Public Accounts Committee on April 30th, 2007

[Denise Revine, Public Service Employee, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I, Denise Revine, do swear that the evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell, Staff Sergeant, Strategic and Operational Support, National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I, Mike Frizzell, do swear that the evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

We have six of the witnesses who do have opening statements, albeit some are short. The first I'm going to call upon is Deputy Commissioner George.

[D/Commr Barbara George]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Deputy Commissioner George.

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

Mr. Chairman, I've got a couple of points, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You may.

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

Number one—this is maybe a bit facetious—perhaps the law clerk could advise the legal services at the RCMP about a little course in parliamentary law so that they understand that for privacy and all that stuff we get what we ask for.

The second point is much more important. I mentioned to you and the clerk a week or so ago that if people are going to be tabling e-mails in this committee, in this venue, they should be given to the clerk, and translated, so that they therefore can be circulated in both official languages to us when they are tabled. Here we have a whole bunch of e-mails being tabled again, I presume in one language only, and therefore they cannot be distributed to the committee members and we're left in the dark again.

Can the clerk please ensure, when witnesses are being summoned before this committee, that they're informed that if they're going to table any e-mails, they should be given to the clerk ahead of time and translated and available for distribution immediately when they are tabled? Please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, Mr. Williams, your point is well taken.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm just going to deal with Mr. Williams first, and then we'll go to you.

Your point is well taken. There are some protocol issues here, because some of these witnesses are coming up on short notice. Some of them don't have the wherewithal, especially retired members, to translate them. And of course we'll translate them; we'll do the translation. The clerk has indicated to me that they're not obligated to. But you're certainly right, it would be better if we did have them before the event.

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

I would have the clerk instruct these witnesses that when they're summoned before the committee—and I mentioned at the beginning that there's total disorganization about bringing these witnesses forward—they should be given ample time to prepare and should be advised that if they're going to table anything that it be given to the clerk and translated by this committee, so that all committee members get it in both official languages when it is tabled. That shouldn't be a big thing to ask for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Somebody else over here had a point, I thought.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

For clarification, it was just stated that I had attempted to move a motion in the last meeting on perjury. In fact, it was a notice that at a future date—and of course dependent upon testimony that comes before us—I may be tabling a contempt of Parliament motion, or I'll use the—

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

Mr. Chairman, I object to this.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

—proper proceedings, just for clarification purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I object to this. No member of Parliament has the right to table a motion of contempt of Parliament, and therefore he was totally out of order. He used that terminology again in a public meeting with witnesses before this committee. And as I said, I gave him the opportunity to withdraw, and I would certainly encourage him to do so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'll remind members that the way any contempt of Parliament would work would not be this committee; actually, it would be the House. The committee could make a recommendation to the House to deal with it. That's all this committee could do.

I would ask all members to please be temperate in their remarks dealing with allegations such as these. This is a parliamentary committee. We follow the rules of fairness. I believe that we have to be a little more temperate in some of our remarks dealing with this type of language.

Assistant Commissioner Rogerson, do you have a few opening comments?

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

Yes, I do.

Before I commence today, I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to come before you to at least present what I believe happened in and around June 15 to June 20. However, before commencing, I'd also like to emphasize that reporting on one's ethical behaviour is never an easy task and sometimes it comes with severe repercussions. Unfortunately, in most cases there is never a win-win solution.

To help address that situation, in my role as the appropriate officer here in headquarters Ottawa, I took it upon myself in January 2007 to send a memo to all headquarters employees as it relates to section 37 in the RCMP Act in matters of code of conduct and reporting on ethical behaviour.

Within this section it states that “It is incumbent on every member”, in subsection 37(e), “to ensure that any improper or unlawful conduct of any member is not concealed or permitted to continue”.

My memo also encouraged the notion of being able to come forward with concerns around such behaviour by stating “It is equally as important to ensure that these individuals are treated with respect and continue to perform without fear of reprisal or being branded a 'whistle-blower'”.

I have a copy of that memo with me.

It is available in both official languages.

With respect to the proceedings, I would like it to be known that I'm neither pleased nor am I supportive of certain actions I've witnessed during these proceedings today. In this regard, the RCMP is an organization that holds very high standards for it and its employees to adhere to, so much so that we have developed a mission, vision, and values commitment statement whereby at the very foundation you will know what our core values are: integrity, honesty, professionalism, compassion, respect, and accountability.

Having stated this, I want to assure the committee that my responses to your questions will be both fulsome and provided to the best of my knowledge. To ensure I do not move off topic and to keep my role in context dealing with the removal of Staff Sergeant Frizzell, I have taken the liberty of listing in this personal statement what I believe transpired during the period from June 15 to June 22, 2005.

I also have taken the liberty of validating this information with Superintendent Jim Newman and Chief Superintendent Doug Lang. I brought with me all relevant unvetted material. Therefore, to facilitate your review, I trust the following statement will finally identify and help clarify this very troubling and confusing situation.

On February 21, 2007, I was informed of the information provided to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. However, as to the response given by Deputy Commissioner Barb George as to how Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell was removed from his office, I felt there was a more accurate answer.

In this regard, I recalled a cell phone discussion with Deputy George herself whereby we discussed Sergeant Frizzell's removal. She wanted Frizzell removed because he had left an unprofessional harassing phone message on her subordinate's phone message manager. During the conversation, I informed her I was not in a position to remove him, as he did not report to me, and that Assistant Commissioner Dave Gork was in a position to remove, as he did not report to me. With that, she stated that was all she needed to know.

This cell phone conversation happened while I was returning from a national police services retreat, and Jim Newman was in the vehicle with me at the time. To confirm this, I checked my cell phone records, which showed her office number, 613-993-3445, being contacted by me at 16:09 on June 16, 2005.

In addition, since it was my direct report, Superintendent Doug Lang, who was involved in the removal of Frizzell from his office a few days later, and since Frizzell's office was situated nearby, I had first-hand knowledge of when and possibly why it was done: due to a harassment allegation. Although Lang informed me of his actions, that it was taken care of, and that Frizzell was leaving, I did not have any knowledge of any formal written order at the time. I thought Frizzell's removal was simply related more to the harassment allegation by Deputy Commissioner George.

Given what I knew, I requested a copy of the standing committee minutes for the February 21, 2007 meeting. In addition, while at the senior management team meeting on February 22, I mentioned to Assistant Commissioner Darrell LaFosse that I had concerns with what was stated surrounding Frizzell's removal. He informed me at that time that Deputy Commissioner George had also contacted him, and Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay was aware of same.

Upon reviewing the February 21, 2007 standing committee minutes, I sent an e-mail dated February 26 to both Chief Superintendent Lang and Superintendent Newman highlighting the questioning surrounding Frizzell's removal and the responses as provided by Deputy Commissioner George. I worded this message to ensure I was not leading them in their own recollection of the facts as I knew them to be. It read as follows:

To Jim and Doug: FYInfo, I have attached the most recent minutes from the Public Accounts Committee on the Pension overview. You will note that there were considerable questions surrounding the removal of S/Sgt. Mike Frizzell and, more specifically—who ordered him to be escorted out, etc. I have highlighted the sections surrounding this area as you two may be called at a later date. The committee is meeting today to see if it will hear from several other people including Frizzell who will most likely answer the questions surrounding his removal—he knows who was involved beyond just the two of you. I trust you kept good notes as this issue seems to be heating up instead of cooling down. Regards, Bruce.

Superintendent Newman responded in his e-mail of February 27, noting:

Bruce, I guess she forgot about her phone call to you while we were returning to Ottawa from our retreat.

Doug Lang responded in his e-mail of February 28:

Bonjour Jim et Bruce, If anyone wants I have an electronic copy of the written order we served on Frizzell at the request of A/Commr Gork and D/Commr George—it says it all.

As his e-mail showed Deputy George's clear involvement, I sought further clarification from Lang, as his recollection contradicted her response surrounding the issue that she did not know who served the order.

I therefore sent another e-mail to Lang requesting further info as to who actually was involved. I said:

Thanks, Doug, your previous e-mail stated the order came from both A/Commr. Gork and D/Commr. George however, the memorandum of 2005-06-20 does not mention her. I know she called me just prior to this. Could you clarify please.

His response in the e-mail clearly stated:

Yes, I can. I spoke with Deputy George on the phone during this period (before the order was prepared), who provided me further details of Sgt. Frizzell's continuance of this investigation after he had been asked to stop and what she had deemed as continued harassment of one of her employees by Sgt. Frizzell (it was the lady Mike Jeffrey went to work for). I received no formal order from either A/Commr Gork nor Deputy George, just requests from both to ensure this situation was rectified, and A/Commr Gork's direction that it be served on Sgt Frizzell in the form of a written order. I advised both when it had been formally served. Doug.

This, to me, showed she knew exactly who served the order on Frizzell.

On February 28 I called Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay to reaffirm his version of how Frizzell was removed from his office and of being present with Assistant Commissioner Darrell LaFosse when he was called about Frizzell. He confirmed this info and stated he was to speak to the commissioner and would be discussing Frizzell, along with his own situation, with the commissioner herself, and that anything I had would help. As a result, I sent him the e-mail on March 1, 2007, that you already have before you, surrounding what I knew to be the circumstances surrounding Frizzell's removal.

On March 8, I sent a draft statement surrounding the information concerning our involvement to both Chief Superintendent Lang and Newman for their review and feedback with respect to what I've just previously stated. I also included the standing committee's key questioning points surrounding Frizzell's removal.

On March 9, Newman responded:

Good morning Bruce I have reviewed the document you have prepared, I do not have anything to add. I never made notes following your discussion with her while in the vehicle. If memory serves me correctly I mentioned that I thought it was inappropriate for her to discuss this issue with you as you were the Appropriate Officer for HQ, that at some point in the future you maybe seized with the file. In relation to serving the member I accompanied Doug as a witness, then I tried to explain that the criminal investigation was finished and that an internal would probably commence. That's it that's all. I may have made notes but they are buried with the rest of my stuff in storage.

Doug Lang responded to the same information I reiterated to the committee today: Bruce, I have no problem with anything you have documented. It is an accurate representation. Doug.

On April 15, 2007, I was interviewed by Chief Superintendent Bob Paulson concerning my knowledge of these events.

At this time he also produced three e-mails, one dated June 15, 2005, from Deputy Commissioner Barb George to me outlining her concern, along with an attached transcript of the phone message left on Rosalie Burton's phone, and one dated June 17, 2005, from me to George whereby I acknowledged her phone call of June 16 and asked if she wanted me to still look into the matter. The third e-mail was from George to Doug Lang during the same period outlining that she had a conversation with Assistant Commissioner Dave Gork about Frizzell.

I commented on the first two; however, I had no knowledge of this third e-mail, showing that George did in fact have direct contact with Gork himself surrounding Frizzell's removal.

My administrative assistant also recalls when Deputy George's office called looking for me in June, 2005. As she needed to speak to me immediately, my assistant gave her my office page number and my cell phone number, which led to my calling Deputy Commissioner George on June 16, which is how I called Deputy George on that same date. This would coincide with the e-mails mentioned above of June 15 and June 17.

I've since talked to Doug Lang, and he acknowledged that Barb George had called him on the morning of June 17 with respect to Frizzell's behaviour.

In summation, the aforementioned info is how I understood things to have been done. Deputy George was actively seeking Staff Sergeant Frizzell's removal because he was harassing one of her employees. Based upon what I've become aware of, this was accomplished through her direct liaison with both Assistant Commissioner Dave Gork and Superintendent Lang shortly after contacting me on June 16.

Whether or not it was Inspector Paul Roy, George, or Gork, who actually directed Lang to serve the order on Frizzell seems to have confused the issue here. Also, whether one was seeking that Frizzell cease and desist, be stopped, and/or removed has complicated the matter as well.

The fact remains that the formal removal of Frizzell commenced between June 15 and June 20, 2005. Chief Superintendent Lang's actions were no doubt influenced by Deputy Commissioner George's direct and clear involvement in Frizzell's being served such an order. In this regard, as mentioned, he was contacted by her directly, along with others, during this exact same timeframe. He consulted with them on the order, he served the order, and, when executed, advised them when it was done, which showed that Deputy George also knew about the order and who served it.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Assistant Commissioner Rogerson.

The next opening statement is from Rosalie Burton.

[Rosalie Burton]

Mr. Chair, honourable members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before committee today. I welcome the opportunity to provide the facts as I know them and the actions I took.

My actions were both transparent and proactive throughout my tenure at the RCMP, and they were guided and supported by the values and ethics code of the public service. As a result of the reorganization of the human resources team, I became the director general of human resources systems and strategies, effective April 1, 2004. Among my many responsibilities was the National Compensation Policy Centre. I was in that role for 18 months. With regard to the timeline concerning my role, the facts are as follows.

Prior to my arrival, three events had already taken place: one, the RCMP internal audit of the pension plan had been concluded; two, the director of the National Compensation Policy Centre, Dom Crupi, had been sent home by the chief human resources officer; three, a criminal investigation that I later learned was called Project Probity had been launched.

Upon arrival in my position, I learned that the pension and insurance administration had been outsourced, based on incomplete and poorly written business cases. What I found was the governance model was not clear. These committees often directed work, requested research, and made other decisions without necessarily reflecting the National Compensation Policy Centre overall work plan. I had concerns about the insurance program, so I called for an internal audit. I disclosed to Barb George and Paul Gauvin my concerns with respect to the insurance program. They, along with the senior management team, supported my request.

Mike Gaudet, executive assistant to the chief human resources officer, Barb George, suggested that I contact Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell and share my concerns with him in support of the work of the criminal investigation team. I did so. I made this call to Mike Frizzell on December 15, 2004, and he came to my office on December 20, 2004. I advised him that I had concerns and some information with regard to the pension and insurance program. Mr. Frizzell then asked if he could tape-record what became a three-hour conversation. At the end of it, he told me how he had presented then-past Commissioner Murray and the senior executive team with the RCMP core value statement, and that I epitomized those values.

I gave him the letter of agreement dated February 17, 2003, that was signed by Jim Ewanovich as chair of the pension advisory committee and Deputy Commissioner Pierre Lange, chair of the insurance committee that authorized what I believed was inappropriate funding of insurance activities. I also gave him a sketch of how I believed the funding flowed between Great-West Life, Morneau Sobeco, and the RCMP.

On January 5, 2005, I sent Mike Frizzell an insurance backgrounder paper that I had asked a policy analyst to prepare to help with understanding how insurance administration had evolved to this state. My next encounter with Mike Frizzell was on March 9, 2005, for a “life insurance/pension administration charges” meeting chaired by Deputy Commissioner Paul Gauvin. Several decisions were taken.

One was to “convene the insurance committee to request reversal of prior agreement related to the insurance administration paid by the pension plan”. I did this on March 15, 2005.

Two, I was directed to “present a letter to the insurance committee and the pension advisory committee chairs requesting reimbursement of the amounts paid to date from the pension plan to Great West Life”. The matter was to be resolved prior to fiscal year end.

I did not do this because it was not unanimous consent to reverse the moneys by the insurance committee at the March 15 meeting. Instead, I did speak to Barb George, outlining that authority to conduct this cleanup needed to be clearly directed by the commissioner. To my knowledge, the only letter that was drafted was by Denise Nesrallah, director of finance, asking Great-West Life to reimburse the moneys to the RCMP pension fund. The letter says, “Chairmen of both committees concur that the moneys paid to Great West Life Assurance Company to pensioners' portion of insurance administration outsourcing must be returned to the RCMP pension fund.”

Great-West Life replied on March 23, 2005, confirming the refund.

I was also directed to initiate

discussion of insurance administration costs to be paid out of appropriation to begin as soon as possible with Treasury Board Secretariat. Once resolved, if appropriation is to begin paying for the administration, discussion and decision to be made as to our ability to apply the resolution retroactively.

As a matter of information, I initiated those discussions with Treasury Board as early as June 2005.

Mike Frizzell attended this March 9, 2005, meeting. As the minutes indicate:

Inquiry was made as to our ability to speak to key individuals in order to obtain clarification concerning the insurance outsourcing. Confirmation was obtained from Mike Frizzell that his interview with Mr. Crupi is planned for Monday, March 14, and any discussion should take place after that date. Mike Frizzell stated that he would likely be in a position to respond to Mr. Gauvin's questions following the interview.

I advised Deputy Commissioner Lange, chair of the insurance committee, that an emergency insurance committee meeting was necessary to share the scope of the RCMP internal audit and what we had learned to date.

The deputy chaired that meeting. I spoke to the scope of the audit and said that the draft audit findings were expected in April, 2005. I also explained that there had been a decision taken in February, 2003 between the chair of the pension advisory committee and the chair of the insurance committee that allowed moneys to be taken from the pension plan for insurance outsourcing, and that this decision should be reversed.

There was no motion made at this meeting, and I reported back to Barb George that the commissioner would have to be the one to direct who had the authority to undertake this activity.

On March 21, 2005, I sent Mike Frizzell the internal audit draft report of insurance plans. It supported the concerns I had shared with Mr. Frizzell on December 20, and with my superior when I requested the audit. I know Mr. Frizzell received it, because he called me to confirm that it had come from me.

The last time I heard from Mike Frizzell was in the voicemail he left me the first week of June, 2005, alleging that deceit and corruption was ongoing in the insurance program and that senior management knew about this.

This was a serious allegation, and I immediately called the senior authority on the investigation, Inspector Paul Roy, and asked his advice. He advised that they were in the report-writing phase of the investigation, that Chief Bevan would be briefed in a week, that the RCMP commissioner would be briefed June 24, 2005, and that the RCMP senior executive committee briefing was scheduled for June 27, 2005.

He advised me that Mike Frizzell was probably not speaking on behalf of the investigation and that this could be the result of some personal fallout, and he recommended that I not accept Frizzell's suggestion to meet.

I followed his advice. I subsequently reported the voicemail and my actions to my superior, Barb George, who assured me that I had done the right thing.

My responsibility in insurance was to prepare the management action plan, which consisted of corrective administrative actions to the RCMP internal audit.

To do this, I initiated an actuarial review conducted by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to ensure the longevitiy of the insurance plans. I requested a legal opinion to determine authorities to administer the insurance program. I contracted a study on the group life insurance administration framework by Mercer Consulting Group. I obtained the first-ever audit of the group life financial statements. And I initiated discussions with Treasury Board Secretariat officials regarding governance and authority on the insurance plan, on June 20, 2005.

To undertake this work in accordance with government policies and procedures, there was a working period that included the following actions on my part. Between June, 2005 and October, 2006 the National Compensation Policy Centre prepared statements of work and requests for proposals, reviewed and evaluated bids from contractors, and provided regular briefings to the RCMP audit and evaluation committee, the RCMP human resources council, and the RCMP insurance committee on progress to date.

On October 30, 2006, I updated the RCMP insurance committee on the management action plan, and it was up to the committee to take action on the studies and information provided.

My comment to the insurance committee was that from what I had seen from the draft of the Office of the Auditor General's report was that there would be no surprises and that the corrective actions were recognized by the Auditor General.

The file was reassigned by Assistant Commissioner Kevin Mole from me to an Inspector Tony Pickett after that meeting. He told me it was not a question of competence, but that I was a risk because, to use his words, “the RCMP does not own you”. That was the end of my involvement.

I welcome all questions and queries from this committee, and I want to assure members of this committee my full cooperation in this and related investigative processes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Retired Inspector Roy, do you have an opening statement? Please go ahead.

[Paul Roy]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

On February 21, 2007, Chief Vince Bevan appeared before this committee and committed the Ottawa Police Service to full and complete cooperation with this committee. The Ottawa Police Service remains committed to assisting this committee in their deliberations. I share that commitment.

I wish therefore to make a very brief opening statement to assist the committee with issues that remain outstanding from my last testimony. I also wish to point out that at my last appearance, I was asked to prepare a written response to questions surrounding my involvement with Staff Sergeant Frizzell, who was at the time of the investigation a sergeant. I am submitting a detailed brief to you in that regard.

I wish to make only two points in my opening remarks, the first about the independence of the Ottawa Police investigation and the second about Sergeant Frizzell.

With respect to the independence of my investigation, I will not repeat all the comments I made in my opening statements delivered before you on April 18, but I stand by what I said then. I would like to emphasize that I was in charge of this investigation and reported to Chief Bevan, not to anyone in the RCMP. I only contacted Assistant Commissioner Gork when I had administrative matters to deal with. Nobody from the RCMP, at any rank, or indeed from anywhere else, attempted to influence me in any way.

Normally in policing, an officer reports to a superior. That superior is responsible for the officer both administratively and operationally. For example, Sergeant William Sullivan of the Ottawa Police Service worked on this investigation, and he reported to me administratively and operationally. In situations in which officers are on secondment, they report to one supervisor for operational matters and report to another supervisor with their parent organization for administrative matters. This was the relationship I had with Sergeant Frizzell. He was responsible to me operationally for work related to the investigation, and responsible to his superiors at the RCMP for administrative matters such as leave, discipline, and other employment-related matters. This is not an unusual situation in policing. I went to Assistant Commissioner Gork for all administrative issues regarding the RCMP officers assigned to this investigation. For operational decisions, I gave the orders directly to the RCMP officers assigned to my investigative team.

As to my interaction with Sergeant Frizzell, during the investigation there were a number of situations that arose. While he and I agreed on many issues, we also disagreed on many other issues. I consulted with Chief Bevan on this, and he encouraged me to raise these issues with Assistant Commissioner Gork, which I did. I provided details in my written submission.

Sergeant Frizzell was not “prematurely removed” from the investigation. With the delivery of my report to Chief Bevan on June 17, Project Probity was finished. The order dealing with Sergeant Frizzell, signed by Chief Superintendent Lang, was dated June 20, after the delivery of the final report to Chief Bevan on June 17.

By June 20, 2005, the date of the order, the investigation was over, and most of the rest of the team had returned to their regular duties. Only seven persons out of the 23 involved in the investigation were left, and they were just wrapping up.

I welcome any questions you may have.

Thank you.