Evidence of meeting #72 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was brown.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
You had people under oath. What I had was the ability to get behind what they were saying to see what they were saying in private moments between one another, to see what they were saying in journals, to see what they were saying--
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Is that what we should have done, instead of what you did, if it's so good?
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
That is part of the value-added that I was able to bring to it. So I was able to, I think, answer some of the questions that you were wrestling with here. That's point number one.
On point number two, what I think I was also able to do was then to look at the facts, the facts that were not an issue--and there were a number of them coming through this committee and through the other processes, and of those, the ones that I was able to come to a conclusion on--and to determine whether there was enough there to start trying to rebuild the RCMP and to get on to the action mode. I was convinced--and I still feel very strongly about it or I would not have taken on the job as chair of the task force--that enough now has been brought to light that it is time to get on with rebuilding, and it's time to get on to the action--
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I don't mean to be rude, but I am going to interrupt because of limited time. I don't even get a second round, so I have to push on.
I'm still having a great deal of difficulty understanding why your process, with or without the task force, is as good as and a legitimate replacement for a public inquiry. I suggest to you, with great respect, that virtually any journalist here who has been following these hearings could have written your report. The stuff was all there. Anything you may have added is suspect. Nobody is under oath.
We had people come in here under oath--honourable people, without question--and we had to chase them and tell them their answers weren't fulsome enough and we weren't getting the whole truth. Then people who heard that testimony called us up and said, “You might want to bring in so-and-so because they'll contradict that.”
You didn't have any of that, sir. How can you possibly say that what you have is value-added to the same degree as what we have done, given that the public has no more idea than we do who you met with or when you met with them?
Would you at the very least give us a list of all the witnesses you met with, transcripts of those discussions, all the documents you brought in, and the dates of the meetings with all of those people, so we and the public can get close to what you tell us? You can tell us, and I'll accept your word, but in terms of moving legislation it's not good enough. So I'm asking you, at the very least, to table all of that so we can take a look at it and see where you went.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
On your first point, I think one of the reasons the type of investigation I was asked to conduct was put on the table was that it was necessary to get behind some of the things you were being told. By looking at records that were created, not for purposes of answering questions at the time they were being asked but to look at the things that were being said when the events were unfolding, I was quite comfortable that I was able to determine what indeed was going on by looking at those.
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
We should have had you on this committee. We could have saved ourselves a lot of effort. With that great judgment and insight, you could have told us who was or was not lying.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
I think you'll find that having a combination of the two processes has probably produced a better result than either one by itself. I think my process benefited greatly from the work that was done at this committee. Uncovering the truth of what was going on has been aided by both your process and the process I've gone through.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
You can table your report, but you can't talk to us about your process. We don't know what your process was. We don't know one word of what anybody said to you, sir. We have no idea, and neither does anybody else on the planet who wasn't in the room at that time.
You said you couldn't get where you are without the work this committee did. We don't know what's in the future. Everybody who said we didn't need an inquiry into Air India and Arar used exactly the same words you did over and over until we finally did know what we didn't know. We still don't know what we don't know, and we never will if we don't get a public inquiry.
You feel certain enough to sit there and tell us you got behind what we were told, but you had none of the tools, and you didn't have the benefit of the public listening to what you were being told, to ride shotgun on the truth. Don't you find this a little bit hard for us to swallow, sir?
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
No, I don't at all. We have an understanding of the shortcomings internally within the RCMP. I don't pretend to have the answers as to what we need to fix it, and that's why I suggested the task force. I think it's there graphically for all to see what issues need to be addressed and what the fixes need to be. Given that this institution is so important to us in Canada, it's very important for us to get on with the job of fixing it. The task force has a very short mandate and I'm the first to admit that, but it's essential that we get on with the job to identify solutions and start getting those solutions implemented.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.
Before going to Mr. McGuinty, I want to pursue one area briefly with you, Mr. Brown. I've gone over the mandate of the task force and the eight bullets in your mandate. One issue that I see missing is any review or deliberation on the whole issue of parliamentary review.
I know this is a very complex issue; it's not a simple issue. You have to balance the public's right to know and at the same time respect the arm's-length nature of police enforcement. I believe Mr. Justice O'Connor struggled with this issue. In part II of the Arar inquiry report he talked about it.
Your initial mandate was under the executive. You were mandated by the minister and you reported to the minister. Your second mandate is similar: you're mandated by the minister and you report to the minister.
One of the pillars of executive government is secrecy and concentrated power--not this government, but the previous government, the government before that, and the government before that.
Again, I think this is an important issue. It's an issue that should be deliberated upon--whether it's needed--because we're dealing now with a public that's less deferential; it's more informed. And I believe that going forward, there's going to be a necessity for some meaningful public dialogue with Canada's national police agency, probably through Parliament in some way. That is something I hope your committee would be looking at, but I don't see it in the mandate at all.
Do you have any thoughts on that issue?
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
You're quite right, Mr. Chair. The mandate, in the third item, talks about accountability. The words are lifted from the recommendations that I made in my report. The kinds of accountability that I was talking about there were more the internal accountability within the force itself, as well as some of the external accountabilities for the business aspects of what the force has done.
I agree that there may well be issues on the accountability of Canada's national police force to Parliament and how those accountabilities play out. I'm not certain that this task force, as it's constructed, has the expertise, or indeed the time, to get into those issues. These are early days for us, and we're just starting to understand the accountabilities. We know there are accountabilities to the Treasury Board. We know there are accountabilities through the minister to Parliament. Now, under the new statute, there are accountabilities to parliamentary committees. It is a very large issue. At this point I don't know how far we will be able to get into them.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. Brown, for coming in. Your report is an interesting read. You did a great job in a very short period of time.
I have a couple of rapid-fire questions to ask you just before we go any further.
How much did this report cost?
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
We had a budget that we worked out with the Treasury Board. It was about $3.5 million. The task force expenses came in at just under $3.5 million. I can't give you the precise figure, but it is just below the budgeted item.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'm sorry, did you say the report and the task force together are $3.5 million?
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
I'm sorry; I said “task force”, and I thank you for picking that up. For the investigation that I did, the budget was $3.5 million.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Okay.
Forgive me, but I have to ask you this question in the interest of transparency. I'm not casting any kinds of aspersions, but I noticed that you did retain the services of your previous law firm. Can you tell me about that, and can you tell me whether that was RFP'd?
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
Yes. I knew that I needed to get governance expertise and I knew that one of the most skilled governance experts was in our own firm, so right from the beginning, when I was asked if I would take this on, I asked if it would be appropriate for me to retain Carol Hansell from our firm. I was told there was a process for doing that--it was through Treasury Board--so I stepped out of it, and the firm and Treasury Board negotiated the terms of that retainer. Ultimately a retainer was agreed to, and we went forward with them.
For me there just wasn't the time, given the very short period, to do a much broader search, and I knew from my own experience as a lawyer where I would find this expertise.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
The contract for the legal services was not, no.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
I will guess $375,000, but I'll check to make sure that's the right number.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
It was a sole-sourced contract authorized by the Treasury Board and presumably its minister.
Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters
Yes.
Liberal