Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Once again, let me begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to appear this afternoon to address any concerns members may have about these important issues. Given that this is my third appearance before the committee and recognizing that there are several witnesses here today, I will keep my comments as short as possible.
There are three main issues I would like to address, two of which having arisen only after my most recent appearance before the committee. The first issue relates to the letter dated March 17, 2005, written over my signature and addressed to Great-West Life and tabled here on April 18, 2007. When the letter is read in its entirety, it is clear that its purpose was to seek the return of moneys that were improperly transferred from the pension fund to cover certain insurance administration costs. I would ask the committee to review the letter carefully, as the member for Etobicoke Centre and Sergeant Frizzell have implied that this letter suggests some wrongdoing on my part. This is not true.
Given the importance of this letter, I would like to read the first paragraph:
Dear Mr. Foley, We are writing to you to advise that the RCMP has recently reviewed the agreement concerning the funding approval from both the RCMP Insurance Committee and the Pension Advisory Committee dated February 17th, 2003 concerning the cost sharing of insurance administration costs. This review determined that the agreement was entered into without appropriate authorization and must subsequently be reversed. The chairmen of both committees concur that the moneys paid to the Great West Life Assurance Company (GWL) to cover the pensioners' portion of Insurance Administration Outsourcing must be returned to the RCMP Pension Fund.
The agreement I referenced in that letter was signed on February 17, 2003, by my predecessor, Jim Ewanovich. I will table a copy of it here today.
Let me be clear that the letter I sent to Great-West Life was to correct an error that had been made by my predecessor, Jim Ewanovich. As a result of this letter, Great-West Life returned the amount requested, $540,327.36 plus interest, to the RCMP pension fund. The return of the money was necessary, as Jim Ewanovich did not have Treasury Board approval or authority to use pension money to cover the insurance administration costs.
Mr. Chairman, the second issue I would like to address is my involvement in preparing the commissioner's response to this committee relating to the decision to return Sergeant Frizzell to his unit. Following our appearance before this committee on February 21, 2007, I communicated with Assistant Commissioner Dave Gork about Sergeant Frizzell. I have subsequently tabled a copy of the e-mail exchange between Assistant Commissioner Gork and me on this subject. It is dated February 25, 2007. Contrary to what has been said to this committee, I did not personally draft any letters for Commissioner Busson's signature. Those letters were drafted by RCMP legal services. I did, however, speak with RCMP legal services and the commissioner about the possible content of the commissioner's response. In particular, we discussed the information I had been provided by Assistant Commissioner Gork. RCMP legal services advised against including the same on the basis of possible privacy concerns and because Assistant Commissioner Gork would himself be appearing before the committee on March 28, 2007.
In support of this, I am tabling a copy of an e-mail dated February 28, 2007, that I received from RCMP legal services on what we should and should not include in the commissioner's response. Further, I would respectfully direct the committee to the testimony given by Assistant Commissioner Gork on March 28, when he confirmed that he was here to supplement the commissioner's written response with his personal knowledge of the situation. Indeed, Assistant Commissioner Gork was clear that it was one of the main reasons why he had been asked to be here on that day.
The third and final area I wanted to address was the question surrounding Sergeant Frizzell's health at the end of June 2005. When I first appeared before this committee on February 21, I testified as follows, and I quote: “The best I can state is that when Sergeant Frizzell left, I understood he returned to his home division, which was A Division. I'm being careful with regard to the privacy concerns here, but I understand it was for health reasons.”
The committee will note that this answer was given before I had been able to confer with Assistant Commissioner Gork, and before I had received the e-mail from him that I have tabled.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to table two additional e-mails that speak directly to this issue.
The first e-mail is part of an exchange I had with then Superintendent Doug Lang on June 20, 2005. I had written to Superintendent Lang at 11:16 that morning to ask what was being done about Sergeant Frizzell. By that point, I had been advised that he was being returned to his original workplace. I received an e-mail response from Superintendent Lang at 12:22 p.m., after he had served Sergeant Frizzell with the written order instructing him to return to his home unit. The e-mail reply reads in part:
We had a lengthy discussion regarding Sgt. Frizzell's obsession with the ongoing payments in the insurance program and the related behaviors he was displaying. It was strongly suggested to him that he seek counseling through the HSO, whereby the Dr/Client privilege would not be affected by his non-disclosure designation on this file.
The second e-mail that I would like to table, Mr. Chairman, shows an exchange between Doug Lang and Paul Roy, dated June 28, 2005. I was copied on the exchange at the time. The first note was from Paul Roy to Doug Lang at 9:46 a.m., and reads in part as follows:
Sgt Frizzell paged Sgt St-Jacques yesterday and by the sounds of it, was abusive and threatening of grievances and actions against Sgt St Jacques and the Ottawa Police—I am vacating the office in the next two days and really don't feel like dealing with this individual anymore.
Doug Lang wrote back at 2:29 p.m., and I quote again: “Mike” —meaning Sergeant Frizzell—“is ODS”—which means “off-duty sick”—“until July 11, and then will be AOL”—which means “away on leave”—“until August 8. I have inquired into his stability, and I don't want to aggravate any recovery.”
It was these comments from Doug Lang about Sergeant Frizzell's health and stability that led me to think that health issues might have factored into the decision to serve him with the written order of June 20, 2005. Again, at no time did I mislead or intend to mislead this committee. I was attempting to answer the committee's questions about events that had occurred almost two years ago, to the very best of my recollection.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a final moment to once again speak to the very serious allegation that I have perjured myself before this committee.
Last week the member for Etobicoke Centre attempted to introduce a report to this committee on that subject. I was pleased that a number of members indicated that it was premature and unfair to do so before I had been able to give my response to the comments made by the witnesses that day. It is now clear that the member for Etobicoke Centre has formed a biased view of these matters, even before having heard all of the relevant evidence. To the extent that he has repeated these unfounded allegations outside Parliament, he has been served with the appropriate notice.
Mr. Chairman, the committee's ongoing inquiry into these matters has devoted considerable time and attention to my conduct and actions. To that end, I think there are some key points that the committee must bear in mind. First and foremost, I was not in charge of human resources between 2001 and 2003, when the wrongdoing at issue was taking place. Moreover, I never ordered an unauthorized transfer of moneys out of the pension fund or insurance fund. I never circumvented RCMP or public service hiring policies to secure jobs for either friends or family. I never contravened Treasury Board or Public Works rules with respect to government procurements and contracts. I never used taxpayer money or pension fund money to pay for golf. I never interfered with the Ottawa Police Services investigation. And I never ordered anyone to remove Sergeant Frizzell from his assignment with the Ottawa Police investigation.
Thank you.