Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 6th, 2007

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Would assistant commissioners be on there as well?

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

No, sir.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

No, so it's just the commissioner, deputy commissioner.... Okay.

Regarding the internal audit that was taking place, we've heard that the auditor had said he'd never seen so many red flags. He should have stopped the audit, and a criminal investigation should have begun. That did not happen. The audit was presented that fall to SEC.

By the way, Mr. Aiken, the auditor, reported to Mr. Gauvin, who was the comptroller, after all, a deputy commissioner. What's interesting is that we've heard in testimony here that a former assistant commissioner, Gordon Clark, has indicated that Mr. Gauvin had a file of all of the inappropriate requests that the former Commissioner Zaccardelli had made. Former Assistant Commissioner Gordon Clark has indicated he'd be willing to testify before this committee. Mr. Zaccardelli claimed no recollection of that meeting and discussion of that particular issue.

Mr. Gauvin is Mr. Aiken's superior. I would assume Mr. Aiken would have gone to Mr. Gauvin. The audit did not stop. It was concluded. The audit results came forward before SEC. You have all the top officials within the RCMP on the senior executive committee.

What happened? Why did it take until March of the following year, only after the whistle-blowers went to the offices of Anne McLellan, Reg Alcock, and Sheila Fraser? Why did nothing happen? Everyone on SEC had a copy of that report. They heard those allegations. So do you have any idea of what transpired? Why did no one take action?

[John Spice]

If I may say so, it was not the full SEC committee that received that audit report. Quite frankly, I'm not sure who sits on the audit committee--perhaps you can tell me--but it's not a full SEC meeting. So the report, as far as I know--and I could be wrong--did not necessarily go to the entire SEC group, but it did go to the audit committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

Mr. Poilievre, you have four minutes.

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

I confess to being a little surprised that you have not mentioned the new processes that will be in place because of the Federal Accountability Act. For the first time, thanks to the protection provided to whistleblowers—including those in the RCMP—RCMP employees will be able to turn to the commissioner for protection if they are not satisfied with the results of the RCMP's internal processes. This is new, it did not exist before the Federal Accountability Act came into force.

In addition, if the internal investigations of a whistleblowing complaint does not satisfy an employee, the employee can under the act make the complaint directly to the commissioner, who is independent and appointed by Parliament. Perhaps you could talk about the structural changes that this will bring. I think the change is very significant, and you did not mention it. You spoke only of changes in culture. Changes in process are now in force too. I would like you both to address these changes. For example, do you have any comments on the way this is going to change the process?

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

The RCMP has had policy on internal disclosure since approximately 2002 with regard to the way we handle internal disclosures for wrongdoing. The law that was brought out was the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, with some obligations for us with regard to the nomination of its chief executive, which we did. Deputy Commissioner Tim Killam is our chief executive for the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and I was nominated as the senior official for that act.

We also have some obligations with regard to ensuring that we have the policies in place that look at the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and the RCMP Act and how they interact--

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

I'm sorry, I don't have very much time.

Those things, frankly, don't interest me a whole lot. What interests me is where whistle-blowers can go when they have a disclosure of wrongdoing and they're not satisfied with any of the people you've just mentioned because those people are part of the RCMP. And what I wanted to point out is that under the Federal Accountability Act they now can go to the Public Service Integrity Commissioner, who is an officer of Parliament.

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

Yes. We have--

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

I don't know why you haven't spoken of that, because that is far more important than any of these very small things you're mentioning now.

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

A communiqué went out to all employees of the RCMP when the act was put into force in April, advising all employees that they have three areas to which they can go under the act. Number one is their supervisor; number two is the senior officer; and as well, they can go to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner's office.

We are now working with those three areas, because we also are looking at how the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act interacts with the RCMP Act, and those are the meetings that are ongoing with the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner's office, RCMP legal services, professional standards and external review, and my office. And the SRRs are included in that. And what we're looking at is how the new act interacts with the RCMP Act and what policies we may need to change to ensure that they meet the new Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

But we already had policy in 2002 with regard to whistle-blower protection and with the reprisal as well. What we need to do now is ensure that it meets all the legal requirements in how it interacts with the RCMP Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Poilievre.

Thank you, Assistant Commissioner Conlin.

Monsieur Laforest.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to share my time with Mr. Lussier.

Ms. Conlin, since the meeting started, it seems to me that there has been a lot of talk about changes in structure. Mr. Fitzpatrick already mentioned systemic changes. So did Mr. Brown.

You are telling us that, for sure, things are going to be better, and that they already are, because of the will of the senior executive committee and the commissioner, who want things to work. But I feel that there are still a number of problem areas and, if all we have is good will, it will not get to all levels. As an example, I am going to table the documents I have in my hand.

You received a complaint on a matter of ethics from the divisional representative in Quebec. I do not want you to deal with a specific case, but people feel that there is some laxity within the RCMP, and I want to illustrate what I mean with the following case. An RCMP corporal asked for his weeks of vacation last spring and he was told that could have all his vacation if he signed a letter of resignation that would take effect a little later. The divisional representative filed a complaint, and you told him that the complaint should have been for harassment and not on a matter of ethics.

I think that, in a case like this, the officers' actions were a breach of the code of ethics. I do not want to deal with a specific case, but I table the document to demonstrate that people feel that there is laxity. Even if the RCMP senior executive committee and the commissioner want to change this and other situations, similar things are going to keep happening if systemic changes and major revisions to structures and policies are not made. We are talking about RCMP officers, after all. This involves someone in Trois-Rivières, in my area. I think the situation is inappropriate.

I give the floor to Mr. Lussier.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Laforest. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Conlin, the Brown report mentions that there is too much turnover. It says that there have been six people in six years. You say that you have been in your position as commissioner for five months. Do you think that you will be doing the job for a short time, or a long time?

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

First of all, let me clarify that the Brown report states that there have been six ethics advisors in six years. That is incorrect. The Office of the Ethics Advisor was established in 1997. I am the fifth ethics advisor, and I hope to be here for a long time.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

Now I would like to talk about representation or regional presence. How are you going to design your structure to resolve regional questions? Are all regional complaints forwarded to your office, and, if so, by what process?

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

It's a very good question. It's one of the areas we're looking at. We're looking at perhaps putting through regional or divisional ethics counsellors to assist us in this capacity to ensure there is a consistent message and to ensure that the members have someone they can trust and who is credible to deal with some of their issues. This is one of the many options we are looking at to deal with these issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lussier.

Mr. Williams, for four minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to be back here during the summertime. Welcome, all.

Ms. Conlin, you mentioned in your opening report that the mandate of the RCMP's Office of the Ethics Advisor is to ensure that the organization's shared mission, vision, and values become ingrained in the day-to-day activities of all employees.

We've been sitting here for a number of months. Mr. Spice, you said that when you were the ethics advisor people had to check that there was nobody else in the hall as they snuck into your office so that they wouldn't be seen going in. Therefore, this notion that the ethics advisor is an integral part of the institution of the RCMP does not seem to be totally accepted by all.

We also had Chief Superintendent Macaulay tell us that he was told he was on an island of his own. Commissioner Zaccardelli was telling us how wonderful a job Chief Superintendent Macaulay was doing--so good a job, Mr. Chairman, that he sent him over to DND for a couple of years, which was the doghouse, really. And Assistant Commissioner Rogerson ended up reporting to a staff sergeant because he wanted to blow the whistle.

The ethics of the organization, as we have heard here, are unfortunately quite low at the upper echelon. We don't know about down below. As far as we can tell, down below in the ranks of the RCMP, they are just as astounded as we are at what's been going on at the top.

But I want to know that you are able to walk into the commissioner's office--because he's senior to you--and say, Mr. Commissioner, you can't do that; you can't discipline a guy for blowing the whistle; you can't send somebody down to the doghouse or on an assignment out of the country or over to DND for a couple of years because you don't like to hear what he has to say.

How are you going to address this from an ethics point of view? As you stated in your opening statement, your mandate for the entire organization, from the commissioner down, is to ensure that ethics and service are number one and that honesty and integrity are there in the ways the organization is doing things.

We've had far too many examples over these last few months at this committee of people at the senior level who have paid lip service or no service to ethics and probity in the institution. How are you going to turn it around?

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

First of all, I don't think it's only my role to turn it around; I think it's everybody's role to behave in keeping with the core values of this organization.

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

But they haven't.

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

What we've failed to do, sir, is.... We had the mission, visions, and values that were put together by about 4,000 employees from all ranks of this organization. I think the mission, visions, and values of our organization are very sound. But what we didn't do is make them operational. What we didn't do is live the mission, visions, and values. And I think that's the challenge we have now, to ensure that ethical behaviour is rewarded and unethical behaviour is made accountable. I think that is key to changing an organization.

If we have the mission and these visions and values on the wall, but that's all they are, the piece of paper on the wall, and our managers or our employees are behaving contrary to those values, action has to be taken. That is what I meant in my opening statements. We have to look at the formal and the informal and make sure they're aligned and make sure that the rewards are there for ethical behaviour.

Just to reiterate, it is not only my duty; it is everybody's duty. But I am really the steward of it, and so I have to ensure this. As to whether I can go into the commissioner's officer and say there are unethical issues happening, I haven't had to do it in the last five months that I've been there, but if I do have to do it, I will do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.

Thank you, Assistant Commissioner Conlin.

Mr. Christopherson, four minutes, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Just to follow up on Mr. Williams' question, we've got to get past the words and get to some concrete things at some point. You said action needs to be taken if somebody acts unethically. Like what? What do you see in the future that's not happening now?

[A/Commr Sandra Conlin]

Let's go to the lowest level: a manager in a detachment or a detachment commander who sees people being demeaned, people being bullied. They need to act on that right away.

When I talk about action, I'm not necessarily talking about the formal discipline. That's down the road. What we need is people dealing with it at the first instance, people dealing with it and being able to talk and say that that behaviour is not acceptable in our organization, that it is against our core values. That's where we have to go. It has to be at the lowest level, because those are the people who are interacting with everyone every day.