Evidence of meeting #52 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 investigation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
In his testimony he stated it was a friendly comment. I don't remember the exact wording, but to the effect that, “I've noticed you've lost some weight”. Was that a correct recollection on his part? Is that what you found in your investigation?
3:55 p.m.
As an Individual
That is precisely what occurred. He made a remark about losing weight, I understand, about an individual he had met previously during his service in the RCMP. An investigation was undertaken that lasted some months, and ultimately the individual that the remark had been made to was away on sick leave. So it carried on certainly for longer than we expected.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you.
When did you first become aware of the serious allegations around the pension and insurance funds?
3:55 p.m.
As an Individual
The first time I became aware was on June 24 at a morning meeting. We had--
3:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm sorry, June 24, 2003, during the meetings we held every morning.
Mr. Ewanovich reported at a meeting that there would be an audit of the pension fund issue. That was the extent of it. These are brief comments--we're doing this in our area, that in our area. He mentioned the pension fund, and I became aware an audit was going to be conducted.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Did you have any discussions that fall with Mr. Zaccardelli surrounding the audit findings just prior to their being concluded or after their being concluded, and did you raise the issue of beginning a criminal investigation at that time?
4 p.m.
As an Individual
My next involvement was on October 31. There was a senior management team meeting in the Château Cartier. I observed Brian Aiken, who was in charge of our audit unit, meet with the commissioner. They had a discussion. The commissioner mentioned to me that there were serious issues with the pension matter, internal matters, and he subsequently convened the senior executive. The commissioner at that point said he had received the results of the audit that had been done by Mr. Aiken and that Jim Ewanovich would be stepping down. At that point, Mr. Ewanovich himself said words to the effect that “This happened under my watch. I accepted responsibility, and I will be stepping down.” And he left the room.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
So there was no discussion at that time of beginning a criminal investigation, during your set committee meetings or privately?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
The following March you initiated the Ottawa Police Service investigation. What prompted that? Can you provide us with some dates and relate to us the circumstances surrounding your making that decision?
4 p.m.
As an Individual
On March 4, Assistant Commissioner Dave Gork, who was the appropriate officer at headquarters for internal matters, was in my office with respect to a meeting on the sex offender registry. At the conclusion of the meeting, he mentioned that there were internal issues around the pension investigation. He mentioned it in passing.
Later that day, he and Assistant Commissioner Killam, who was in charge of technical operations, came to my office. It was probably about 7 o'clock. Assistant Commissioner Killam indicated that there were some significant concerns and issues, and it was my understanding that those had been relayed to him by Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay.
He outlined that there were issues around contracting that appeared to be criminal in nature. They were very serious and beyond any internal matter. It was my assessment at that point that we needed to proceed with a criminal investigation, which would be conducted by an outside organization.
The commissioner of the day, Commissioner Zaccardelli, was out of the country at that point. He was in the U.S., and it was a Friday.
During the weekend, I met with him and we talked. I proposed that we needed to do a criminal investigation, given the information that had been relayed to me, and he agreed.
On March 8, I contacted Chief Vince Bevan of the Ottawa Police Service. I gave him a very high-level overview of what some of the issues were. I didn't have details; I just knew that it was serious and had to do with contracting and contract issues around the pension fund that were potentially criminal in nature. I requested that they undertake an independent investigation and appoint whoever they thought could lead that investigation from their department.
At that time, I pointed out that if they so wished, we had space available at technical operations, which was a building removed from our headquarters. It was vacant space and an option that could be undertaken.
I further advised that Assistant Commissioner Dave Gork would be the administrative contact point for the investigation. He would not be involved in any operational issues, but he would provide logistical support. If they needed some more space, computers, or resources, they would go to him.
That was the extent of my involvement in the investigation.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.
Thank you, retired officer Loeppky.
Monsieur Laforest, you have seven minutes.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon.
Mrs. Busson, you said a while ago that the fact that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has been receiving contradictory testimony for about a month or a month and a half, from the beginning in fact, is absolutely unacceptable. I fully agree with you. It is very difficult for us to see where all this is going. We keep hearing contradictory testimony at nearly each meeting, which makes our job even more difficult, which is to get to the truth of this matter. There's no smoke without fire. I think this saying is especially appropriate in this case.
How can such a situation happen in an organization like the RCMP?
I am wondering what were the motives of those persons who came to tell us that they had discovered quite inappropriate behavior at the RCMP concerning both the management of human resources and the transfer of moneys between the pension and insurance funds.
Is there a process at the RCMP to allow people to really express their opinion to the appropriate persons?
At our last meeting, Mrs. McClellan, the ex-Minister for Public Safety, told us that people can address their complaints to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. However, I believe that the Commission is open only to members of the public.
Is there a forum, based on the code of conduct, that would allow anybody to complain in an appropriate manner about situations that are ethically unacceptable?
You probably have a long experience since you are now the acting commissioner. Based on your experience, can you tell us if there is at the RCMP a system to make sure that the truth comes out in an appropriate and democratic manner in order to ensure the protection of the public?
4:05 p.m.
Commr Beverley Busson
There are actually two parts to your question that have to do with timelines, past and present. Being put in place as we speak through the proposed public servants protection act is a very robust and formal system to allow people to come forward.
The prior Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act stated that every member who finds a wrongdoing or a misconduct issue, whether it involves a peer or a supervisor, etc., has the responsibility to come forward to their supervisor. I believe the issue in that situation in the past was that the system was not as robust as it should have been in certain circumstances. In some cases, the issues were not managed properly.
One of the things that I did in the meantime was ask the ethics adviser to put out a note to everyone with my endorsement, saying that if there are any lingering issues, either past or present, that need to be dealt with, they should be, and we are anxious to do that.
Also, we are off the mark already. We have named people to be the designated officer for the new public servants protection act. I have issued communications to make sure people understand that this leadership is anxious to manage conflict properly.
There will always be conflict in organizations such as the RCMP, where there are a lot of type A personalities, a lot of very assertive people. But these conflicts need to be managed properly.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Obviously, from the testimony that we have heard so far, there seems to be at least a few people, such as Mr. Macaulay and Mrs. Revine, who have suffered consequences from their testimony. We know that there is a system of division representatives in the RCMP and that the officers are not unionized. Is there someone, among the division representatives, who tried to give you information? Have those persons being able to keep their positions of division representatives? In other words, have they been penalized for expressing the views of the members who had elected them?
4:10 p.m.
Commr Beverley Busson
Give information to me? I'm sorry, I don't quite understand.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
During this process, some division representatives wrote to you, as well as to Mr. Zaccardelli and to other deputy commissioners. Have those representatives been penalized in the sense that they had to stop representing the members who had elected them?
4:10 p.m.
Commr Beverley Busson
I'm not sure I understand your question, but if you're referring to Ms. Revine and Fraser Macaulay and the people who have brought this issue to light, I believe you're absolutely right that they have suffered for what they have done. I am actively trying to deal with those issues individually and personally with those people and any other people who have felt misused by management under those kinds of circumstances.
I hope that answers your question.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
I can give you the example of Mr. Lewis who was forced to wait a year or two after his retirement to reveal those things publicly because he did not have the feeling--that is my understanding of what he told us--that he had been heard correctly by the management of the RCMP. However, he had provided information to his supervisors, to the people he reported to, the same information that we have heard. It seems that he was not given the opportunity to say what he had to say about what he had discovered.
4:10 p.m.
Commr Beverley Busson
Yes, I agree.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Mr. Laforest.
Thank you very much, Commissioner Busson.
Mr. Williams, you have seven minutes.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Busson, your letter of March 1, 2007, I think you said in your opening statement, is not a full statement of the facts and you've now started a code of conduct investigation. But I presume that you do intend to table a complete letter in due course at an early date.
4:10 p.m.
Commr Beverley Busson
I am anxious to do that.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Okay.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the assistant law clerk will confirm, because the commissioner is under oath, that this letter that she will send to us will be deemed to be part of that oath. Perhaps the assistant law clerk could confirm this for us.