Evidence of meeting #50 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was george.
A recording is available from Parliament.
D/Commr Barbara George
With regard to Mr. Frizzell's comments about Doug Lang, etc., and Mr. Macaulay's comments, I'll put it all in together.
When Rosalie Burton came into my office and talked about the sad state that the witnesses were in following interviews by Sergeant Frizzell, we talked about the fact that NCPC was being decimated and that these people were witnesses.
What I did was I immediately picked up the phone and spoke with Assistant Commissioner LaFosse, and I asked him if somebody could speak with Sergeant Frizzell to ask him to tone down his interviewing methodology. For people to run screaming out of the office after a witness interview is simply not productive and not normal. So Assistant Commissioner LaFosse asked me to speak with Bruce Rogerson, and I told him the same thing.
At about the same time, Rosalie Burton forwarded me an e-mail, it was a voice mail that she had put to paper, from Staff Sergeant Frizzell to her, outlining serious wrongdoing going on with the insurance. I don't have a background in insurance, but I knew that Rosalie had been heavily involved in correcting the gaps in the insurance file for the RCMP and that she had been working closely with corporate, and in particular Deputy Commissioner Paul Gauvin.
Upon receipt of this e-mail, I took it forward to Paul Gauvin, and I said, “This looks like there are still continuing wrongdoings or crimes being committed within the insurance.” Paul said, “Barb, I'm telling you right now there is nothing there. Everything that needs to be done to correct the insurance is done.” He said, “You can rest assured that your members are covered with life and disability. Every other insurance is covered.” The problem is that the RCMP never did, and still doesn't, have the authority to administer insurance programs for our members.
I asked him about the premiums. I said, “Our members are thinking that the premium costs are going to double or triple.” He said, “A little, but really, it's only 2.5% for administrative fees, because that's how the insurance is paid.”
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Ms. George.
I'm going to move now to Monsieur Laforest, pour huit minutes.
Monsieur Laforest.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Macaulay, when you testified before us on March 28, you stated that after gathering certain bits of information connected with the problems that we are reviewing at this time, problems that you had observed and that Ms. Revine had also reported to you, you advised both Mr. Zaccardelli and Ms. George of the situation. Ms. George clearly advised you at the time that you were an island by yourself and that nobody was going to tell the truth. That's what you told us last time. You said that you had lengthy conversations on the issues and that she called you naive to think that anyone was going to stand beside you in this type of situation and tell the truth.
Is that in fact what you told us last time?
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Ms. George, do you agree with Mr. Macaulay's testimony?
Bloc
D/Commr Barbara George
No, I am not.
If I may elaborate, following Commissioner Zaccardelli's severe disappointment with Chief Superintendent Macaulay's failure to come forward in a timely manner with the knowledge he had concerning the alleged wrongdoings in the HR and corporate areas, he had a meeting with him. My recollection of that meeting—because I was there too; the commissioner was there speaking with Fraser Macaulay, and I was there too. There were three of us in that room.
I should tell this committee that Chief Superintendent Macaulay had no intention whatsoever of coming in to see the commissioner and relaying to him exactly what it was he knew, listed as “noise”, around the outsourcing and other issues. I made that appointment early that morning. I asked the commissioner if I could come over to see him, and I said, “Commissioner, I would like to bring Fraser Macaulay. Will you listen?” He said, “Yes, bring him in.”
I went across the street to the Hampton Inn, where there was a meeting in place—an HRMT meeting. I looked at Mr. Macaulay and said, “Fraser, you're coming with me. We are going to see the commissioner.” He was not happy about that.
We went in. We sat down, the three of us, and I introduced it. I said, “Commissioner, Fraser has some information here. I've heard little bits of it, but I think there is a lot of information that you need to hear with regard to what's going on in the HR sector and possibly in corporate.”
Fraser sat down and started to relate to the commissioner, face to face, all of the alleged wrongdoings, from contract splitting to nepotism to harassment of employees to overpayment, and on and on it went.
At the end of that conversation the commissioner, to my recollection, asked Fraser two questions.
He said: “Fraser, how long have you known about this?” Mr. Macaulay answered: “A year, maybe longer.”
The next question from the commissioner: “Fraser, when were you going to come to tell me about this?” Fraser's answer: “I wasn't. I report to Jim Ewanovich. He's my boss; he'll kill you. I have to look out for my career.”
The commissioner said: “Fraser, you should let me look out for your career.”
Following this, the commissioner said he had to be held accountable, that we had to look at giving him an opportunity—he is young, with 22 years' service, and he had a chief superintendent's rank—
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Mr. Chairman, once again, just like at the last meeting, we're faced with a very difficult situation. We have here people who have sworn an oath and who are presenting contradictory testimony to the committee. Again, this highlights the importance of the motion adopted at our last meeting which calls on the committee to request a public inquiry from the Minister of Public Security, in order to get to the bottom of this matter. Twice now we've heard this testimony. I'd like us to continue making use of the time available to us, but it's very important that we move in the direction of a public inquiry.
Ms. Burton, Ms. Revine presented us with some documents showing that after she was laid off, you apparently signed a contract worth in excess of $700,000 with the firm of Deloitte & Touche to review staffing services.
Did you in fact contract the services of a private firm for a job that Ms. Revine could have carried out herself?
Former Director General of Human Resources, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, without seeing the actual document, it's difficult for me to answer. I don't know the timeframe, I don't know the contract in question, and I don't know the dollar amount. If it's available, I'll—
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I'm not sure exactly when you arrived, but that's what Ms. Revine told us in her submission. Between 2003 and 2005, you were opposed to her returning to work. Your office agreed to put her name on a priority list. In the interim, you allegedly signed a contract worth over $700,000 with Insignis Consulting to implement a strategic leadership initiative. Ms. Revine had already been involved in two such initiatives and could very well have handled the job herself, thereby sparing the RCMP from having to award a $700,000 contract.
If you can't answer the question at this time, I would appreciate your sending us an answer at a later date.
Former Director General of Human Resources, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
Yes, thank you.
As a result of the management action plan, where I put corrective actions in against the insurance audit findings, part of the corrective action was to conduct an A-base of the National Compensation Policy Centre, not the entire HR directorate or branch or team. I have no knowledge of the A-base and have not seen the A-base that Ms. Revine was doing or had done.
I know that I was directed, endorsed by the audit committee, to do an A-base review only on what we call NCPC, the National Compensation Policy Centre. That was a part of the corrective measures we put in in response to the RCMP internal audit, and it was subsequently reviewed by the Office of the Auditor General. My best recollection is that it was not to that amount.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Ms. Burton, can you give us, in writing to the committee, the full and complete details of the contract that Monsieur Laforest was referring to: when it was signed, your involvement, and the details—all details?
Former Director General of Human Resources, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Merci beaucoup, monsieur Laforest.
Mr. Williams, you have eight minutes.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. George, you have reviewed the testimony, and I presume you read the chair's opening remarks the other day, when he said that witnesses are required to give fulsome answers to the committee. This is not a court of law where you're in defence. You are protected by parliamentary privilege; therefore, fulsome answers are what we expect and will require.
I'll go back to your testimony on February 21 where, first of all, you talk about an e-mail from Bruce Rogerson to Fraser Macaulay prior to Mr. Macaulay's appearing before the committee. He said, “Barb George called Darrell LaFosse, then me and, then, Dave Gork, surrounding Mike Frizzell's harassing behaviour and he needed to be dealt with swiftly. ... As we are aware of the calls that were made, Dave and Barb were consulted and, they were both advised of the order served whereby Frizzell was removed from his office...”
I believe in your opening statement you also mentioned that you were advised when the thing was formally served. I think you acknowledged that.
Now, on February 21, you said, “I can state with absolute finality that it was neither Commissioner Zaccardelli nor me who had anything whatsoever to do with, as you say, the removal of Sergeant Frizzell.” And I acknowledge that you did not give the order, but you acknowledge that you were aware it was all happening.
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj says, “Can you tell us who it was?” You say, “No, I'm not aware of who it was. The best I can state is that when Sergeant Frizzell left, I understood he returned to his home division...”.
Now, you were aware of the circumstances regarding the removal of Mr. Frizzell. I'm not asking whether you gave the order, I'm not asking if you made the decision; I'm just saying you were aware. Am I correct?
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
No, I said the question was about who removed Sergeant Frizzell.
Let me give the quotation again. You stated, “I can state with absolute finality that it was neither Commissioner Zaccardelli nor me who had anything whatsoever to do with, as you say, the removal of Sergeant Frizzell.”
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I said and I acknowledge that you didn't give the order.
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj then asked you, “Can you tell us who it was?” You replied, “No, I'm not aware of who it was. The best I can state is that when Sergeant Frizzell left, I understood he returned to his home division...”.
Now, remember, you're required to give fulsome answers here. You were aware of the circumstances regarding Mr. Frizzell's removal from that position.
D/Commr Barbara George
I was aware that Sergeant Frizzell had been ordered back to his home base. I could not and I did not have any document before me to tell you who had signed off on that document.
Further along, when you asked me, “Well, are you aware? Do you know who signed off on the document?” and--