Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 7th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

At this point in time I would like to call the meeting to order.

Again, I want to welcome everyone here today. This meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is again dealing with the circumstances related to the RCMP pension and insurance plans, released June 15, 2007.

At this meeting, colleagues, we're pleased to have with us three witnesses. The first witness is William Elliott, the present Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. On behalf of the committee, Mr. Elliott, I want to congratulate you on your appointment and wish you all the best as you go on with your duties in this very important job.

We also have with us retired Commissioner Beverley Busson. Beverley Busson has been before the committee on several occasions before. I think I'm right in saying that this will most likely be her last appearance before this committee on this particular issue. Mrs. Busson is now living in British Columbia and she has made special arrangements to be here. As always, she has been very cooperative with the committee and I want to thank her very much for all the efforts she has given to this committee.

Third, we're very pleased to have with us Linda Duxbury, professor at the School of Business at Carleton University. Mrs. Duxbury has written articles and done extensive research into people management at the RCMP and she will be available to present her key findings.

I understand that Commissioner Elliott has some opening remarks as well as Mrs. Duxbury. I would add that we usually like to keep opening statements to five minutes.

Commissioner Elliott, I'll ask for your opening remarks.

[Commissioner William Elliott, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to be able to appear before your committee today. As you know, I became Commissioner of the RCMP less than two months ago. When my appointment to the position was announced on July 6, 2007, I said:

It is critically important for the RCMP to continue its long and proud history and to build on its many strengths, working with communities across Canada and with its partners domestically and internationally, to ensure that the RCMP is a modern, efficient and effective organization that provides Canadians with the highest quality police services.

A police force which fosters an environment of teamwork, integrity and respect and in which all Canadians can continue to be extremely proud.

The last few weeks have certainly confirmed my view.

My first priority has been to get to know more about the RCMP and the essential services we provide to Canadians and to meet with men and women of the RCMP where they work across Canada.

So far, I have visited employees in offices, laboratories, and detachments in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Quebec. I've also met with staff and with cadets at the RCMP Training Academy in Regina, recognized internationally as one of the finest police training centres in the world. I've also met with a number of employees here in Ottawa. My plan is to visit every RCMP division as quickly as my schedule will allow.

In my travels I have been greatly impressed by the professionalism and dedication of the women and men I have met, from regular members serving in remote detachments in aboriginal communities to detachment clerks supporting municipal policing, from scientists and technicians working to improve our laboratory services to dog handlers, from instructors at Depot and drug enforcement officers in Montreal to those supporting national security investigations, in all ranks and in all classifications, be they public servants or civilians or regular members of the RCMP.

I have been impressed but not surprised. The RCMP, admittedly, has its shortcomings, but it is widely respected in Canada and by our international partners.

The people I have met are dedicated to the RCMP and to the communities we protect. I am in no doubt that our employees provide first-rate policing services. They can be justly proud of the work that they are doing, as I am proud of the work that we are doing. I have also met the senior management team and the senior executive committee as well as the staff relations representative national executive committee.

The SRR program, as it is known, functions as the official labour relations program for regular and civilian members and special constables across Canada. In addition, I have met with representatives of the Union of Solicitor General Employees. In short, I have seen a lot of really good work being done by an exceptional group of people.

The RCMP certainly has it challenges. These need to be addressed if we are to continue to provide the level of service Canadians rightly expect from us. A number of issues have been brought to light as a result of this committee's study of the Report of the Independent Investigator into Matters Relating to RCMP Pension and Insurance Plans, by David Brown's report itself, and by chapter 9 of the November 2006 Report of the Auditor General of Canada.

As you know, on July 16 the government established a task force to examine governance and cultural change in the RCMP. The task force is chaired by David Brown, and its membership includes Linda Black, Richard Drouin, Norman Inkster, and Larry Murray.

I have asked Deputy Commissioner Bill Sweeney to lead the RCMP's work with the task force, aligning our activities to respond in a timely way to its needs. Early in August Deputy Sweeney and I met with Mr. Brown to extend the RCMP's full and unqualified cooperation.

An executive steering committee for the RCMP's work in relation to the task force has been established, composed of Deputy Commissioners Sweeney, Killam, and Bourduas. The task force's executive director, Bill Austin, will serve as an ex officio member of the steering committee. The staff relations representatives' national executive committee will also serve on a strategic advisory role to the steering committee.

My first meeting with the five members of the working group took place on August 22, 2007. We exchanged preliminary information about the mission, the structure, the government processes and the accountability framework of the RCMP.

At the request of Mr. Brown, on August 16 we distributed a letter electronically from the chair of the task force to all employees of the RCMP. The letter is also being distributed to members of the RCMP Veterans' Association. The letter provides information about the task force and solicits views on any of the matters set out in the task force's mandate.

In my discussions across the country and in my electronic broadcasts to all employees, I have encouraged employees to take advantage of the opportunity to communicate directly with the task force. In fact, the RCMP's Internet site contains a link to Mr. Brown's letter so employees can easily find the coordinates for the task force.

I have also stressed the importance of establishing and maintaining open lines of communication within the RCMP. I have encouraged employees to discuss their ideas and concerns, and to make their views known to their commanding officers, or directly to me. In fact, a number of employees have already communicated directly with me by e-mail. Their input will inform our work and that of the task force as we consider the eight specific matters set out in the task force's mandate.

As I said at the change of command ceremony that took place on August 10, the RCMP must build on our strengths, recognize and address our weaknesses, and live up to the highest standards that we set for ourselves and that Canadians rightly expect of us.

I look forward to our session today and to the committee's report, which I trust will assist the RCMP and me as commissioner in identifying steps to be taken in furtherance of these objectives.

Thank you for your attention. I would now be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Elliott.

We're now going to hear from Linda Duxbury.

Ms. Duxbury, I have a copy of your remarks. Perhaps it's not your remarks; it may be a study that you did.

[Professor Linda Duxbury, Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University]

I was going to say I don't have a copy of my remarks. If you have one I'll read it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm looking at “People Management at the RCMP: Key Findings”. You weren't intending to go over that, were you?

[Prof. Linda Duxbury]

Well, I could if you have a day and a half. I was just going to actually outline what I did and give you a few key observations. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

My only point is that we'd like to restrict it to five minutes. That's all.

[Prof. Linda Duxbury]

That's not a problem. I understand. I have the rules.

I think I thank you for inviting me. I'm not sure. We'll wait and see how I feel at the end of the process.

I am an academic, and how I first got exposed to the RCMP was when we did a very big national study on work-life balance and stress. Thirty-three thousand people, 100 organizations, and the RCMP participated in that, because at the time the commissioner was Murray, and he was very interested in understanding about his people.

We then had several thousand people from the RCMP volunteer to participate in follow-up work. We interviewed 300 people who participated in the time one study. We surveyed them and we interviewed them at length about various things. So my observations are based on looking at the same individuals over two points in time, the first just after the change in leadership and the second several years after the change in leadership.

Before talking about our findings, it is really important for me to emphasize that in fact the majority of the RCMP are wonderful individuals who care about their country and really want to make a big difference. It is important to emphasize that, because members of the force I talked to feel, in many cases, that we're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We're painting everybody in a negative light when in fact the majority care about the job. They care about what they do, and they are doing a fabulous job.

That being said, my report indicated that there were some pretty significant issues. For example, we found that almost 40% of people in the lower two ranks of the RCMP at time two said very bluntly that they would recommend that their own children not join the RCMP. And almost half of our sample said they were planning on leaving early and working somewhere else and not even collecting their pensions because of certain situations within the RCMP.

I had to read my report, actually, just before I came, which is why I don't want you to have to do it, because I hadn't read it for a long time. There are only a few things that I think are really important. Well, there are a number of things. You should all read it. Nevertheless, there are a few things that I want to emphasize.

The first is that I pointed out in the report that the culture of an organization--which is the way we really do it around here--as opposed to the policies that are on the books can be the greatest strength of an organization or it can be its biggest weakness. A real problem arises when an organization that has been hugely successful in the past doesn't recognize how the environment has changed around it. It keeps its culture the same and does not change its culture to adapt.

I note in the report that there has been tremendous change in Canada. There was 9/11, which affected the RCMP. There were very big demographic shifts in terms of there now being dual-income couples, increased family demands, labour force shortages, and so on.

The problem in the culture that I noted was a huge focus on work, not family, if you work for the RCMP. This increased over time. There was nothing more important to you than the force. Workloads increased phenomenally, and people put in phenomenal hours. People said that they didn't think the policies of the RCMP were supportive. They didn't feel comfortable. They thought they would be punished if they used the supports that were available. They disagreed that there were open and respectful discussions within the organization, and they all agreed that the RCMP in fact discouraged the use of the policies that were there that were supportive. They said that the culture emphasized work or family, and they thought that if they said no to more work, they would be punished or it would be a career-limiting move.

What was very interesting was that the interviews identified another facet of the culture, which I labelled at the time “playing the game”. It was about 15% to 20%. But if you looked at the constable, corporal, sergeant, and staff sergeant ranks, it was a much higher percentage who said they were irritated with the politics that went on in the organization. They really liked their own immediate work area. They liked their own bosses. How they were really buffering themselves was by staying where they were and concentrating on the job. They wanted to stay where they were because they were less likely to have to deal with the politics of the organization and less likely to have to play the game. A significant group perceived that a promotion within the RCMP was based on who you knew and how you played the game rather than on competencies.

The other really very interesting difference was that our research really shows that people don't work for an organization; they work for who they report to. We did see a dramatic increase in non-support of management and a decrease in support of management over time. That was most profound at the sergeant and staff sergeant level, who would be reporting directly into the top level. They went from 80% liking their managers and saying their managers were supportive at time one, to about 40% at time two, so a very significant drop.

What they were frustrated with was the top-down style of management, non-supportive managers who don't trust or respect their members, managers' inability to communicate effectively with staff, politically driven agendas, managers who are perceived to be careerists who are governed by their personal agendas, and managers who did not walk the talk. They also indicated that managers made it harder for them to be productive, because they had poor people management skills, used command-and-control style of management, made decisions with incomplete information, were not effective at communicating what was to be done, micromanaged their people, etc., and reduced innovation.

That basically is what I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Ms. Duxbury.

Retired Commissioner Busson, any opening comments?

[Beverley A. Busson, Commissioner (Retired), Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

No. I'll leave my comments for the commissioner as representing the force.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Yes, and of course you've been here before too.

Just before we go to the first round, colleagues, again I want to urge members to keep all their questions brief, to the point, and relevant. We're talking here about the purpose of this meeting, which is, in my view anyway, to focus on the future, to consider governance issues and checks and balances so that the correct accountability regime is in place.

Again, to the witnesses, I would ask that the answers be short and relevant also. We have three, I consider, very helpful witnesses here today, so let's use them to our advantage.

The first round, seven minutes, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Busson, for appearing before us again.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank you. You took on a very difficult job. Especially when it comes to the pension and insurance fund, the rigged contracting, alleged cover-ups, you weren't left with an easy task as an interim commissioner, but overall, I think you did tremendous things during that short period of time, and especially in dealing with what's at the core of a lot of this—the culture within the RCMP and what's been called the corrupted culture in the top echelons.

Human resources can be an incredible tool. As Ms. Duxbury seemed to reference, it can be used in positive ways and negative ways. We heard about punitive transfers, constructive dismissals, also wrongdoers who were rewarded and, when it no longer became tenable because they had been outed, provided with soft landings.

So I'd like to thank you, first of all, for acknowledging the people who had the fortitude in that particular culture to keep their principles and to step forward. You had that private dinner, but with a public commendation for those individuals.

But just before you left, you also dealt with Mr. Gauvin, and he's referenced in Mr. Brown's report. I guess his testimony was given a couple of days before the report was tabled, and that information wasn't available at the time. Many people feel that you provided Mr. Gauvin—it was untenable for him to remain—with a soft landing. I'd like to ask you why.

Just before you answer, I'd like to read from page 44 of Mr. Brown's report. He says:

While Commr Zaccardelli felt strongly enough to ask Mr. Ewanovich to step down when he was briefed on the results of the internal audit, he allowed Mr. Ewanovich to have what can only be described as a "soft landing". Mr. Ewanovich continued as an employee of the RCMP, drawing a salary, earning pension entitlements and working out of another nearby building. His constant visibility to those who had laboured so long to have the issues under his management exposed served to confirm some views that different rules applied to the management class.

We've read about that from the report that Ms. Duxbury had provided to us. Why the soft landing for Mr. Gauvin?

[Beverley A. Busson]

With all due respect, Mr. Gauvin is a civilian member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

As Mr. Ewanovich was.

[Beverley A. Busson]

Well, they had different levels of tenure and different levels of employment. Mr. Ewanovich wasn't a civilian member of the RCMP; he was a contract member of the RCMP, which is somewhat different.

That having been said, it was clear in the Brown report that Mr. Gauvin was, from Mr. Brown's findings, responsible for some of the lack of oversight with respect to how the pension fund found itself in the situation that it did. After the Brown report came out, Mr. Gauvin came to me and said that he was prepared to accept responsibility from the Brown report and was prepared to step down as the chief financial officer. It was clear at that point in time that there was very little other avenue to take.

As for the process with the RCMP for a civilian member, if we were to consider that level of accountability as something for dismissal, we would start a code of conduct process, and it would take up to two or three years to seek Mr. Gauvin's dismissal at the time and under the circumstances—

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Ms. Busson, if I may interject, it obviously appears that it was a difficult decision and the circumstances were difficult. Could you provide us with perhaps a written explanation, in consideration of the time limitations here; then perhaps we could move on. We could then get a comprehensive understanding. I think it might be a little easier that way.

I'd like to move on to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams has a point of order.

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

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's idea of wanting to get in twenty questions in eight minutes. But Ms. Busson is now retired from the RCMP. She doesn't have the whole organization of the RCMP to provide these written answers. Let her give the answer right here. That's the name of the game. We can't expect individuals to provide a written answer to people later on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

It's not a point of order, Mr. Williams. If Ms. Busson cannot give the information, Ms. Busson is quite capable herself of telling us that. If she can, she's invited to do so. That is not a point of order.

[Beverley A. Busson]

If the committee wishes, I'd like to continue to answer the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead, Ms. Busson.

[Beverley A. Busson]

At the end of the day, Mr. Gauvin accepted responsibility, as the Brown report dictated that he ought to. He has no responsibility with regard to the CFO job. He is gainfully employed, working on some projects with regard to relocation of some of our headquarters, and will be retiring after that period of time.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Elliott, the week of the Brown report.... I'm sure you're very busy, but I think you've probably read some of the transcripts, especially since there are serious issues at stake. Just days before, it became clear in an appearance here, from testimony from an officer that was well documented—we had testimony and documents that showed it—Mr. Gauvin had called this officer into the commissioner's board room, just before he was to release documents under an ATIP request for the commissioner's expenses. What he attempted to do at that time was this. He'd cooked up a different set of documents in the comptroller's offices, and he was trying to put pressure on this officer to do a switcheroo--to take away those original documents and supply the documents that had been prepared. We've heard that testimony.

If we were able to find that out in the committee here, then have you launched any sort of investigation into Mr. Gauvin's office? There must be other things. If we were able to shake that out, have you begun the process of investigating what the goings on were and what some of the things were that were taking place in Mr. Gauvin's office?

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

I take offence at some of the language at this table. I mentioned that yesterday. Here we have a member talking about “cooking the books” and “switcheroos” and documents being “switched at the table” and so on. Parliamentary privilege is not for these kinds of allegations that are unfounded and thrown out there in the public domain.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'd just like a response to that.