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.
4:45 p.m.
Commr Beverley Busson
But if you're asking whether I am aware of any, the answer is no.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Loeppky, Sergeant Frizzell testified in front of this committee that he was going to see you and was concerned about the conversation, but then when he saw you, he mentioned, he gave you a review of what he had discovered in his investigation. And here's what he said you relayed to him: “You guys have found lots; now they'll have to do something.” Then he said to you: “Who's 'they'? You're the second most powerful man in the RCMP--who is 'they'”?
Could you elaborate on what you meant by that during that conversation?
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
Absolutely. We met in my office for probably 20 to 30 minutes. We did not get into the complexities of the investigation. That was not my role. I was there to try to speak with him with respect to the conflict that was obviously taking place.
I talked about why we had an independent organization leading the investigation and I talked about the importance of getting the file concluded. But I also mentioned.... I understand what he said—I've seen the blues—and certainly, in my notes, I reflect that I did say, “If there's something major, obviously it will be looked at; I have confidence in the investigation that Ottawa is doing.” That was my point.
Did I use the exact words that he's saying? I don't recall those. I know what I wrote down, and we did talk about the importance of staying focused, the importance of having the investigation done properly and thoroughly, and if there were outstanding issues, I said, “I have confidence they'll be addressed.”
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
For how long did you say this conversation took place?
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, I met with Paul Roy at 1 o'clock and I met with Mr. Frizzell at 2 o'clock. I don't have my notes with me to see when my next entry was, but it was probably 15 to 20 minutes, maybe.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
That was 15 to 20 minutes with Staff Sergeant Frizzell alone?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
In your discussion, did you have any concern about his behaviour when he was debriefing you on the investigation?
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
No, I can't say that I did. I can say that in my view he was apprehensive, and that was to be expected, given that he was meeting with the deputy commissioner on an issue that he felt was important.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
There's just one last thing. You are saying you didn't get into any detail on the investigation; that this comment that Sergeant Frizzell made...? It's pretty specific, that “You guys have found lots”; it's an indication that obviously you'd viewed some volume of evidence and were assessing it; that you'd found lots, and now we could finally do something.
So you did not discuss at all the body of evidence that he had unearthed?
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
He mentioned that he was in charge of one of the areas of the investigation and he talked about some of the high-level issues. But this was a year-long investigation or an 11-month investigation that he had been involved in. We didn't get into the details of that investigation, except that I assured him that if I felt there were things that needed to be looked at, or if they were uncovered, then I was confident they'd be addressed.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Well, let me ask you directly. Are you satisfied today—now, looking back in retrospect—number one, that the Ottawa investigation was thoroughly objective, and number two, that it went far enough?
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I did not see the report, nor was I present when it was tabled to the senior executive, so I have never seen the report that was done by the Ottawa Police Service. I can only go by the comments of Chief Bevan, who I believe appeared here and was confident that the investigation was done properly, and of Inspector Roy, who commented along the same lines.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Loeppky has mentioned something about a briefing document, and I've heard over and over again from testimony that there's a 47-page criminal briefing document. Has it been tabled? Have we asked for that document? Can we get that document forthwith?
It was an executive summary from the Ottawa Police Service on the investigation. Apparently it's 47 pages.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Mr. Sweet, I can follow up on that. I don't believe we can, it being a criminal matter, but I will bring it up.
Mr. Tardi, do you have any comment on that?
4:50 p.m.
Procedural Clerk
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, this is a document I have not seen. I don't know where it is.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I'm quite sure, Mr. Chairman, that we have not requested it; therefore I will request that it be obtained by the clerk and translated and distributed. I believe it's 51 pages, but 47 or 51 is neither here nor there. That's the executive summary; it goes to thousands of pages for the whole case, but it's the executive summary.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that before the document is translated and before it's distributed, you discuss it with the clerk, in case there are names in there that should be... We have to be concerned about privacy. So whatever the advice of our clerk is about information that should not be in the public domain, we accept that instruction.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
If there are any references to people who were not charged—or were charged—we'll certainly be careful of that. We'll also get the legal counsel involved.
We're going to move on to the second round, which is four minutes.
Before I do that, I just have one question of you, Assistant Commissioner LaFosse.
On the testimony of Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay, the evidence was that he was sent on a secondment to the Department of National Defence. He was there in what I think he classified as the penalty box and Commissioner Zaccardelli classified as a promotion. We'll not get into that right now, but there was some evidence to the effect that he wanted to come back, and some evidence also that you may have wanted to have him back under your department.
My question is twofold. Is that correct? And if you did, were you prohibited from bringing him back?
4:50 p.m.
A/Commr Darrell LaFosse
No, Mr. Chair, I wasn't prohibited from bringing him back. The circumstances were that I received a phone call from Deputy Commissioner Barb George. Officer staffing were aware that I had a vacancy at an EX-2, chief superintendent, level. Fraser was offered up to me at that point in time.
I accepted that, but the individual who was occupying the EX-2 position stayed on for a number of months, so Fraser wasn't able to come over into that position. When the position did become vacant—and I had been inquiring, because I knew the individual was leaving.... When the position did become vacant, I inquired as to Chief Superintendent Macaulay's availability and received him, quite luckily so.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
April 25th, 2007 / 4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, commissioner and gentlemen, for being here today.
It is sometimes very difficult to make sense of all the information that we have received, of the discussions and the contradictory testimony.
Commissioner, in light of all the new information that has been received and of everything that has been said, repeated and contradicted, has your opinion of this whole matter changed since you appeared before the committee? Do you think you have a better understanding of what happened?
4:50 p.m.
Commr Beverley Busson
Yes, I have. I believe the issue has become an issue of conflict between individuals and about people having been treated badly.
In my own opinion, if that's what you're asking, I believe the management of that issue could have been done in a much more robust and facilitative fashion.
When I first came to this new position and was briefed around the issues, I had a certain opinion about what was happening. Since I've heard people's testimony before the committee, I've come to a different conclusion. As I said, I believe it's an issue of poorly managed conflict.
As I said before, most organizations have conflict at one time or another, but these need to be facilitated in the right and proper forum when people find issues that need to be dealt with. That's a very healthy thing, but if it's not dealt with properly, it becomes quite unhealthy quite quickly.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
There is a matter, or a conflict--one might say that--that is of particular interest to me: the case of Mr. Macaulay.
In answer to one of my questions on April 16, he said this:
My punitive assignment was a two-year secondment to the Department of National Defence. Let me add that this in no way reflects upon the Department of National Defence, but for me, being removed from my position was a punishment and a clear message to others.
The same day, Mr. Zaccardelli stated that his secondment had been decided for his own good, for his benefit.
What is your own opinion about this?
4:55 p.m.
Commr Beverley Busson
I think those kinds of things are in the mind of the perceiver. I've talked to Chief Superintendent Macaulay about it as well, and he becomes very emotional around that issue. I believe he believes it was a punishment. I think at the time it would have been difficult for him to see it any other way.
If the perception of the commissioner was that it was for development, I don't know what the commissioner was thinking. But I believe that Fraser had a valid perception and every right to feel that he was being punished. And certainly his reaction to it tells me that he believed he was being punished.