Public Accounts Committee on April 30th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Roy.

We're now going to hear from Mr. Normand Sirois, retired RCMP, CSIS.

[Normand Sirois]

Mr. Chairman, committee members, my involvement with the RCMP pension plan was in relation to requests made under the access to information legislation. Following the conclusion of the audit report in October 2003, understandably some people were interested in reading that material. To that effect, we received several requests regarding the RCMP pension fund documents.

I was assigned to review two specific requests regarding the audit report itself. The Ottawa police summary report was the object of another request.

I look forward to answering your questions regarding this matter.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Sirois.

Lastly, we're going to hear from retired Sergeant Keith Estabrooks.

[Keith Estabrooks]

Mr. Chairperson, committee members, I'm a retired sergeant with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, having served in the force for 35 years and five months.

For my last twelve years, I was posted to the RCMP's access to information and privacy—ATIP—branch, located at headquarters in Ottawa. For my first six years in ATIP, I was an analyst and reviewer; for the last six years, I was a senior NCO in charge of disclosures unit.

ATIP branch received several requests for specific portions of the RCMP pension fund documents. First was a request for the audit portion. Superintendent Christian Picard was the OIC, and the reviewer was my colleague, public servant Normand Sirois.

My involvement with the RCMP pension fund files was a little later and concerned a request for the Ottawa Police summary report document. This document was approximately 50 pages long and written by OPS Inspector Roy. The OIC at that time was Superintendent Pierre Lavoie.

I'm currently employed by the RCMP on a casual, short-term contract in ATIP branch, because of my expertise in the access and privacy field. Six senior people have left the branch recently, so there has been an extensive loss of corporate knowledge.

I look forward to answering your questions, based on my knowledge of the ATIP work done on the RCMP pension files I worked on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Estabrooks.

Now we are going to the first round of questions by members, for eight minutes each. The first member is Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

A point of order, Mr. Williams?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

As a point of order, can we be assured, Mr. Chairman, that you will exercise your authority as a chair to ensure that the member does not use inflammatory terminology, such as perjury, contempt of Parliament, and all those things that are totally irrelevant at this point in time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams, we'll see how the hearing goes.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

On February 21, in a question to Deputy Commissioner Barbara George—it was a simple question about whether she was involved with Mr. Frizzell's removal—the answer was clear: “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”.

We've heard a lot of testimony since then, but last week we heard from Assistant Commissioner Lafosse, who was contacted, and he stated before this committee that Deputy Commissioner George requested of him to have Mr. Frizzell removed. He directed the deputy commissioner to Assistant Commissioner Bruce Rogerson.

Today in the opening statement, we heard his recollections that in fact Deputy Commissioner Barb George contacted him. She initiated the contact; she clearly wanted Mr. Frizzell removed.

There's something else that's puzzling, because in subsequent testimony Ms. George also stated and raised the issue of Mr. Frizzell's harassing investigation techniques—I guess they date back to January of that year—with two witnesses. That was subsequently referenced as one of the reasons to have him removed.

Assistant Commissioner Rogerson, you said that during your phone conversation with the deputy commissioner, she asked for Mr. Frizzell to be removed. But she referenced a phone call message that he had left—which we heard here, as it was played into the record—about his concerns that insurance funds were being used improperly.

Was it clear to you that in fact when she asked for Mr. Frizzell's removal, it was that particular phone call that spurred her to place the series of communications?

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

Yes. It was not only the phone call. On June 15, I was not in the office. She had sent me an e-mail with the attached phone message that had been left on Mrs. Burton's phone, and she wanted to contact me. Her office actively contacted my administrative assistant, who provided my pager and my cell phone numbers.

As a result of receiving a paged message on the afternoon of June 16, I called her directly. It was surrounding the professionalism—and the harassment of one of her people. It related to the phone message that she'd sent me on June 15. That was when I directed her to Dave Gork; I was not empowered to remove Mike Frizzell at the time.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Assistant Commissioner.

Chief Superintendent Doug Lang, did Deputy Commissioner Barb George take part in building the removal order of Mr. Frizzell with you?

[C/Supt Doug Lang]

Absolutely not.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Did you have any discussions or communications with the deputy commissioner about his removal?

[C/Supt Doug Lang]

Yes. On or about June 17, I received a phone call from then Assistant Commissioner George, advising me of the same circumstance of the complaint regarding Rosalie Burton's voice mail.

Our discussion at that time was that she was not directing me to do anything. We had a discussion about the circumstances. She wanted something done; she wanted this matter looked into. But in the course of our conversation, she was not telling me to do anything. She was making a complaint to me about Mr. Frizzell's behaviour and asking that I look into the matter.

I took steps after that.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Lang.

Assistant Commissioner Rogerson, during other discussions here in committee, we heard the term “punitive transfers within the RCMP” used. Do you believe that there are punitive transfers within the RCMP?

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

Absolutely.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Rogerson, I understand that you were a whistle-blower during the 2001 OPP investigation, and you were the subject of such a transfer. Could you outline the circumstances?

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

Quite frankly, in the spring of 2001 I questioned our behaviour with respect to the acceptance of gifts such as hockey and rounds of golf. That came about after a meeting with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police at which we talked about the ethical behaviour of police forces and the fact that we should not be participating in same.

I took that information and shared it with my own senior management team upon returning. I said that until we get this matter resolved, we've got to get a little more clear direction as to policies surrounding that issue. I then shared that information and talked to our ethics advisor in June, who advised me that I was correct. He provided me with some information, and he told me that there is no grey area, and such behaviour should not be accepted.

I shared that information with a number of senior managers within Ottawa. The first email I got back was from my boss's office, telling me to clean out my office. The second email I got was from another senior executive officer, commending me for trying to bring this matter to a resolution.

Having done that, I met several individuals who came to me and talked about their concerns around sole sourcing of contracts and also the continuance of the behaviour. I reiterated my concerns around that behaviour. I went to the Treasury Board and public works and ethics policy with respect to acceptance of gifts such as golf and other aspects.

Again I reaffirmed to myself that this was inappropriate behaviour. It was not necessarily that anybody was being coerced, but the fact of the matter was it was the perception of us participating in such event. I brought the matter to my boss of the day. He told me that in his previous life under Andy Scott—as an advisor to Andy Scott and the Solicitor General's office—he had it under direct authority from the Treasury Board ethics advisor that such participation was permissible, and it's no wonder the RCMP is stuck in the dark ages.

However, I took it upon myself to again issue another email to all senior managers, including my employees, not to participate in same. Having said that, I had brought to my attention the following week that people were going to continue such behaviour. That following Monday, as we had usual Monday morning meetings, I informed the management team that I was no longer accepting anybody's behaviour; if they continued, I would initiate a code of conduct investigation myself. I was overruled by my then supervisor, who said he saw nothing wrong with such behaviour.

Having said that, with all due respect, I did go see Chief Superintendent Barb George, who is a very compassionate person. I explained my situation, and she understood. I said, “Look, I've come forward. I'm going to be in trouble.” Then you saw the letter that Ron Lewis refers to, in which I was chastised for attempting to correct such behaviour without going through my immediate supervisor.

I then left on language training in September 2001. Ron Lewis and the group took this information before the national executive committee, which was co-chaired by Jim Ewanovich and Commissioner Zaccardelli. Between the two of them, they said it was a round of golf and a hockey game, and to get over it. I thought at that time that I had corrected the behaviour in the force.

In terms of whistle-blowing, I would say that a whistle-blower is someone who blows the whistle for the troops to go out of the trenches into the line of fire. In my terms, I blew the whistle; I jumped out of the trenches to keep my people and their careers intact, so they would no longer continue in such behaviour.

However, I would say that by October I was brought in by the OPP. They wanted to discuss this and other sole-sourcing contracts. I was fully transparent with them. I discussed everything that was brought forward to me. They commended me for my ethical behaviour and the fact that my integrity was not for sale.

However, shortly thereafter I was told that I was being held personally accountable for the OPP investigation and the follow-up. By December, I was eliminated from the senior management team of the RCMP. I was also told I could no longer go back to my position as the senior full-time financial officer.

You'll have to excuse me here.

In the following year I was accused of fraudulent leave, unauthorized travel, being incompetent for my job. I received no performance pay and I was effectively fired.

By May 2002 I was offered a position leading a project in the force, which was a staff sergeant's duty call, where I stayed until February 2005. So is there punitive? Yes.

When Mike Frizzell came to see me at the beginning of the pension investigation, I warned him that if they could do this to an assistant commissioner with an unblemished record for 29 years, they could do it to anybody.

But I'm still here; I'm in front of you. My integrity is not for sale. I represent 99.99% of the officers in this organization, including those in headquarters. Our civilian members are excellent people. We have the best and brightest in technical operations.

We have a handful of people who need to be dealt with, there's no doubt about that.

But to respond to your question, that is how I was treated for the last four years.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Rogerson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

Thank you, Assistant Commissioner.

Mr. Sweet, do you have a point of order?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Yes. “Immediate supervisor” and “boss” were mentioned on a couple of occasions. For the record, could we please have Mr. Rogerson name these people?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Rogerson, did you catch the clarification the member is looking for?

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

The only people I dealt with during that stream were Deputy Commissioner Gauvin and Barb George. In the previous year, when I was provided with a performance agreement for the first time in my career, she said that I was incompetent, I didn't understand the complexities of the organization, and perhaps I should go elsewhere.

I also dealt with Deputy Commissioner Leoppky, who was trying to accommodate me with another position.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams, and then we're going to hear from Mrs. George.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

For the record, Mr. Rogerson talked about his “boss”, as Mr. Sweet mentioned. I want you to name exactly who that person was. Also, you talked about your “then supervisor”. Was that the same person, or somebody else? If so, please name that person.

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

My immediate supervisor at all times was Mr. Paul Gauvin, the chief financial officer.