Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 7th, 2007

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

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you ensure that the members of this committee act with decorum and probity, because these types of allegations can't be tolerated.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'd like to respond to that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'll ask Mr. Wrzesnewskyj for a response, then I'm going to invite Mr. Elliott to answer the question, and then we're going to move on to the next examiner.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Williams heard the exact same evidence as everyone on this committee heard.

When the officer appeared, he had the documentation to support his allegations. He made it very clear in his testimony that pressure was brought to bear on him to remove the documents that were ready, signed off, and supposed to go out, and replace them with documents he had prepared in his offices and passed on to the officer in the commissioner's board room at that particular meeting. So those documents were prepared in the former comptroller's office. He wanted to switch them for the documents that were to be sent out.

So I don't think there's anything in dispute in terms of what we heard. Mr. Williams is invited to check the transcripts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Commissioner Elliott.

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When I became commissioner Mr. Gauvin was no longer the chief financial officer, and I instigated no investigations into his actions prior to my becoming commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

Thank you, Commissioner Elliott.

Monsieur Laforest, sept minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Elliott, I was quite surprised, shocked and disappointed when you made your introductory remarks earlier, such as when you mentioned “some shortcomings” at the RCMP. That shocks me. We need only remember the Maher Arar affair, Air India, the incompetence in the Airbus affair, never-ending RCMP sponsorship inquiries, the scandal involving the Minister of Human Resources Development and the fraud involving the RCMP pension and insurance plans. I feel that you are significantly playing down events that, in my view, have greatly tarnished the RCMP's image in Canada and Quebec. When you start your mandate by trivializing these shortcomings, it leaves me very skeptical.

Before being appointed RCMP commissioner, you were a special adviser to present Prime Minister Stephen Harper and to his predecessor Mr. Martin. You held the position of special advisor on public safety when a number of these events took place. In the Maher Arar affair, you even acknowledged that you were actively involved in the decision that led to a significant part of the O'Connor report being censored. Between 1,500 and 2,000 words of that report were deleted before it was made public, showing that the government knew what had happened to Mr. Arar. This was a complete lack of transparency. You are now the head of an organization that is need of reform and to become much more transparent to boot.

You said that you have met a number of RCMP employees in a number of places over the summer. I think that it is just as important that you also meet the public. That would let you understand that the esteem in which the RCMP is held has lessened considerably. Given that your past is marked by a lack of transparency, I am not confident that you are the man to bring about the needed reforms. Both my party, the Bloc Québecois, and I feel that only a public inquiry can uncover the shortcomings. You mentioned some, but I am talking about all the problems that the RCMP has experienced in recent years, and even those that remain concealed. I think the public needs to know, and that it has the right to know.

As to the Maher Arar affair, specifically with regard to the entire matter that led to Justice O'Connor producing his report, I would like you to tell us if you participated in discussions prior to the report and in the decision to censor it. Was that part of your work?

[Commr William Elliott]

Well, Mr. Chairman, there's one question and several statements. I'm happy to respond to the question, but I guess I look to you for some direction with respect—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

It took him 45 seconds to do so, too.

[Commr William Elliott]

First of all, with respect to the honourable member's question, during the conduct of Mr. Justice O'Connor's inquiry I was in a number of different positions--I think three, actually--over the relevant period. I was an official of the Privy Council Office, first the assistant secretary for security and intelligence and then the national security adviser, and prior to the final decisions being taken by the government I had moved on to the Department of Public Safety. Throughout that period, I was involved in the government's work to support Mr. Justice O'Connor, and I participated in discussions and the recommendations to the government with respect to issues relating to the report, including matters relating to redaction. The decisions were decisions of the government. I, as a bureaucrat, as an official, made recommendations to the government in confidence, and I'm not in a position to speak to those recommendations.

With respect to some of the honourable member's other comments, certainly the government was aware of the information that was redacted, and certainly Mr. Justice O'Connor was aware of that as well. He himself, with respect to the redacted version of the report, indicated that he felt he was able to get the information that he needed to make his findings and recommendations.

You used the word “some”. I did not use that word in my presentation.

I indicated that the RCMP has a number of weaknesses. I indicated that we need to recognize and address those weaknesses, and I certainly am prepared to do my part as commissioner to do just that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Very briefly.

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

The French version clearly indicates that “some shortcomings” must be acknowledged. That is how it is written. Mr. Elliott, I would like you to give us more information on why the O'Connor report was censored. You have said that you were actively involved, so why was it censored to the extent that 2,000 words were removed from the report that the media and the public saw?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I look at the orders of the day, and it says, “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), Study of the Report of the Independent Investigator into matters relating to the RCMP Pension and Insurance Plans” is what we're actually studying today, not the Air India inquiry or the Maher Arar affair. So I would suggest that this member be put back on track as far as the orders of the day are concerned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Yes, that point is correct. We're talking about the RCMP. But there is a component--and Mr. Elliott would be aware of it--of the Maher Arar inquiry and the O'Connor report that's very, very applicable to the RCMP and the governance and some of the recommendations that were made by Judge O'Connor that are extremely relevant and extremely applicable to the discussions going on here today. So there is a very close relation to not the actual Maher Arar inquiry but the O'Connor report. I consider it very relevant to the discussions.

He's out of time. I'm just going to ask for a final comment from Commissioner Elliott on that issue.

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the process with respect to redactions is well known. The government of the day took decisions. The decisions were subsequently challenged before the Federal Court. The Department of Justice, on behalf of the government, explained to the court why the government took the view they did.

The government's view was that portions of the report should not be made public for reasons of national security. The court upheld the government's position with respect to many of the things that the government redacted, and the court disagreed with the government's position with respect to other things that have now been made public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Laforest.

Mr. Lake, for seven minutes.

Again, I urge members to keep their questions short and relevant to the issues we have before this table.

Mr. Lake, seven minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned yesterday, I've been looking forward to these two days because it seems that we're now largely in the moving forward phase of this process. I understand there are still some loose ends to clean up.

But I want to start by saying, Ms. Busson, that I commend you for your leadership role. This is a tremendously difficult time. I can't imagine how difficult it was for you to do the work you had to do in an organization that you care so much about and to have to go through what you went through, and you did it tremendously, so I commend you for that.

Mr. Elliott, when I listen to Ms. Duxbury's comments, it hits home how tremendously difficult your job is going to be. I want to know a little bit about your travels and discussions with members across the country. What are you hearing from them? How is morale at this point in time, and what are they saying that they want to see changed?

[Commr William Elliott]

Thank you.

First of all, the work that Ms. Duxbury did is very important work. We do have more recent relevant data. The RCMP has been quite engaged in conducting comprehensive surveys of its employees, and if I can, I will just give you a couple of those results.

The surveys that I'm referring to took place in 2003, 2005, and 2007, and the employees responded as follows. On whether RCMP employees are treated fairly, in their most recent response, 50% answered in the affirmative, up from a low of 42%. On whether RCMP colleagues treat each other with respect, the most survey results were in the affirmative at 69%, up from 59%. On whether they are strongly committed to making the RCMP successful, the response was 92%, up from 89%. And whether they are satisfied with their career in the RCMP, the response was 73%, up from 67%.

I'm not suggesting those results are as positive as we would like them to be, but I think there is some movement in the right direction.

As I've met with employees across the country, I've been quite struck by the positive response I have received. A number of people have candidly indicated they were disappointed that someone from outside the organization was appointed, but everyone with whom I have spoken has said that we need to address a number of issues, and they certainly have not been shy about raising issues with me. And I would say they take great pride in their work. There is certainly some hurt in the organization; I think there is some feeling that things were done inappropriately and that it has tarnished the reputation of the entire force and tarnished the reputation of all the men and women who are providing services. They believe they provide excellent services. I believe that as well.

The suggestion was also made that I should be speaking to Canadians. I have met with a number of our partners and stakeholders. I have met with representatives of provincial governments; I have met with municipal officials; I have met with aboriginal leaders. And again, no one is saying, either inside the organization or outside it, that the organization is perfect, as we do have some serious issues to address, but I think people are quite positive and quite optimistic. I think that with the work we are doing in support of the task force, people are looking at it with some expectations that real change can take place.

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

Further to that, we talk a lot about the culture of the RCMP, which we've heard many times in here, and the need to change it, but it's a big ship to turn around.

Yesterday we had the new ethics adviser, Sandra Conlin, here, and I have to say I was a little bit concerned at times with what I heard during the testimony. We were asking for specifics on ideas for structural changes, and her comments seemed to centre around her confidence in you and the will of the leadership to change the culture. It seemed again to be character-based on the commissioner, under the assumption that we have a good commissioner so everything is okay. But who knows? That may not always be the case.

Though I understand that the task force is doing its work so there's not necessarily a plan being implemented right now, I do want to know what structural changes you think are needed with respect to the RCMP governance structure. Maybe you could give us some specifics.

[Commr William Elliott]

I would certainly agree with the premise of your question. We need to have mechanisms and processes in place to support the kind of culture that I referred to in my opening comments, a culture of fairness and respect. It should not only be dependent on individuals. Of course, you need to have individuals who both believe in and live out the values of the organization, and you need to have structures and processes that support those values.

Having said that, on the day I became commissioner, the government somewhat coincidentally announced the creation of the task force and gave it a fairly specific mandate to address eight issues, as I've mentioned. We are busy supporting their work. I don't actually anticipate that we will introduce wholesale changes to the organization of the RCMP in advance of the work of the task force or even with respect to formulating views as to what the appropriate mechanisms and structures would be.

It's fairly early days, and as I've said, I've been on the job less than two months. But our work, some of which was started before the task force was created and was instigated by Commissioner Busson, will certainly be focused on our making presentations and representations to the task force and then responding to its report and recommendations.

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

Finally, David Brown's report recommended that the folks who came forward and pushed this issue so commendably would be commended for their actions. Have you've already recognized them in some way?

[Commr William Elliott]

They received commendations from Commissioner Busson prior to my arrival. I've taken no further steps.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Commissioner Elliott.

Mr. Christopherson, for seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I thank you all for coming today.

Let me comment that I heard my Bloc colleague, and I respect that that's what he hears, but I want to convey to you that Canadians have not lost their pride in and support for the RCMP. What they have is a crisis of faith in terms of its ability to live up to the standard that Canadians hold it to. I would disagree with our starting point.

I also want to say that in terms of your appointment, Commissioner, I don't think it's necessarily a negative thing that you're not from the RCMP. Bringing somebody in from the outside is sometimes the right thing to do. I don't think the fact that you're not a sworn officer and you're not a police officer, in and of itself, is a stopper. I do, however, think the government imposing both of those kinds of changes at the same time as we have another crisis going on was not prudent. I only want to put it on the record. I don't think this was the right time for those changes, and I think it's needlessly made your job more difficult.

Having said that, before I go back to comments to you, I want to thank former Commissioner Busson.

I agree with my colleagues. I believe and hope you'll feel unanimous all-party support in that you did a fantastic job. Every time you came here, it was clear in your eyes, words, and actions and in your responsiveness to Parliament that you were doing everything humanly possible to bring the RCMP back to where they needed to be. It's not always easy to do that. I understand the viewpoint. But you did a tremendous job for the RCMP and for Canada. This Parliament is proud of you. Thank you for what you've done.

To the current commissioner, on one of the big changes you need to make, you talked about the rank and file and everybody else, but quite frankly, most of the damage was done by very senior officers. If it weren't for the more junior ranks stepping forward and rising to the standard of the RCMP, we wouldn't be here today. Can you tell me what you see as the next steps to instill that in the senior officers? For the most part, overwhelmingly, they're stellar officers, but there were clearly many who were very disappointing and did serious damage. How are you going to go about changing it, recognizing that there are literally tens of thousands of uniformed officers out on the streets who are looking to you to fix the senior management so they can go on believing in the RCMP that they joined?