Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the committee for allowing me this opportunity to respond to the very serious allegation that has been made against me by the member for Etobicoke Centre.
As the member for York West said on Monday, “In this process, it is unfair for people to have accusations made against them and not to have sufficient time to be able to respond.” I therefore welcome this opportunity to address the accusation directed against me, and to respond to any further questions committee members may have.
In the course of the committee's meeting on March 28, the member for Etobicoke Centre suggested that I had perjured myself during my initial testimony almost two months ago.
Given the severity of the allegation, which the member repeated publicly and to the media, I have been suspended from my duties by the Commissioner of the RCMP, pending a full disciplinary investigation. The utterance of the term “perjury” was the catalyst that changed my life forever.
I have proudly served as a member and officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for 29 years, and this is the first time in my entire career that my conduct and integrity have been called into question. Worse still, because of the confusion surrounding these hearings, some press reports have even suggested that I was somehow involved in the problems with the RCMP pension and insurance funds. I was not.
Further, I did not and have not resigned from the RCMP. On the evening of March 26, 2007, I was asked to step down from my position as deputy commissioner, human resources, at the urging of the commissioner, who told me that while she believed me and felt I had done nothing wrong, it would be in the best interest of the force in light of the increased pressure on the RCMP.
This was prior to any allegations having been made against me, two days before the hearings of March 28.
I made that very difficult decision in a state of disbelief and shock, and I do not yet know how I managed to drive myself home following that meeting.
The arrangement we had reached, which followed her private meetings with other witnesses, was that I would step down and take a combination of educational leave and pre-retirement leave.
The reasons for my suspension, which followed the hearings, relate exclusively to issues arising out of testimony before this committee, and in particular the allegation made by the member for Etobicoke Centre. Indeed, the main purpose for my appearance here today is to address the allegation of perjury, an allegation that is as unfair as it is unfounded.
Let me be perfectly clear. At no time did I either mislead this committee or provide false testimony. The evidence and answers that I gave in response to your questions were at all times honest and accurate.
When I testified on February 21, I was asked the following question: “Did you or Mr. Zaccardelli order that Staff Sergeant Frizzell be removed, and was it you or Mr. Zaccardelli who ordered that the investigation be shut down?”
My response was, and I quote: “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.”
Mr. Chairman, I stand by that answer. Moreover, I would refer the committee to the testimony given by Assistant Commissioner Gork, where he stated that the order to remove Sergeant Frizzell was made by him, in consultation with Inspector Paul Roy of the Ottawa Police Service. Inspector Roy is here today. More specifically, in response to repeated questions from committee members, Assistant Commissioner Gork further confirmed that I had never contacted him to have Sergeant Frizzell removed.
Notwithstanding these assurances, the member for Etobicoke Centre tabled a selection of e-mails that he claims show that I had ordered Sergeant Frizzell's removal. He then quoted for the record a short passage from an e-mail written by Chief Superintendent Doug Lang. It read, and I quote: “I have an electronic copy of the written order we served on Frizzell at the request of A/Commr Gork and D/Commr George...”
Mr. Chairman, I have since reviewed the e-mails that were tabled by the member for Etobicoke Centre, including the e-mail from which he quoted. The committee will note that the e-mail in question was part of an exchange of e-mails written between Chief Superintendent Lang and Assistant Commissioner Bruce Rogerson. Following the e-mail I have quoted, Assistant Commissioner Rogerson asked Chief Superintendent Lang to clarify my involvement, as my name had not appeared on the final order given to Frizzell.
Either deliberately or carelessly, the member from Etobicoke Centre failed to read the explanation and the clarification ultimately provided by Chief Superintendent Lang.
As Chief Superintendent Lang's explanation accurately details the events in question, I believe it should be quoted in its entirety. I quote:
I spoke with Deputy George on the phone during this period (before the order was prepared), who provided me further details of Sgt Frizzell's continuance of this investigation after he had been asked to stop, and what she had deemed as continued harassment of one of her employees by Sgt Frizzell.... I received no formal order from either A/Commr Gork nor Deputy George, just requests from both to ensure this situation was rectified, and A/Commr Gork's direction that it be served on Sgt Frizzell in the form of a written order. I advised both when it had been formally served.
These comments further confirm that I did not order the removal of Sergeant Frizzell and that my answer to the committee was accurate. I am deeply troubled by the fact that the member for Etobicoke Centre used a misleading quote, taken grossly out of context, as the basis for alleging that I had lied to this committee and the public.
Given the horrific consequences that my family and I have endured as a result of these false claims, it is my sincere hope that this will put to rest any suggestion that I have been dishonest.
These e-mails also reference an issue that has not been fully explained to the committee, the issue of Sergeant Frizzell's conduct during the Ottawa Police Service investigation. Although Inspector Roy is far better able to discuss the problems he had with Sergeant Frizzell during his investigation, I want to be clear about the concerns that I had expressed to others at the time.
In June 2005, Ms. Rosalie Burton told me that some members of her staff were being aggressively interrogated by Sergeant Frizzell. In fact, it was my understanding that at least two staff members were so upset after their interviews with Sergeant Frizzell that they had to be sent home. As a career RCMP officer, I can attest that this type of conduct by an investigating officer is neither acceptable nor productive.
Shortly thereafter, Sergeant Frizzell left a voice-mail message on Ms. Burton's telephone, which he played for the committee during his appearance on March 28. In the message, Sergeant Frizzell indicated that “a criminal act is ongoing and seemingly condoned by senior management”.
Ms. Burton and Deputy Commissioner Gauvin both assured me that Sergeant Frizzell had failed to understand the matters he was investigating with respect to the insurance outsourcing. Moreover, it was highly inappropriate for an officer involved in an investigation to leave such a message for someone he subsequently wished to interview.
In respect of both complaints, I telephoned Assistant Commissioner Darrell LaFosse and told him of what I had learned, and I asked that he speak with Sergeant Frizzell regarding his interviewing methods. Assistant Commissioner LaFosse, in turn, told me that I should express my concerns to Assistant Commissioner Rogerson, which I did shortly thereafter.
In the course of these calls I was informed that, unbeknownst to me, a decision had already been made by the Ottawa Police Service to terminate the probity investigation. Upon learning this, I spoke with Chief Superintendent Lang to see what now was being done with respect to Sergeant Frizzell. Chief Superintendent Lang later advised me that he had served Sergeant Frizzell with an order from Assistant Commissioner Gork instructing him to return to his regular duties. A copy of that order was provided to this committee by Commissioner Busson as an attachment to her letter of March 1, 2007.
The order states in part:
You have been previously advised by Inspector Paul Roy of the Ottawa Police Service to cease and desist any and all investigative activities relative to the project probity investigation. This investigative team has now been dismantled. We have now been made aware that despite the instructions you have already received, that you continue to conduct further inquiries relative to this investigation for which you have no mandate or authority.
In the weeks and months after the investigation ended, I came to learn that others had experienced similar problems with Sergeant Frizzell.
In support of this, I would like to table an e-mail exchange that took place between me and Assistant Commissioner Gork following my first appearance before this committee. The e-mail outlines a series of problems that the Ottawa Police Service and others had had with Sergeant Frizzell in the course of the investigation. Again, however, Inspector Roy will be better able to speak to these issues.
Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that I continue to have a great respect for the important work of this committee. For 29 years I have been a career RCMP officer. My husband was a former RCMP member. Our eldest son is an RCMP member, and our two younger sons hope to join the RCMP after graduating university. We are proud of this force and proud of its members.
As difficult as these hearings have been for me personally, for my family, my friends, and my supporters, I recognize their role in restoring the public's trust and confidence in the RCMP. I support and applaud your continued efforts to understand what took place during this difficult period.
Unfortunately, given the limited time period we have for opening statements, I have not been able to address all of the issues that this committee has heard of. To that end, I would be pleased to take any questions you may have on the issues I have raised in my opening statement, or indeed any other issues as well.
Thank you. Merci.
