Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 6th, 2007

[John Spice]

I think it probably could have gone further.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Do you think the OPP should be investigating the RCMP right now?

[John Spice]

I don't know. If the point of the matter is to further the investigation that was conducted by the Ottawa Police Service and staffed by numerous members of the RCMP, I think the optics of it certainly are that it could have been done differently.

Should it be reinvestigated? I don't know. I don't know whether or not the investigation was sufficient. I wasn't involved in it, so I can't proffer an opinion.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Brown asserts in his report that there should not be a commission of inquiry, but then goes on to state there's a massive elephant in the room, recommending:

The OPP should review the OPS criminal investigation files and assess the adequacy of the OPS investigation with a view to determining whether a new criminal investigation is warranted.

I practised criminal law for a while; this is pretty serious business.

Does anybody in that office now, Ms. Conlin...? Have you been asking nobody at all? I find this astonishing. This is, I think, the number one recommendation that Mr. Brown is making. And you've not been consulted?

And Mr. Spice, retrospectively, looking back, you don't agree? You disagree?

[John Spice]

What you're asking us is whether or not we agree with the recommendations of Mr. Brown?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Yes.

[John Spice]

From what you've read—and I haven't read the report, nor do I have any inclination to do so, because I'm no longer part of the organization—do I think they should take a second look at it? Yes, I do.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty.

The last person is Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I want to talk a little about some of the words we've heard today. There are a few words I have some questions about. I guess I'm a bit concerned in the sense that earlier you talked about things such as the confidence of the RCMP rank and file officers and the will of leadership. Those are rather subjective and fairly intangible.

It seems that a lot of what you're talking about is dependent on the character of the commissioner. I think Mr. Christopherson was talking about that a little earlier. But the question is still that when you have a great commissioner who does everything right, none of these things is an issue; what we're dealing with is what you do when you're not in that situation. I don't think that what I've heard today answers how we're addressing those issues. What do we do when there's something wrong?

You talked a little bit—and the first time I thought you misspoke, but you talked twice and used the phrase—about outreach initiatives to deal with people who bring forward concerns. That struck me as a bit of an oxymoron. People who bring forward concerns are outreaching to you; that's not outreach on your part. I'm interested in what you're doing. When you do outreach and are talking to rank and file officers, what are you telling them to do when they're concerned about an issue?

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

Well, let me clarify, please. The outreach initiative I'm speaking of is the outreach initiative that former Commissioner Beverley Busson put in place on April 25 as a result of the public accounts committee meeting she was at, when she said she had put in place, through the Office of the Ethics Advisor, an outreach program to present and past employees who had concerns about how their issues had been dealt with in the past. That is the outreach, sir.

You are very correct. That was an outreach by Commissioner Busson to the membership to talk about things that had gone on that perhaps they felt didn't meet their requirements. That is the outreach initiative I am speaking of.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay, that now clarifies it a little bit for me.

In terms of your outreach to the general population of rank and file officers, those who maybe haven't brought forward concerns, when you go out and advise them of what to do in these types of circumstances, I'm curious to know what specifically you're telling them about the structure and what's different and what to expect, and where to go. Do you, for example, inform them of the role of the Public Service Integrity Commissioner who will be in place, and the powers they have under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act? Are they informed of that option, or are they not informed until they come to you with an issue?

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

No, sir. I do presentations. I meet with them in various courses; we have our ethics course. I also speak to all the new officers as part of officer development, where part of my presentation is about the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner's office, and what their obligations are to each and every one of the supervisors. As you know, we have many supervisors across this organization who now have a legal obligation. An individual or an employee can go to their supervisor and disclose a wrongdoing. So we are also now putting in place a training or education package to be able to educate all of the supervisors. That was done, as I said in my earlier comments, through the supervisory development program, in the management development program, and in the officer development program.

I do admit that we also have to reach a number of employees who don't fall into those categories, and that is going to be done with a phased approach.

We also have a communications strategist with us. We have a communications strategy that involves, first of all, the 1-866 number, which is a disclosure line. Also, we have a communication strategy that speaks to the employees about what the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is, and their obligations and our obligations as an organization.

Again, we're working to change the policies to ensure they reflect everything.

The other thing we're also doing is ensuring at the end of the day that we have a website with frequently asked questions and answers, and right now that is in the works or being established. We're working with communications to get that done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Assistant Commissioner Conlin.

That, colleagues, concludes the second round.

I'm going to ask Assistant Commissioner Conlin if she has any concluding remarks she wants to present to the committee, and also retired Assistant Commissioner Spice.

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

No, I thank the committee for taking the time today to ask me to appear in front of them. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Well, we thank you for your attendance.

Thank you, again.

[John Spice]

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That, colleagues, concludes this part of the meeting.

I understand Mr. Wrzesnewskyj has a motion, but before I go to him, I just want to point out that the committee is meeting for two days. For the benefit of the public here, I'll say that we're now going to adjourn for 10 minutes and we're going to go in camera to discuss reports from 11 to 12:30.

This afternoon, from 2 to 4 o'clock, we're going to have another meeting. The witnesses at that point in time will be Paul E. Kennedy, chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Catherine Ebbs, chair of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's external review committee; and as an individual, the Honourable Anne McLellan, former Minister of Public Safety.

We are going to continue in camera from 2:15 to 5 o'clock this afternoon.

Tomorrow we come back. We will meet in public from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. The witnesses at that time will be William Elliott, the present Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Beverley A. Busson, the retired commissioner; and we're also going to hear from Linda Duxbury, a professor at the School of Business at Carleton University. Again, later that morning we're going to have an in camera meeting to discuss reports.

Then in the afternoon we will have two meetings. The first meeting will be from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., and we're going to hear from David A. Brown from the Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters—and of course we have been talking this morning about the Brown report. And then from 3 to 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, we're going to hear from the Honourable Stockwell Day, the present Minister of Public Safety.

I just wanted to bring everyone up to date as to what we're going to be doing here today and tomorrow.

I'm going to adjourn. But, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you indicated that you have a motion.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes, that's correct, Chair.

I'd like to move that Superintendent Denis Constant, the former executive officer in former Commissioner Zaccardelli's office, and also retired Chief Superintendent Wayne Watson appear as witnesses before this committee.

The reason is that we've heard conflicting testimony before this committee. Former Commissioner Zaccardelli has unequivocally stated—in fact he used terms such as “absolutely not”—that he did not request a criminal investigation. We heard the exact opposite from Mr. Ron Lewis. His notes from that meeting indicate the exact opposite. His actions seem to indicate the exact opposite.

We've heard in testimony this morning that there may be individuals who would help us try to figure out which side of this conflicted testimony is the correct version. As we've said on numerous occasions here, we expect truthful and fulsome answers. People are protected by parliamentary privilege, and we treat with great seriousness any situation that may indicate a contempt of this committee or of Parliament. Consequently, I'd like the committee to have these two individuals appear, and I seek unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

There are two points I want to make.

As everyone knows, before this motion can go any further, he needs unanimous consent to even put it on the table. I do want to remind members that we're in kind of what I call a complicated period here. The Prime Minister has indicated his intention to prorogue Parliament. It would come back on October 16 of this year with a new Speech from the Throne. He has not done that. The prorogation has not occurred. Once prorogation occurs, the committee and all the workings of the committee are suspended until the new session starts. So we are kind of in a period of what I would call a certain amount of uncertainty. However, that event has not occurred yet.

Having said that, before anyone can discuss this, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj needs unanimous consent to put the motion.

Does Mr. Wrzesnewskyj have unanimous consent?

Do you have point of order, Mr. Williams?

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

You just pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to prorogue in the very near future. As you pointed out, the committees will be disbanded, there is no Parliament, and there are no committees until they're reconstituted. Unless Mr. Wrzesnewskyj thinks we're meeting over the weekend, which I would object to, there is no point in this going forward at all. What is the point? It's a moot issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead, Madam Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I'm amazed to hear Mr. Williams say that, when Mr. Sweet asked for unanimous consent to present a motion at the beginning of this hearing this morning, with a whole list of potential witnesses that he wanted to commend. He asked for the unanimous consent of this committee to allow him to present the motion. The committee gave him that consent. We then unanimously adopted that motion, which was a laudable motion, and we were thrilled and delighted that the Conservatives had finally come around to the thinking of the opposition parties, particularly the Liberal and the Bloc, that these witnesses needed to be lauded and honoured.

However, it is also clear parliamentary practice that even when Parliament is prorogued and committees are reconstituted, the newly reconstituted committees can, via a simple motion, look backwards at what their committee has been doing if the previous committee has not completed a particular study, and by a motion ensure that all of the transcripts, all of the testimony, all of the documents that were presented in a previous Parliament be accessible to the committee.

Therefore, this motion is not moot. It provides—should the Prime Minister move forward and actually prorogue Parliament—the newly constituted public accounts committee, when Parliament resumes, with the clear thinking of this committee as to how it wanted to go forward. That newly constituted committee would have the freedom to decide whether or not it wanted to follow the direction that the previous committee--

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

Which is why it is all moot, Mr. Chair.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

It is not moot.

I would ask that all members support the request of Mr. Wrzesnewskyj to allow him to present this motion, and should all of the members give unanimous consent, that then all members actually support the motion.