Public Accounts Committee on April 30th, 2007

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

What was the rationale for giving that much detail of the situation of the investigation to Ms. Burton?

[Paul Roy]

I don't recall giving any details of the investigation.

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

Okay. Well, afterwards we'll see what you mentioned in the blues.

Obviously I don't have a copy of the blues today, but earlier you said it was in a discussion Mr. Roy had initiated with you that the conversation had kind of developed around Staff Sergeant Frizzell.

Didn't you say that, Ms. Burton?

[Rosalie Burton]

No. I'm sorry.

I called Inspector Roy about the voice mail and asked his advice about whether or not to have the meeting with Mike Frizzell. He advised me not to. He told me of the schedule of briefings. He told me that Mike Frizzell probably wasn't speaking on behalf of the investigation.

He then went on to say he was having problems with that guy. I said it initiated the “well, I'm having problems keeping the unit together”. One person ran off site upset, and there's the stress.

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

It's fine. We've heard that before. Thank you.

Barbara George, I want to give you one more opportunity to clarify your testimony from February 21. You said: “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.” Mr. Wrzesnewskyj asked: “Can you tell us who it was?” Then you replied: “No, I am not aware of who it was.”

Do you want to speak to that, based on your testimony and the evidence we heard?

[D/Commr Barbara George]

I will gladly speak to it, sir. Thank you for the opportunity.

As we've all heard from Chief Superintendent Lang and others, there was a lot going on at that time. I think it was Chief Superintendent Lang who clarified that it was Inspector Gork who worked with him to write the memo. There was some confusion or some concern as to what would go in the memo.

I have an affidavit from Inspector Roy that outlines all of the concerns and interactions he had with Sergeant Frizzell, the dealings leading up to it, and the difficulties he had at that time.

I believe the whole committee has this document. We received it this afternoon, and I would certainly exhort everybody to read it. Do you have the document?

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

I'm not aware of it.

[D/Commr Barbara George]

You should have this document because it outlines everything from Inspector Roy's perspective on the difficulties he had in dealing with Sergeant Frizzell right up until the very end. It's all there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Colleagues, it will be circulated. You'll have it by the next meeting.

[D/Commr Barbara George]

I'm sorry. This was put in on Friday. I just received it myself this afternoon. It's a very interesting read, and I think it lays out all the revelations that you need to have.

As I've said before many times at this committee, when Ms. Burton came to me and discussed her alarm at the alleged harassing behaviour that Sergeant Frizzell was visiting upon her or her employees, I took action, as I must take action. It was alleged behaviour. What I wanted was to speak with someone who could take the gentleman aside, and Mike Frizzell would have had an opportunity to say, “No, I'm not harassing anybody. Yes, my techniques are different or forceful, but they're not....” He would have been able to speak to it.

You've heard Bruce Rogerson say that we're not into character assassination or certainly career annihilation. I didn't go to Inspector Roy. I wanted somebody who knew Mike Frizzell, who had worked with him, who could sort of say, “Mike, there's been some concern about how the employees are feeling after being interviewed by you. There've been a couple of stories that people have run out of the building, etc. Can you tone it down. Can you think about it.”

Mike Frizzell has said that nobody ever did come and speak to him, nobody ever did mention this to him. I realize now the reason was because the order to terminate the investigation had already been given by Inspector Paul Roy, that most of the people had been sent back to their home bases, and that Sergeant Frizzell had been required to produce his final report.

So yes, I did speak to Assistant Commissioner Rogerson. Yes, I did speak to Doug Lang. And I did speak to Darrell LaFosse. As far as I know, and I believe this to be so, nobody went near Mike Frizzell to say, “Listen, there's some trouble coming out of NCPC with regard to your alleged treatment of witnesses. Can you tone it down.”

So when I said to you--and this was two, two and half years later--I did not know when the final decision had been taken to either, as Gork was saying, have him removed from the investigation, or as Inspector Roy is saying, he was never removed, the investigation was terminated and he was asked to return to his home base, I had no idea. And I was told not to speculate. If I had speculated, I would have thought it would have been Inspector Roy, through Assistant Commissioner Gork. But speculation is just speculation.

I'll go back again. As chief human resources officer, if anybody comes to me and says that people are being harassed, frightened, for undue reason, I have to act. I can't sit on my hands and say, “Well, gee, I hope it'll work out.” And that's what I did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm just going to ask you to wind up.

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

Chair, I think Staff Sergeant Frizzell might want to respond to that, if you would just seek indulgence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I have three other people--Mr. Christopherson, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, and Mr. Lake, and it's 6:21.

[An hon. member]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Frizzell, you can respond first. I just want to be fair to everyone.

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

First off, as to Ms. Burton's testimony, I believe she said “I don't know who did the interviewing.” Is that true? Did everybody else hear that? I've been labelled with making people cry, and she didn't even know who was doing the interviewing? I did not interview Liette Bellemare, and Jeff Hutchefon and I have regular conversations. He most certainly never cried or ran from a room.

That's what I heard. Did anybody hear differently?

Secondly, I did have a number of issues with Mr. Roy, and let me give you an illustration of why.

We've heard here at different times that Mr. Roy had no idea what I was doing at the end of the investigation. Let me read you an e-mail. I'm sorry I didn't get it in ahead of time. I didn't know I would have to read it, but this is from Mr. Roy to Ms. George--Barb. This is from May 31, just a couple of weeks before the order. He talks about wanting to know how much money has been paid back to the pension fund. Then he states:

The other issue surrounds the outsourcing of the administration of the RCMP insurance plans. This issue was identified by the investigation. I know that an audit recently took place and I'm wondering if any action or repayment of funds to correct the problem has taken place.

He's referring to the finding of the audit that says “Expenses charged to the RCMP group and life disability plans along with their funding were found to be inappropriate.”

Mr. Roy then goes on to say to Ms. George, “Media lines dealing with these issues need to be prepared in anticipation of inquiries and in answer to the original media stories that surfaced a year ago.” There's a bit of coaching there for Ms. George when the poop hits the fan.

This was sent to me by Mr. Roy. This is what I was acting upon. What I found was, as Ms. George referenced in her letter, they asked for $540,000 to be paid back, plus interest, and $542,000 was paid back, even though Great-West Life sent a cheque for $578,000. So there's a little thing of a missing $36,000 as well.

Anyway, my point is that it was Mr. Roy who brought all this to my attention at the end of the investigation. I'm not sure why he would have done that--knowing that I had quite an issue with this--if he didn't want me to follow up on it. When I did follow up on it--and you've all heard the phone conversation, how harassing it was--the person who I was trying to follow up on it with made a phone call to Inspector Roy. Well, we all know the rest.

I just want to set the record straight there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Staff Sergeant Frizzell.

Mr. Christopherson, five minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would be interested to re-read the testimony of Mr. Estabrooks. Unfortunately, I can't really ask the kinds of questions I'd like until I see those documents and re-read everything that's said, but that sounds very serious. And what's most disconcerting, Chair, if I'm understanding it correctly, is that it's still going on now. This is fairly recent in terms of a week and a half ago, I'm hearing. So if anything like that is true, it's truly frightening that something could have happened in the past, we're investigating it, and now there are potential allegations of further questionable conduct.

I want to take just ten seconds to state...about one person who has come before us here so far, because I think it's important.

I have heard from a number of people--officers, uniformed and otherwise. My own impression is this. I think we are very, very fortunate at this time in the history of the RCMP to have Acting Commissioner Busson in place, because she is slowly, day by day, trying to restore the confidence, and I for one have confidence in her. Her answers were very forthright. Even when they weren't necessarily helpful to make the RCMP look right, she was very forthright. I just want to get that on the record and say that I have great confidence in her, and it's good that we have her there.

Monsieur Roy, you stated, on April 18, in terms of referencing Staff Sergeant Frizzell:

I don't agree with the term “removed”. He was not removed. He was returned to his own unit once the criminal investigation was over.

Do you stand by that, sir?

[Paul Roy]

Yes, I do, sir.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, help me with something. Later on at that same meeting, suddenly the issue of Staff Sergeant Frizzell's behaviour had become an issue during some intervening discussion of witnesses. And then you were asked again, sir, and then you said if it's just a wording that's used, fine, I'll accept that. But there is a question here, and it is this. You were asked again by the chair, by our chair, whether you asked Barbara George or Gork or anyone else to have Staff Sergeant Frizzell removed because of improper behaviour. And you said: “I asked David Gork to have him removed because of improper behaviour and also because the investigation was over.” Which is it, sir? Is it the investigation was over, or was it a combination of both?

[Paul Roy]

The investigation was over. I needed his report. He had valuable information to add to the report. The investigation was over. After June 17, he was not my responsibility any more.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. I do appreciate that, because you did say earlier, again at that same meeting, that any concerns that had been raised you thought were manageable and that you should continue to go on. So when you give a slightly different version, I only want to be clear.

You stand by the fact that Staff Sergeant Frizzell, in your opinion, was not removed. The job was completed; he was going back to his original assignment.

[Paul Roy]

Yes, I do.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

So you know, and I'm sure you're aware, at the last meeting five days ago, one week after you made that statement, the acting commissioner was asked by me point blank: “...is it your understanding that Staff Sergeant Frizzell was removed?” Commissioner Busson: “My understanding, from what I know so far, is that Staff Sergeant Frizzell was removed.” That's based on not having current information; that's a week ago.

So we still have a very serious ongoing question as to whether or not Staff Sergeant Frizzell had actually finished his work and was given an assignment, and everything else is coincidental, or whether he was actually removed as an attempt to blunt any further investigation by him to turn up things that certain powers-that-be didn't want.

I leave that there for all of us to chew on. And I still maintain it will take a public inquiry to get to the bottom of it. We're not going to do it this way.

Staff Sergeant Frizzell, I want to visit the issue of the computer again. It's in here in the notes, I'm sure, but was that standard procedure, or did that stand out as something unusual? Maybe you can again give those circumstances.

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

It stood out as very unusual, and that's the conversation Mr. Lang was speaking about that I had with Stephane St. Jacques about a week after I left. He told me my computer had been wiped. I'd never heard of that in my career, and I took exception to all my information being made to disappear.