Public Accounts Committee on April 30th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Who replaced Ms. Revine?

[Rosalie Burton]

To my knowledge, there was no one. There was no one under my watch, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

If nobody would replace her, what was she doing before she was replaced? If you didn't need anyone to replace her, what was she up to?

[Rosalie Burton]

The conversation that I had with Ms. Revine was very limited; the interaction was very limited. What she told me in the fall of 2003 is that she had started an A-based review, but it was too complex, and she couldn't finish it, and that she was dealing now with John Spice. John Spice is an assistant commissioner in charge of the ethics and integrity office, and its work is confidential. You can't pry into matters when employees are dealing with that.

I also had a handover with Fraser Macaulay before he went on his secondment to DND, and he didn't indicate to me at any time that she should be protected, that she was on that list and should be taken off.

I dealt with the information I had available to me, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Ms. Sgro for five minutes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

You said when you were here before, “I have no knowledge of the A-base and have not seen the A-base that Ms. Revine was doing or had done.”

[Rosalie Burton]

Excuse me. I have not seen the A-base. She referenced it very briefly, but she didn't provide it to me.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Ms. Revine, is that correct?

[Denise Revine]

It's not correct. I have a copy of an e-mail Ms. Burton sent to me the same day she told me I no longer had a job. This e-mail reads, in part, as follows:

Denise, you'll recall our discussions when I first arrived as the acting A/DG ORE, when you explained to me that the scope of the A-Base Review was very large and you had prepared a discussion paper for Fraser.... Can you please share the discussion paper and your information collected....

Ms. Burton then sent an e-mail to a colleague of mine in which she stated:

Reg, thanks for taking on the internal project management of the A-Base Review.... As first steps can you please clean up the discussion document attached....

I can table these, but they're not translated.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Ms. Revine, can you just table the document, even though it's not translated--it could get translated--just so I can move on? As you've seen, time is very limited here.

Ms. Burton, I have a question for you, if you could answer it relatively quickly, I think with a yes or a no. During your employment tenure with the RCMP, has anyone filed harassment complaints against you?

[Rosalie Burton]

No, there have been no harassment complaints against me.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rogerson, clearly, from some of the things we've heard, we recognize the pain you have felt after so many years of service to a wonderful organization that we all very much love and respect. But I've often heard in policing circles, in RCMP circles, that there's more or less the hidden rule that if you're part of the family, you don't talk outside the family about internal issues or any issues to anyone outside of the RCMP. It's something short of a gag order against anyone talking. I can understand it. And you're raising these issues. Am I correct when I ask you that question?

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

No. I think if you look at the letter I sent in January, I think with our RCMP Act and the other regulatory bodies we have watching us and even with the Financial Administration Act, I encourage people to come forward within our own system, first. We have a pretty structured process. Through my letter, as you'll see, in January, I encouraged people to come forward if they had concerns. In fact, if they don't come forward, that is, if Mike Frizzell didn't follow that transaction, he could have been subject to a code of conduct for allowing something to be concealed. Right? So it's a doubled-edged sword.

To be honest with you, as an appropriate officer I'm accountable for 2,200 people or more in headquarters. I might have 30 files. That's fewer than 2% of code-of-conduct issues.

By and large, we have an excellent system, and now you have the Federal Accountability Act, of course, which protects people to at least allow them to come forward.

As for the family aspect, I guess if there's collusion among people to set up a career assassination in order to encourage someone to leave the organization, then yes, if you have collusion among individuals, that can take effect. There is a policy called abuse of authority, and we look into it. From my recollection, we have an excellent process.

If people go outside the box ahead of the schedule, usually that's a sign that the organization as a whole is having issues. Leaks usually occur when whistle-blowers, as you term them, but I like to call them right-doers, are suppressed over time. The leaks eventually seek out of an organization.

I think what you're seeing is a private institution reflection into a public institution, as when you look at the fall of Enron, Parmalat, Bre-X, and the rest of them. So that's what you're seeing unfolding: a very select few abusing their authority. Somehow it's been blown to a proportion that it is rampant and systemic throughout the organization. I would say that it's not rampant, and it's certainly not systemic. It's a very select few individuals who have taken their authority and decided to preserve their chairs as opposed to the image of the organization. That is my perception of what has transpired. And as I say, it's a reflection of days gone by.

I will say that as for our present commissioner, Bev Busson, I am here today with her full backing. As a matter of fact, she said, “The truth is like a sword and a shield; it will defend you and it will help you get through issues.” I didn't go through her to have anything vetted, and what you're hearing today is strictly from me, with her encouragement to come forward here today.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

You have indicated what happened to you previously. Staff Sergeant Frizzell had read out to us a mission statement at the very beginning of these hearings, and I thought that was odd. As the time has progressed, I've seen more and more of why he was so proud of that mission statement.

We have heard testimony about Mr. Ewanovich and what happened to him. Well, he's hired and he's let go quietly. He wasn't fired; he just decided to leave. Mr. Crupi turns around and gets, I think, 18 months of pay and a reference letter that gets him a job currently with CSIS.

Those kinds of statements make it very difficult for us to think that people are coming forward and something appropriate is happening there.

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson]

Well, here's our values statement: it says integrity, honesty, professionalism, compassion, respect, and accountability.

In an organization such as the RCMP, we're not about head-hunting, we're not about career assassination; we're about trying to help people move on to another life. It's about compassion, right? We have an organization where our statements are “You mess up, you fess up, and you dress up”.

Then we go before an adjudication board, which looks at what transpired plus the mitigating factors. Generally, with a well-seasoned officer or a member of the force who has 20, 29, or 32 years of service, it's not about career assassination. It's generally about how this person has messed up. They've fessed up and they've dressed up. How do we provide them an opportunity to continue with their career within the organization and outside the organization?

You had Deputy Commissioner George here. She's one of the leaders with respect to duty to accommodate. She's been a champion for our force over the last number of years that I've known her. Everything I do with respect to people around me is a duty to accommodate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Sgro.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. There was a requirement for Mr. Crupi a number of weeks ago to provide the reference letter that allowed him to get his new job at the Canadian security establishment. I have not seen that in the records. Has that letter of reference and whoever provided him with that come forward to the committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The clerk has informed that we do not have it yet, and I will ask the clerk to follow up immediately and ask why we haven't got it.

Mr. Williams, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Assistant Commissioner Lang, you have been ignored this afternoon, but you were mentioned fairly extensively in Assistant Commissioner Rogerson's opening statement, including, I think, he quoted some e-mails that you had written.

Do you agree with the opening statement of Assistant Commissioner Rogerson as it pertains to you and how you were mentioned in that?

[C/Supt Doug Lang]

Yes, I do, but there are a number of points that require clarification. I've been waiting to answer those points of clarification at the committee.

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

Okay. Will it take you long?

[C/Supt Doug Lang]

A few minutes, yes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask that since it's a clarification of an opening statement that I be given the indulgence to allow him to do that without it affecting my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We'll give you an extra minute or two, Mr. Williams, but I'd ask Mr. Lang to try to be as brief as possible.

I'll ask everyone to be as brief as possible, because it is frustrating for the members. As you can see, we have only a certain amount of time. I know these are important issues, and it is difficult.

[C/Supt Doug Lang]

I can talk very fast.

To put this in perspective, in June of 2005 I was superintendent of technical operations. I have no knowledge of this investigation. What I know about the Project Probity investigation I've learned from the committee hearings and the blue notes. It was kept as a sensitive investigation, run by Inspector Roy, so the sharing of that information was not done with a lot of people.

In about May, when Assistant Commissioner Gork was scheduled to go to Lyons, I was named as the interim liaison for him on this investigation, to deal with the administrative matters Inspector Roy spoke to.

At about this time, on June 17, I got a call from Assistant Commissioner George--as she was at the time--outlining a complaint about the alleged harassing behaviour of Sergeant Frizzell and asking that something be done about it.

Very shortly thereafter I walked down the hall to Inspector Roy's office and we had a discussion about it. I was not given direction at that time. When I talk “direction”, I had influence from Assistant Commissioner George to get something going on this, but at that point I had received no direction from her to say do this, do that, do this. That order came from Assistant Commissioner Gork, and I believe he has already testified to that.

Inspector Roy and I had quite a discussion about what we'd do with this, because he needed Sergeant Mike Frizzell to clean up what he had left.

So when people see the order and what is missing from the order--from what Deputy Commissioner George thinks should have been in it, based on her understanding, or Inspector Roy and myself--that order was drafted by me in consultation with Inspector Roy and Sergeant Frizzell's new boss at CCAPs to get everything in place for him to be moved.

As Assistant Commissioner Rogerson stated, this was not about character assassination. This was a delicate situation. Deputy George had brought the h word, harassment, into the situation. We have strict policies and regulations and guidelines on how we deal with harassment.

My delicate job here, after talking with Mr. Gork the next day, was to figure out.... He wanted a written order done, and that was clear. And I think—