Public Accounts Committee on April 25th, 2007

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

This question is for Mr. LaFosse.

The same day, Mr. McCaulay said:

I came back under Assistant Commissioner Darrell LaFosse, who was looking for someone to come back.

This refers to his return from National Defense.

Then he added this:

But just on that point, I have to make it very clear that he was ready to take me before I ever left, and he was told, no, you can't have him, and I was sent to DND. On two further occasions, he kept trying to get me to come back; we had discussions about my coming back.

Is it true?

[A/Commr Darrell LaFosse]

Yes, sir. As I explained, the first call was to fill a vacant position, or a position that was to become vacant. There was a passage of time, because the individual who was leaving didn't leave when she thought she was going to leave. When she did leave, that's when I got Fraser.

So there was a period of time, but it was because there wasn't a position available in my area.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rodriguez.

Thank you, Deputy Commissioner LaFosse.

Mr. Fitzpatrick, you have five minutes.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I want to move right in on a high-level forensic audit that was conducted by KPMG subsequent to the Ottawa investigation.

I've read that report. If it's reasonably accurate at all, this thing outlines activities that are clearly unlawful, deceitful. The scheming and the detailed planning of the unlawful behaviour and the execution of this behaviour is exotic to the extreme. If it's accurate, the public interest was not served by these contracting procedures, and certainly the interests of the RCMP were not being served well.

Commissioner, have you seen and reviewed this KPMG forensic audit?

[Commr Beverley Busson]

I understand it exists. I haven't specifically reviewed it in the extreme. My background isn't in commercial crime or any of those areas. It is a matter for further review in our inquiry, and I am specifically asking for those kinds of--

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay. I looked at this thing, and it should lead to something. Is there any action being taken on this report?

[Commr Beverley Busson]

All of these reports are being reviewed for their validity vis-à-vis the context.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Chair, while I'm at it, we have a session that's devoted to this audit and the contracting, which I think Fraser Macaulay rightfully brought to the attention of the authorities, he and Staff Sergeant Frizzell. I think it's absolutely imperative that we have the manager of this KPMG audit at that meeting. He's like the Auditor General on things, and we have to have that person here when we do that.

I have a question for Mr. Loeppky. We heard Mr. Roy, the inspector on this thing, acknowledge that he had worked very closely with Barbara George and Rosalie Burton; that he had been seconded from the Ottawa police department into the RCMP and worked pretty closely with these people.

Now, I'm looking back here, and a lot of people are asking this question. There were 15 people involved in the investigation on an ongoing basis. Two of them are from the Ottawa police department, one of whom is the chief, and he has a lot of things to do, so he won't have his hands on this thing. The other one is Mr. Roy. Everybody else is RCMP, and it's on RCMP property, and so on.

Is this what you would call an independent investigation, from an outward appearance?

[Garry Loeppky]

Let me respond to, I think, two questions that you asked. The first question is whether I was aware that Inspector Roy had been seconded to the RCMP earlier on in his career. Is that correct, sir?

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Yes, if you want to answer that.

[Garry Loeppky]

I was not aware of that until I read the transcript of the proceedings where it was disclosed earlier, several meeting ago. That's the response to the first one.

With respect to the second one, the independence of the investigation, when I contacted Chief Vince Bevan on March 8, we talked about location. I offered up tech ops, and we talked about the independence. We came to the understanding that if there was a good accountability framework, in that Inspector Roy would run the investigation totally independently, then we would take that approach, but we would run that. He did not have space for—

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

But you'd agree that the appearance of this doesn't look good to the average bystander: 15 people involved, 13 of them are RCMP, and one who was supposed to be the lead investigator had worked heavily within the RCMP with some of the people who were under investigation.

[Garry Loeppky]

Well, if I can continue, during the investigation, Chief Bevan and I spoke about it several times. In October, we did kind of a check to see how was it going. Is there a conflict? Are there issues? He called me back on October 14 and said no, things were running fine, but they would continue to monitor it.

In previous testimony by Assistant Commissioner Gork, Roy, and Chief Bevan, they've all spoken about the total independence of the investigative team.

With respect to the composition of the team, I believe that if there's the appropriate accountability framework and reporting structure in place, then it can function very well. I go back to a file in the Toronto Police Service, where it was headed up by a member of the RCMP, with primarily Toronto Police Service investigators, and my discussions with that individual are that there were no issues.

Now, the perception is there, I agree, and it's something that certainly needs to be addressed. But in this case, it was not brought to my attention, nor was it raised by anyone else that there was an issue around that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, retired officer Loeppky.

Mr. Laforest, you have four minutes.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I will share my time with Mr. Lussier.

Commissioner Busson, after the criminal investigation of the Ottowa Police Service, the RCMP started some internal disciplinary investigations relating to allegations of misconduct. However, no disciplinary measure was ever taken because there was a limitation rule of one year.

Since we have started this review, I have met several persons of my riding who have the feeling--this is similar to the Gomery Commission--that some people have behaved inappropriately, have put money in their pockets or allowed others to put money in their pockets, but have not been punished, especially because of the limitation rule of one year.

Do you believe that the limitation rule of one year in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act should be changed? It seems clear to me that some people who were recognized as really deserving to be sanctioned did not have to face any consequences because of that rule.

[Commr Beverley Busson]

I, first of all, want to repeat that, to my knowledge, there was no money stuffed in people's pockets, and I think it's important to say that. From what I understand of the truth, there was money used for other purposes and wrongly spent, and golf games taken, and those kinds of things. We've discussed all of that.

The limitation act that applies to the RCMP has been problematic. The act was written in a day when I think it envisioned code of conduct issues such as rude members doing traffic stops, perhaps assaulting or seen to be using excessive force with an arrest, etc. The act was certainly not written to deal with this kind of situation, nor could anyone ever have envisioned that we would be in this state.

So the short answer is yes, I would like to see the RCMP Act changed.

One of the things that happened with regard to the statute of limitations as it applies to the RCMP Act specifically is that we had a ruling called Thériault that actually brought that year to a very succinct and narrow definition. That decision was made after this investigation and a number of other investigations that had been problematic for us—this isn't the only one—were in vigour. So we are doing what we can to deal with that issue.

In that regard, I have also asked for a review of that whole issue with regard to the one-year limitation as it applies to this case, to have that reviewed by, I believe, a subject matter expert in the area, and to assure me again that either formal or informal discipline is precluded in this case.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I am ready to believe you, Mrs. Busson, when you say that no one put money in their pockets but I also think that we have not yet reached the end of this matter. In any case, we have received documents saying that there had been favoritism, that contracts had been a given to persons for reasons that are difficult to explain. It is in that sense that I said that we might presume that some people put money in their pockets, even though we still do not have any evidence of that.

Mr. Lussier, you have the floor.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam commissioner, are the managers and the commissioner obliged to contribute to the pension fund?

[Commr Beverley Busson]

Absolutely.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

How much was taken from the pension fund? One million dollars, two million dollars, six million dollars?

[Commr Beverley Busson]

My understanding is that at this date the amount still outstanding is around $200,000.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

To your knowledge, has this amount been covered by insurance?

[Commr Beverley Busson]

I'm sorry; I don't understand your question.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Has the amount of $200,000 that was missing from the pension fund been reimbursed by another group of Great-West Life?

[Commr Beverley Busson]

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. I'm not trying to be obstructionist, but I don't understand your question and I don't want to give you a wrong answer. I apologize.