Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the investigation into the RCMP pension fund undertaken by the Ottawa Police Service between March 2004 and June 2005 was an independent, thorough, and complete criminal investigation. It was concluded with integrity and professionalism in accordance with the principles of major case management and in keeping with conventional practices in modern Canadian policing.
My name is Paul Roy and I was the officer in charge of this investigation. By way of background, I am a 32-year veteran of the Ottawa Police Service, having retired last January as an inspector. Over half my career has been spent in the field of criminal investigations. Of relevance to this committee is the fact that I spent five years with the Professional Standards Section conducting and managing investigations of other police officers.
For the last five years prior to retirement, I was a senior officer responsible , first, for directing the Major Crime Unit and subsequently, for directing the property and enterprise crime units, including the Organized Fraud Unit, the High Tech Crime Unit and Forensic Identification Services.
I wish to make the following comments about the investigation. The investigation took 15 months. There were 238 interviews, including an interview with the Commissioner of the RCMP. There were 75,000 documents researched. There was a provincial crown attorney assigned to the file from the onset. A number of significant investigative techniques were employed. Relevant documents were obtained, regardless of where they were held and in spite of the security classification surrounding them. The final report, including several binders, filled a banker's box. The executive summary was 51 pages long.
Why were no criminal charges laid? Gone are the days when police officers, in doubt over laying charges, can simply let the judge sort it out. Royal commissions and judicial inquiries have reiterated that in Canada the laying of criminal charges is an extremely serious exercise of public authority. In Ontario, charges will only proceed where there is a “reasonable prospect of conviction”, considered to be a higher legal threshold to lay a charge than “reasonable and probable grounds”, called for in the Criminal Code of Canada. In this case, there was no reasonable prospect of criminal conviction.
That does not mean, however, that no wrongdoing took place--to the contrary. The Ottawa Police investigation report identifies that 21 persons at different levels of the RCMP were alleged to have committed wrongdoings or improper actions, with 14 pages of specific allegations.
I would like to tell you how the investigation operated. I was in charge of this investigation. That meant that I made the investigative decisions. In doing so, I met regularly with Ottawa Police Chief Vince Bevan, alone or with Deputy Chief Sue O'Sullivan and Ottawa Police Superintendent Peter Crosby, my immediate supervisor. We discussed strategies and operational options, but the decisions were mine.
In making those decisions, I also met with Mr. Robert Wadden, the assigned provincial crown attorney, and Sergeant William Sullivan from the Ottawa Police Service, who worked with me, and I met regularly with Ottawa Police Service general counsel Vincent Westwick, who is also in charge of our professional standards section. I consulted regularly with the investigative team members to elicit their opinions and views. I encouraged each member of the team to be involved, to debate, to challenge operational theories and decisions. That is more than just good management; it is a test against tunnel vision or rush to judgment, an essential part of the integrity of any investigation.
Now I wish to comment on the role of Assistant Commissioner David Gork and the independence of the investigation.
It's very difficult to conduct an investigation of this magnitude within a large institution without a contact or liaison person. During this investigation, I met with Assistant Commissioner Gork when I needed something from the RCMP, whether it be resources, facilities, specialized or technical operational support, or access to documents or persons. In each and every case Assistant Commissioner Gork provided full and complete support to my investigation. At no time did he attempt to interfere or influence me in any way. I did not report to Mr. Gork, nor did I take any direction from him. Indeed, in my opinion, Assistant Commissioner Gork and all the RCMP members assigned to the investigative team put the interest of the investigation ahead of their own interests and those of the RCMP.
While I accept the comments of the Auditor General and others about the perceived lack of independence, I invite the committee to consider the following:
This investigation was directed by the Ottawa Police Service.
I was the officer in charge and reported to the chief of the Ottawa Police Service.
It started out as a 3-month investigation, but lasted 15 months; the decision to increase the duration and magnitude was mine.
The crown assigned to the investigation was from the office of the provincial Crown Attorney and was involved throughout the investigation, not just at the end.
The Ottawa Police ordered and relied on an independent forensic audit.
The results of the investigation were announced publicly by the Ottawa Police in a media conference on June 27, 2005.
There was no influence attempted or exercised in relation to this investigation.
This investigation uncovered all the wrongdoing, mismanagement and unethical behaviour that existed and outlined detailed evidence as to who was accountable for such actions, regardless of their rank or position within the RCMP.
The report provided was a detailed and a complete review of all the findings.
I presented my final report to Chief Bevan who in turn delivered it directly to the Commissioner of the RCMP.
I am fully committed to cooperating with this committee and with the independent investigation called by the government.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
