Public Accounts Committee on May 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Gauvin.

We'll now go to Mr. André Girard, staff sergeant, criminal intelligence and analysis section, for his opening comments.

[S/Sgt André Girard]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before making my presentation, I would, if possible, like to know what kind of protection I can expect from the committee, since I am still an active member of the RCMP. I might be asked to say things which may lead to reprisals against me. I want to be sure that I have the benefit of the committee's protection.

Mr. Chairman, I ask this because certain people, including some who are sitting at the back of the room, were involved in certain actions which affected me, actions which I will share with the committee this afternoon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Are you looking for an answer from me right now, Monsieur Girard?

[S/Sgt André Girard]

I am talking strictly about protection for myself as an active member of the RCMP. Some RCMP members here today are retired, and others hold a much higher rank. But I still have several years of service ahead of me as a member of the RCMP, at least I hope so. I want to make sure that I will be protected by Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Do you want to address that?

I'll start and then I want to turn it over to the legal counsel, Mr. Steven Chaplin, the parliamentary counsel.

You're protected by the law of Parliament and it's called “parliamentary privilege”, which basically states that anything you say cannot be used against you in any other proceedings. I should further point out that this committee has in the past protected its privileges, and will in the future protect its privileges, if that is going on in any proceeding outside of Parliament.

For a more definitive legal explanation, I'll turn the matter over to Mr. Chaplin for his explanation.

Sir.

[Steven Chaplin, Principal Parliamentary Counsel (Legal), Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons]

Under the privileges of this committee, you have the full protections of parliamentary privilege. For active members of the RCMP, that would include any disciplinary proceedings that were taken against you, the same for any civil servant. For example, if a public servant were before this committee and were to provide testimony and it was determined that any punishments or whatever would follow that, the House could summons whoever was responsible for that and have them answer to the committee and ultimately to the House for their actions.

In other words, the privilege itself basically states that no testimony that's given in a parliamentary proceeding may be questioned in a court or any other place out of Parliament. That would include government departments. It would include the RCMP. It would include the police. So that's the one side of the coin.

For everyone on the other side of the coin, of course, it is that witnesses before parliamentary committees who are sworn.... Of course it is in fact an offence of perjury that could ultimately be followed up if one were to basically perjure themselves before a parliamentary committee. So there is a flip side. The expectation is you'll tell the truth. The committee and the House will protect witnesses against repercussions. At the same time, there are the same sanctions that could occur for anyone who in fact was found to have perjured themselves before a parliamentary committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Chaplin.

You can continue, Mr. Girard.

[S/Sgt André Girard]

I am satisfied with that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

I will now make my opening statement. To begin, I would like to thank committee members for inviting me to testify today, in particular with regard to requests I made under the Access to Information Act.

I have been with the RCMP for 31 years. My rank is that of staff sergeant. For the last 16 years, I was the Division C Staff Relations representative, and I represented regular and civilian members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Quebec, including at the Cornwall detachment in Ontario. I held the same position as Staff Sergeant Ron Lewis before he retired.

Divisional representatives are elected for two or three-year mandates, and since 1990, I was re-elected to this position by either a huge majority or unanimously. The last time the position was opened, I was prevented from putting my name forward because I had sent letters to the Minister of Public Safety, the Honourable Stockwell Day. I tabled with the clerk, in both official languages, the letters I sent to the Minister of Public Safety, the letters of reprisals I received afterwards, as well as the letter ordering me not to put my name forward for the position which I had held for 16 years.

I have also included copies of untranslated letters. I would appreciate it if the clerk could get these letters translated so all committee members can read them.

The irony in all of this is that my problems started, amongst other reasons, when I made an access to information request for the Ottawa police report about the criminal investigation which allegedly had been carried out by the Ottawa police into the actions of certain senior RCMP managers, some of whom have apparently already testified before your committee. I filed other access to information requests on the hiring, by the RCMP, of retired RCMP members as temporary civilian employees immediately after or shortly after they had left the Force.

There is no doubt in my mind that the fact that I made access to information requests and sent letters to the Minister of Public Safety to discuss the problems this committee is examining led to reprisals against me by RCMP members. I was transferred elsewhere as a punishment, and I was not allowed to run for an eighth consecutive term to represent Division C members who, incidentally, have no way of contesting the actions taken against me. Unfortunately for RCMP members, the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada not to hear the appeal of Mr. Robert Reed gives even more powers to senior managers and makes rank and file RCMP members even more vulnerable to reprisals when they denounce alleged wrongdoing by senior managers.

Before closing my opening statement, I would also like to share with the honourable committee members that actions taken against me also coincide with the outcome of a complaint I had lodged with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages concerning the fact that no simultaneous translation was requested by the head of the labour relations system in the RCMP, known as the DIVREP system, during an official meeting involving all representatives across Canada, the ex-commissioner of the RCMP, Mr. Giuliano Zaccardelli, and Madame Barbara George.

I could provide the supporting documentation, complaint, and result to the committee relating to the above subject upon request. I understand that my divisional representative, Staff Sergeant Gaétan Delisle, met with Mrs. Barbara George to intervene in my favour, without results. Furthermore, the present commissioner, who could have rectified this unjust treatment, refused, up to now, to meet with him or me.

Once again, I would like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to assist it in its deliberations. I would now be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Girard.

Mr. John Spice, I understand you have an opening statement.

[A/Commr John Spice]

I have a brief one.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity.

In order to provide some insight about me, I was formerly the ethics and integrity adviser for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I retired from the RCMP in November 2003 after serving 35 years. I held the rank of assistant commissioner, and occupied the position of ethics and integrity adviser from February 2002 until my retirement in November 2003. I began my career with the RCMP in Manitoba, and also served in command positions in Ottawa headquarters, Alberta, and the Yukon.

I was approached by former commissioner Zaccardelli to take on the role of ethics adviser and reported directly to him. I was an adviser to the senior executive committee of the RCMP, as well as being the senior officer for internal disclosure on wrongdoing in the workplace in accordance with Treasury Board policy. I viewed my role as a quasi-ombudsperson and routinely dealt with behavioural issues internal to the force. Many of these included issues of harassment, abuse of power and authority, and unethical conduct.

I've been looking forward to appearing before this committee, and will answer to the best of my ability any and all questions you may have. I have some additional comments that I'll save for later, if that's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Spice.

Now we'll hear from Mr. Pierre Lavoie, a retired superintendent with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

[Supt Pierre Lavoie]

I would like to thank committee members for inviting me to appear. Allow me to introduce myself. I was with the RCMP for over 28 years. I worked mostly in various operational and administrative areas. In 2001, I was promoted to the rank of inspector and transferred to Ottawa. After volunteering for the position in May 2005, I was appointed as the coordinator for access to information and privacy. I remained in that position until I left in February 2007.

As indicated in the backgrounder I gave the clerk, during my time as coordinator, I was faced with a very difficult task because there was far too much work and too few resources. Because of a severe shortage of staff, we simply could not keep up. Every month the backlog of access to information and privacy requests increased. This was due solely to the lack of human resources. It caused me enormous frustration because I could not fulfil my mandate under the two acts.

Since I was the only one who had the authority and delegated powers to carry out my mandate, I was the only person responsible for deciding what information would be released in response to information requests, including the one for the Ottawa Police Service's report, which is of interest to your committee. I would emphasize that as coordinator I was always did my work with conviction, in accordance with the law, and with a strong sense of ethics which I acquired and exercised throughout my long career with the RCMP.

I am aware of the fact that Mr. Estabrooks, who worked for me while I was coordinator, made certain statements when he appeared before your committee on April 30. I strongly object to several things my former colleague insinuated, including two in particular.

First, I do not agree with Mr. Estabrooks when he says that he was removed from the file. As described in my backgrounder, when I took over the file on March 21, 2007, I was only doing my duty as coordinator, which was to do personally what was necessary to ensure that the report would be released, especially after I made a commitment to the Director General of Investigations and Reviews at the Office of the Information Commissioner who had been asking for regular updates for some time.

Since I was the only officer working for the Access to Information and Privacy Directorate, and the person with delegated authority, it was my duty, and mine alone, to work with RCMP managers to deal with the file, to document every decision in case I would have to justify any actions taken, to respond to the pressing questions of Mr. Dupuis, the Director General of Investigations and Revisions at the Office of the Information Commissioner, to make the necessary commitments on behalf of the RCMP and then to finally release the report. That is exactly what I did.

Second, I also object to the fact that Mr. Estabrooks said that Deputy Commissioner Gauvin's involvement in the process represented a breach of ethics. In my opinion, even though it does not happen often, there is nothing to prevent a manager from taking part in the processing of an access to information request involving the RCMP and making recommendations.

RCMP managers have the right, if not the legitimate duty, to speak out in defence of the interest of the public and of the organization when any final decision is being taken by the coordinator to deny access or to release information in full or in part. So there is nothing illegal or unethical about this type of consultation.

However, it is up to the coordinator to take all these considerations into account before deciding to release or withhold information. That is what I did.

Thus I found the insinuations about my professional integrity and sense of ethics to be hurtful and malicious.

Having clarified these points, I would now be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lavoie.

That concludes the opening statements.

I should point out to the members that we're not going to ask for opening statements, but we do have in the audience, and they might be called up—the steering committee discussed it this morning and has agreed to allow it—Mr. Bernard Corrigan, assistant commissioner, public affairs and communications, Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Kevin Mole, acting deputy commissioner of human resources; and Ian Cowan, executive assistant to Mr. Paul Gauvin.

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

Sorry that I keep having to interject this way, but we have a full lineup of witnesses. And now you're saying that there's a second tier sitting in the back who may or may not be called. I know nothing about these people. I don't know under what circumstances they are to be called, who's going to call them, or what the line of questioning is.

I thought the steering committee straightened these things out, Mr. Chairman. Can you give me an explanation as to why we have a front line and a second line, and what's going on here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson has his hand up. I'll let him speak to it. But I want to point out that we did have a lengthy discussion, Mr. Williams, at the steering committee meeting this morning. We got a request from the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on this particular issue. We wanted to have the meeting dealing specifically with the ATIP requests, and there was a suggestion that we should have these other two available. We decided at the steering committee, after lengthy discussion, that we would allow that particular request.

Go ahead, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Just to support that, I appreciate the concerns Mr. Williams has raised, and that's why we had a lengthy discussion. To be fair, we had a written request from the Commissioner of the RCMP, who just suggested to us in very polite, respectful language that she felt that these two additional witnesses would be useful and would provide valuable information.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj had at least three or four others. He had given us a heads-up on that earlier and we deferred it to the steering committee. We didn't want to just outright deny him an opportunity, given that we're trying to go subject by subject.

So there we were with the dilemma, and rather than split it into two or three meetings, we said that we'd let the original witness list invitees come forward, be sworn in, and take their places. Those other witnesses will be there, will be recognized, and are available to members to call.

The chair and the steering committee are trying to respect that so we don't have what we had last time, which was all those people crowded around. That didn't work. Really, all we were left with was to say to the commissioner and to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, “Absolutely no, too bad, artificial deadline, we can't do it”, or have two meetings, or go the way we've gone.

What we decided, to be fair to the commissioner and to be fair to our committee colleague, was that we would allow them to be in the audience and come up as necessary for committee members.

That's how it came about.

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't know who's in the audience. I don't know how to call them. Somebody obviously knows what to call them and what questions to ask. I have no idea.

On the other issue about the commissioner, Mr. Chairman, have we received a letter from the commissioner? Remember, she made a commitment to give us the full details regarding the removal of Staff Sergeant Frizzell from the case. I'm not aware that we've received that letter so far. Have we?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

All we got, Mr. Williams, was that one-page or one-and-a-half-page letter with the attached order. I take it that it is the commissioner's interpretation of responding to our undertaking.

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

Mr. Chairman, you asked her the first time she was here and she made an undertaking to provide it. All we got was a quick covering letter, together with the order of removal of Staff Sergeant Frizzell. When the commissioner was back here a couple or three weeks ago, I asked her, and she made a complete and unqualified undertaking to provide all the circumstances surrounding the removal of Staff Sergeant Frizzell.

My question to the clerk, if I could get his attention, is whether we have gotten that letter from the commissioner yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams, I understand that the first letter was her response. However, let me point out, and this is the trouble, that we're getting documents that aren't translated. We have--and I'll pull them up to show you what I'm dealing with--two volumes of many, many documents dealing with this whole issue and a report.

Has it been translated? It has not been translated.

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

I can't believe that the Commissioner of the RCMP would send a copy down in one official language, Mr. Chairman. All I thought we were going to get was a letter, maybe two, three, or four pages long. I don't need the whole file.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

This letter is 96 pages in length, and it is accompanied by two volumes of material that weigh about eight pounds.

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

What are the titles of these documents?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The titled one is “A Report to the Chair of the Standing Parliamentary Committee on Public Accounts on the Circumstances Surrounding Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell”.

In the documents, there are no titles. There's appendix A, e-mails, appendix B, and appendix C, which is statements and a forensic analysis report, very comprehensive and very lengthy. And again, they're not translated.

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

I retract my statement, Mr. Chairman. I guess she has given us the full report on the removal on Staff Sergeant Frizzell.

My disappointment is that it's only in one official language. We'll get it in due course, I guess.