody not telling the truth here. I'm just going on what I've been told and what I've been presenting, and I have the documents.

I don't hear at any time that Mr. Zaccardelli says, “I have the documents to show that I received a report on this date, and I did my action on that date.” Well, let's get them together; let's ask him for the documents.