Public Accounts Committee on May 29th, 2007

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We'll follow up. We'll see if there's a follow-up. Life is strange.

I have one more. Regarding Assistant Commissioner Gork, again, you went to him the first time, and he was outraged at all the sorts of things you'd expect. Then, if I heard you correctly, you said there seemed to be an attitude change at a follow-up meeting. Is that correct?

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

A drastic attitude change. And the other point was, in a normal police investigation when you find out money's being taken from people, you let the victims know. Whether they're victims of a crime or not is irrelevant; money was being taken from them. I wanted to let the victims know. I was ordered by Mr. Gork not to. We had quite a battle over that.

So not only did his perspective change, but he was adamant that I not take any steps to make sure the victims were aware of what was happening.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

There hasn't been a meeting yet we haven't had more questions coming out of the meeting than we had going in.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. We're going to go to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj for three minutes, three minutes to Mr. Poilievre, and then we'll adjourn.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, three minutes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

We've just heard once again similar statements to what you made during your opening remarks, that Assistant Commissioner Dave Gork told you not to look, and then you also said he provided direction on how the investigation should go. Are you absolutely clear on that?

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

Yes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

When Assistant Commissioner Gork testified before us here, he made it absolutely clear to us that he was strictly there to provide resources and facilitate that this was an Ottawa Police investigation. You're telling us he was actually providing direction—where to go and not to go—yet he testified before us here that this was an Ottawa Police investigation and he had no direct involvement in how the investigation was proceeding. How do we match that?

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

I believe Mr. Gork went so far as to say he didn't even know who we were investigating.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

We've also heard conflicting testimony about the Ottawa Police investigation, whether it was shut down or whether it exhausted itself. I know it was an exhausting investigation; it took something like 15 months. But you have just indicated to us that no forensics were done.

Was the money ever followed? Did anyone in the contracting or in any of this—? Was the money followed? Were there any forensics done of bank accounts? Was there any follow-up done of that sort whatsoever?

[S/Sgt Mike Frizzell]

We had a forensic accountant examine the contracts themselves, but no, there was no follow-up as to where the money went, why, that sort of thing. No search warrants were executed.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay.

Chair, I'll be tabling a document that is translated into French and it will be relevant in future committee meetings, and these are the notes of Mr. Ron Lewis, from his meeting with the former commissioner, and the commissioner's request for a criminal investigation to begin.

Hopefully we'll have time for a quick point of order at the end, as well, but I wanted to give a chance to Mr. Poilievre.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes. I'll be giving notice of intention as well to put forward a motion to call representatives from Morneau Sobeco and Great-West Life later on.

In these last few minutes, it sounds like the problems with financing the administration of the pension fund originated when program review took away resources from your organization to finance its own pension administration.

Is that not so, Mr. Macaulay?

[C/Supt Fraser Macaulay]

I'll defer to Mr. Mole, but just to clarify it from our perspective, my understanding is it was at that time that the decision was made by the RCMP to start deferring the administration costs by taking them out of the insurance fund.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

And that was prohibited, right?

[C/Supt Fraser Macaulay]

Again, this is where you will start to see a bit of a difference in our opinions. The Treasury Board at that time was fully funding the administration—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes, I know, but that changed.

[C/Supt Fraser Macaulay]

That's a change in employer-employee relationships that was just done on the spur of that MOU—no authority.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Okay, but the Treasury Board stopped funding pension administration in 1995, is that correct?

[C/Supt Fraser Macaulay]

They didn't stop funding it. They didn't even know this had changed.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

So the funds were still coming from Treasury Board? Well, that's very strange. Then where did those funds go?

[D/Commr Kevin Mole]

Mr. Chair, perhaps I could just add some clarity. We're talking about the insurance funds, not the pension plan. And in 1995 the RCMP, like most federal government departments, was faced with program review targets with regard to significant reference level changes and it was looking at alternative service delivery for a number of its services.

We had employee—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I don't need the whole history; we only have a few minutes here.

[D/Commr Kevin Mole]

That's basically the context. The discussion took place at the—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

So the funding for administration was removed at that time?