Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 6th, 2007

[John Spice]

I suppose I would characterize it as being concerned. In fact, once seized with it, he was going to deal with it.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

You mentioned that you spoke with Mr. Aiken. When Mr. Aiken appeared before this committee, I'd heard from other sources that when he began his audit, one of the things he said was that he had never seen so many red flags go up. In your conversations with him, did he say anything similar?

[John Spice]

Yes, he did.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

And specifically did he say he had never seen so many red flags?

[John Spice]

Yes.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Looking back at your previous appearance on May 14--and I'll read from your testimony--you stated:

The process, for example, is that if you call for an internal audit--and I worked in audit many years ago, but I believe the principles still apply--you do the audit, and as soon as you determine that any criminality is involved or that there are code of conduct violations, you suspend the audit and proceed with the criminal investigation.

Why did this not happen in this particular case? Mr. Aiken said he'd never seen so many red flags go up. You clearly outlined what the principles are--you just restated it--that you suspend and you begin a criminal investigation. That did not occur in this case. Are there any particular reasons why?

[John Spice]

I have no idea. You'd have to ask Mr. Aiken.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

During this timeframe, a number of people who were very concerned about the pension insurance fund approached you. In your previous testimony, you expressed great frustration with what was occurring and, in fact, with a few of the principals involved. Did you at any point say to an individual, “Go outside the RCMP. It's not going to happen”, meaning the criminal investigation?

[John Spice]

I probably did.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

What would have led you to arrive at that conclusion?

[John Spice]

When I was the ethics advisor, I was also the senior officer for internal disclosure on wrongdoing in the workplace. It was a Treasury Board policy. The way the policy was structured—and the RCMP was to apply the policy—if a matter had gone to the level it required and nothing was done, then the next step was to go outside the organization to the public service integrity officer, at that time Mr. Ted Keyserlingk.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Preparing for retirement, you left your position in November of that year. Mr. Zaccardelli, the former commissioner, appointed a new ethics assistant commissioner, Mr. Séguin. Mr. Séguin, it turns out, was Mr. Crupi's boss. We've heard in testimony that Mr. Crupi ran the so-called rigged contracting scheme at the centre of this. Mr. Séguin worked directly under Mr. Ewanovich. We heard, in fact, that he was in a lot of ways his operations person. We heard Mr. Zaccardelli state that he wanted those individuals fired as a result of the audit, yet the person in the hierarchy immediately above Mr. Crupi and working for Mr. Ewanovich ends up being appointed the new ethics assistant commissioner, the very person that whistle-blowers or, as in your words, public servants doing their duties would have to turn to.

When you take a look at the pattern that had been established--the strategic secondments, as in the case of the chief superintendent and, for instance, the constructed dismissal of Denise Revine--wouldn't it seem to have put a chill through the organization to see people removed and at the same time to see the person they're supposed to turn to, the ethics assistant commissioner, as potentially a person of interest in these investigations? Did you have any feelings or any thoughts on that particular appointment, and why that would have occurred?

[John Spice]

Are you asking for my opinion on that? I don't know what rationale was used to arrive at that decision.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Would you have arrived at the same decision?

[John Spice]

No. No, I wouldn't have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

Mr. Laforest, you have eight minutes, please.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Spice and Ms. Conlin.

The committee has held 14 meetings on the administration of the RCMP's pension and insurance plans. In my view, the meetings today and tomorrow are so that that the committee can make recommendations to the government. From the outset, we have been trying to understand what happened, with a view to making recommendations so that it never happens again.

I feel that the role that you played, Mr. Spice, and that you are playing now, Ms. Conlin, is very important in the process. When we look at what happened and call a spade a spade, we realize—and I am referring to your comments, Mr. Spice—that you were almost powerless. You were able to observe significant harassment abuse as a result of whistleblowing. People came to you blowing whistles, but you had very little power. In your evidence to the committee, you suggested the establishment of an oversight committee or the appointment of an ombudsman.

I said earlier that you had a crucial role that you were not able to play. I feel that if the Ethics Advisor's role is crucial, he or she must clearly be given the authority that will better protect and empower all members of the RCMP. It makes no sense that we are where we are. The public is clearly exasperated by what has happened and by the fact that the system has not been able to punish those responsible.

You also proposed that the act be changed to make the limitation period longer.

My question is to both Ms. Conlin and Mr. Spice. What is the best solution? You mention an oversight committee and an ombudsman. Will that be enough? Do we not eventually have to consider unionizing the only police force in Canada that has no union? That could have positive effects. It would prevent abuses like the ones we now know about all too well or when favouritism is shown to a subordinate by a supervisor. These are rules of ethics. They are part and parcel of the values that the RCMP has to uphold.

There have been major abuses that people had no way to stop. Everyone can see that. Now we have to come up with ways to prevent similar situations. I am not saying that unionization is the only way to resolve the problems. People may say that it could well create other problems. Maybe so, but it also has a lot of merit, especially when it comes to protecting people.

I would like to hear what you each have to say on the subject.

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

First of all, sir, I think the RCMP's SRR program is a very good program, which we fully support. The Office of the Ethics Advisor is working very closely now with the SRR program.

With regard to the reprisal issue and coming forward, I am the senior officer for the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. I also have the full commitment from Commissioner Elliott, and had the full commitment from Commissioner Busson as well, to be engaged in this and to ensure that any reprisals as a result of disclosure will be addressed immediately from my office.

[John Spice]

On the issue of a union, I agree with Assistant Commissioner Conlin regarding the relationship with the division staff relations representatives. The SRR program has worked very effectively over the years, since the early seventies. In fact, I was placed in the position of ethics advisor based upon a recommendation from the division staff relations national executive committee members.

I don't know that a union per se would head off any of the issues we've been talking about here, quite frankly. I think it goes to the courage of conviction to do the right thing. Whether you're in a union or a non-union area, you still require people to behave appropriately and to adhere to the values of the organization.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Ms. Conlin, you said that the commissioner assured you that you would have all the authority necessary to ensure that matters and events reported to you would be brought to his attention and dealt with. Were specific ways of doing this suggested? When you say the commissioner, I assume that you mean the new commissioner. Has a new procedure been put in place so that your work can be truly effective?

In his statement, Mr. Spice said that his ability to act was very limited. He also mentioned that the Ethics Advisor's office is very prominently located and that people coming there for meetings can be easily recognized in the headquarters. If only for that one reason, is any thought going to be given to changing the situation?

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

With regard to your first point, sir, I would like to clarify. I have not been given any special powers. The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is the act we work under; however, we are working right now at revising some of our policies.

We are working with the public sector integrity commissioner's office as well as the SRR program, the RCMP legal services, and the professional standards and external review directorate. We are looking at our existing policies now to ensure that we meet the obligations of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and that we have the processes in place to deal with these matters in an efficient and effective manner.

With regard to the movement of my office, sir, my office is still located where it was. I don't think it is the location of the office that makes the difference; I think it is the feeling of trust the people have to come forward to the office. That's an issue of credibility; I don't think location is really the issue.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

So you are telling us for certain that nothing has changed. If policies and ways of doing things have not changed, does this mean that, for everyone working in the RCMP, changes will happen simply because the commissioner has changed?

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

First, the act came into effect in 2007. As you heard me say at the beginning of my remarks, the first thing I did was to staff my office. At present, we are studying all the policies. We are working with other government organizations to find out what their policies are and how we can ensure...

You asked me if this was because we had a new commissioner. Well, when he talked to me, Mr. Elliott offered his complete support for the work I had to do, and so did the RCMP's senior executive committee.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you.