Public Accounts Committee on April 18th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Did he table that e-mail?

[D/Commr Barbara George]

I don't believe he did, but that's why I brought the e-mail today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You're going to table it today.

[D/Commr Barbara George]

Yes, and it is translated as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We're going to move on. I'm sure somebody will want to come back to that, but we do have rules.

Mr. Christopherson, for eight minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

And thank you all for your attendance here today.

Let me just say at the outset that I appreciate Mr. Williams' feeling of outrage. And the more we dig, the more we realize that there's more to find.

I would just point out that the investigation that has been called into this could get no closer to this issue Mr. Williams just raised than we did—in fact, less so. We at least have put people under oath. The investigator can't do that. The investigator can't command documents. Even if they do, there's nothing to require them to make those documents part of the final submission, and that's the problem.

It would help a lot—and I say this very sincerely—if the Conservative members moved from abstention to lending their considerable weight to the call for a proper judicial inquiry so that these witnesses can have the protection they need and ultimately we'll get to the truth, because we're not here. We're going to keep going in circles. We're going to keep doing this because it's better than that investigation, but this is far from perfect.

Every time we go around the table, to me it just reinforces that much more that what the RCMP deserves, what the officers of the RCMP deserve, and what the Canadian public deserve is a proper, full public inquiry, and we're not going to stop hammering away at that until we bloody well get one.

Deputy, I'd like to return to some of your comments.

By the way, I have a great deal of sympathy for the concerns you raised at the beginning. We're no closer to getting to the truth than we were at the beginning. I have no idea, at the end of the day, who is going to be held responsible, but I really worry about people being wronged in this process. So I appreciate what you said, Deputy, but as you know, we have to persevere, we have to do the best we can, and hopefully the minister will step in and give us tools to do a better job.

When you met with us the last time, you said, “It was felt at that time by the then commissioner that Chief Superintendent Macaulay would benefit from a secondment. He was actually given a short secondment with the military.”

Can I ask you to give us your recollection of that discussion you had with the commissioner, given that—I'm going from memory, so I stand to be corrected—the former commissioner's testimony stated that he thought Chief Superintendent Macaulay had made some kind of mistake and that by going off to DND he could reclaim his reputation and get his career back on track? That didn't sound to me like it was only about furthering Chief Superintendent Macaulay's career, and he has given direct testimony that he believes he was removed for other reasons—meaning, bringing forward these issues.

Could you tell us what that conversation was, as you recall it, with the former commissioner about how this was going to be a benefit to Chief Superintendent Macaulay's career?

[D/Commr Barbara George]

Yes, I can.

There was a lot of conversation following what the commissioner saw as a grave disappointment in the fact that Chief Superintendent Macaulay had not come forward on a timely basis to tell him about the issues that were running rampant in NCPC, HR, and corporate. Remember, as I said, according to the commissioner, he heard Macaulay say, “Well, I knew about it for a year and a half.” I heard, “I knew about it for a year, maybe more.”

So to the commissioner, he was gravely disappointed. Had he come forward sooner, a year ago maybe, we could have gotten our teeth into this situation, and whatever wrongdoing was ongoing, whatever was happening with the pension plan, whatever was happening with the insurances, and God knows what else could have been seen to much sooner and probably wouldn't have gotten to the state that it did.

That said, the commissioner said, “You know, this person was promoted early, 22 years of service, to chief superintendent. What he needs is to go somewhere to learn some courage and some leadership. Look at some places where he can go.” That's what he said. There was a little bit of talk about returning him to E Division for a while, because I think that's the operational division whence he came.

Finally, we settled on DND. They have a marvellous military ethos. They are famous for their leadership. So that's where that came in. It was a two-year secondment, and Macaulay spent seven months there.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'd be interested, Chief Superintendent Macaulay...and I accept that you may have already given testimony to this, but nonetheless, when did you hear about this? Was it in writing? Was it personal? Who did you hear it from, and exactly what did they say was the reason for the secondment?

[C/Supt Fraser Macaulay]

The first time was on August 21, as I was leaving. That was at 5 p.m. in Deputy Commissioner Barb George's office. At that time, she was still assistant commissioner. I was being removed because of the fact that I had not delivered on HRMIS and the way I handled the complaint against Dominic Crupi. Then-Assistant Commissioner George advised me that I should not have taken it to the level that I had, and then she added that I sat on the information too long.

This “sat on the information too long” has haunted me for three and a half years. Monday, Commissioner Zaccardelli said it was a year and a half. I have my employment record, to table with you today. It will show you that if I knew for a year and a half, I knew the day I arrived into my new job in HR as the chief superintendent. I arrived there exactly seventeen months before I was in his office. On the year and a half, even now that the whole investigation is all done and we are now in 2007, there is nobody who can tell me or demonstrate to me how it's even possible that I knew ahead of that time.

I knew on May 28, and even then I didn't really know on May 28. On May 28, I received a phone call from Jim Ewanovich, who had been visited by Assistant Commissioner Spice and Ron Lewis in regard to his behaviour. He was upset that they had accused him of some things, and Jim felt I was one of the officers who was informing Ron as to his behaviour. It just doesn't make any sense.

From there, I came back and I spoke to Denise Revine, who was doing the A-base. If you look at the allegations on June 17, they are written by Denise Revine, in consultation with me. I knew nothing before that time.

Nobody has put forward any evidence that I knew before that time. During my conversations with these folks to try to even correct it once it was told to me, I explained and then started to find out things, such as the fact that it had come to the attention of the RCMP in 2002, and that the HR folks had actually built a form on which you had to tick off whether or not the person you were now hiring was in your family. They built an HR form in 2002. That is not where I was, and it was unbeknownst to me.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

My concern about this, Deputy, is that the answer you gave certainly left the impression that, far from being a punishment, it was some kind of a career favour. That could be just because the answer wasn't as complete as it could have been, but that was the concern there.

If I can, I'm going to read another quotation, Deputy. This is you speaking :“I'm being careful with regard to the privacy concerns here, but I understood [Sergeant Frizzell left] for health reasons.” Do you still stand by the statement that this happened because of health reasons, Deputy?

[D/Commr Barbara George]

When I had a conversation with Chief Superintendent Doug Lang, I asked him if Sergeant Frizzell was all right. He said, “Well, Barb, I believe he's going to be off sick for a while. He's not feeling very good.” That's what I heard, and that's all I can say to that.

If I can make a point, please, Mr. Macaulay was talking about when he knew what. Vern White, who is about to become the new chief for the Ottawa Police Service, has had a conversation with me. He recalls a conversation that I believe Chief Superintendent Macaulay referred to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We're not going to get into the conversations with Mr. White.

We'll move on to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. George, before the end of the previous round, I had spoken to you about this letter from Mr. Lewis, dated January 5, 2004. Could you provide us with any documentation, e-mails, or anything you might have on file that would show action on this? The record up to this point shows that nothing transpired for another three months, until such time as Mr. Lewis went to Treasury Board and Minister McLellan. A couple of days afterwards, the Ottawa Police Service then began their investigation.

I'd like to move on to another part of your testimony, Ms. George, dealing with Mr. Crupi and his rampant nepotism. I asked you on February 21 whether Mr. Crupi got 18 months leave with pay. Your answer was short and succinct: “Mr. Crupi was suspended.” I asked, “With pay?” You said, “Yes.”

Now, before the committee, Mr. Zaccardelli said—and this is a quote: “I can only repeat again that the day I received the report...I appointed Barb George as the new chief human resources officer, with the instructions to remove Crupi from his position.” He then went on to say: “If that was not immediate action...”.

When Mr. Williams was questioning you just now, you referenced your knowledge of Treasury Board guidelines. The public service staff regulation act states, under point (h)(1)(e): “if the alleged misconduct so warrants, suspend the employee from duty immediately”--that's Mr. Zaccardelli underlined that he did--“and obtain approval without delay”--well, he instructed you to do that--“tell the employee that he/she is suspended from duty without pay pending an investigation of his/her alleged misconduct, and that it will be confirmed in writing.”

You quite clearly said you suspended him, and you suspended him with pay. Your guidelines say that should not have happened. Why?

[D/Commr Barbara George]

With Dom Crupi, I spoke with him after Jim Ewanovich resigned. I said he was going to have to go home because his presence was upsetting people. He protested. He said he had only done what Jim Ewanovich asked him to do, and he asked what kind of leave he would be on. I told him to go home on administrative leave and said I would check with Treasury Board—

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Ms. George, Mr. Zaccardelli was absolutely clear. When he saw the audit report, there was a concern about grave misconduct, and he instructed you to have him removed immediately.

[D/Commr Barbara George]

And I did.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

You referenced guidelines, and the guidelines don't provide any wiggle room. They clearly state “without pay”. He received pay for 18 months. How did you make that decision?

[D/Commr Barbara George]

I called the Treasury Board, at a very high level, and I told them the situation. The CHRO had resigned and had gone home. I now had the director of NCPC, and I asked if I had the grounds to suspend the CHRO without pay. I was asked what the circumstances were, and I said it was a criminal investigation.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Do you have a document that can verify that it wasn't you who made that decision?

[D/Commr Barbara George]

I have a witness who can confirm that he told me. He said that if there were no criminal charges pending on this individual, I was quite within the my rights to send him home with pay.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

But the guidelines are quite clear—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Let her continue on, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Please answer the question.

[D/Commr Barbara George]

I phoned the Treasury Board and I gave them the circumstances. I asked if I could take away this man's livelihood. I indicated that there were no criminal charges, but that there was a lot of noise at the time and things would be investigated. The answer was that I was well within my rights to send him home with pay until such time as there would be charges or it looked like we were about to lay charges. That did happen later on.

At this point, Mr. Crupi refused to accept it because he was on ODS, off-duty sick. Shortly thereafter, he resigned.