EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Public Accounts NUMBER 072 1st SESSION 39th PARLIAMENT Friday, September 7, 2007 Le vendredi 7 septembre 2007 Standing Committee on Public Accounts CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE September 7, 2007 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 072 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 072 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 072 (Version officielle) 72 07 09 2007 2007/09/07 09:00:00 House of Commons Comité permanent des comptes publics Standing Committee on Public Accounts PACP Chair The Honourable Shawn Murphy 39 1 PUBLIC PART ONLY -

PARTIE PUBLIQUE SEULEMENT

(0900) [ English ] The Chair (Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.)) : 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. [ Translation ] 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: [ English ] 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. [ Translation ] A police force which fosters an environment of teamwork, integrity and respect and in which all Canadians can continue to be extremely proud. [ English ] 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. (0905) [ Translation ] 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. [ English ] 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. [ Translation ] 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. [ English ] 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. [ Translation ] Thank you for your attention. I would now be pleased to answer your questions. [ English ] The Chair : 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.

(0910) 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 : 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 : 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.

(0915) 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 : Thank you very much, Ms. Duxbury. Retired Commissioner Busson, any opening comments? Ms. Beverley A. Busson (Commissioner (Retired), Royal Canadian Mounted Police) : No. I'll leave my comments for the commissioner as representing the force.

The Chair : 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. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) : 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?

(0920) Ms. Beverley A. Busson : With all due respect, Mr. Gauvin is a civilian member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : As Mr. Ewanovich was. Ms. 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— Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : 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 : Mr. Williams has a point of order. Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) : 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 : 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. Ms. Beverley A. Busson : If the committee wishes, I'd like to continue to answer the question. The Chair : Go ahead, Ms. Busson. Ms. 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. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : 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? Mr. John Williams : 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.

(0925) Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : I'd just like a response to that. Mr. John Williams : 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. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : I'd like to respond to that, Mr. Chair. The Chair : 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. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : 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 : 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 : Thank you, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. Thank you, Commissioner Elliott. Monsieur Laforest, sept minutes . [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ) : 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? (0930) [ English ] 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 : 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. [ Translation ] You used the word “some”. I did not use that word in my presentation. [ English ] 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 : Very briefly. [ Translation ] Mr.

Jean-Yves Laforest : 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? [ English ] Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : 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 : 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.

(0935) 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 : Thank you very much. [ Translation ] Thank you very much, Mr. Laforest. [ English ] 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. Mr. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, CPC) : 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.

(0940) Mr. Mike Lake : 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. Mr. Mike Lake : 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 : Thank you, Commissioner Elliott. Mr. Christopherson, for seven minutes. Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : 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?

(0945) Commr William Elliott : Thank you very much. I must say that when I indicated I was struck by the positive response I have received, that applies not only to members serving in detachments in other places across the country, but also to the senior executive. There have been a number of changes to the senior executive in the last while under Commissioner Busson's tenure and subsequently. We've just appointed a new acting chief human resources officer, Assistant Commissioner Clark. I guess you could categorize a number of the issues we need to address as human resource issues.

I have brought in a very well-respected senior deputy commissioner from the northwest division, Deputy Commissioner Bill Sweeney. He is certainly a very good addition to the headquarters team. We have an acting chief financial officer. We'll have to take steps in the near future to fill that position. So there are a number of changes. I would certainly say that the senior executive and the senior management team of the department, which includes the commanding officers across the country, have very much embraced the task force and the work we are doing to identify positive changes. Mr.

David Christopherson : Of course, you do know that the proof's going to be in the pudding. It's going to be what happens after this report, whether it's fulsome enough, and then going about implementing it. But again, I would strongly urge you to recognize that from our viewpoint literally all of the uniformed, on-the-street, front-line officers are looking to you for the change that will be brought not only by you as the commissioner, but by those senior ranks. Every time I talked to front-line officers, that was the most disappointing thing.

It wasn't necessarily that there was human frailty--these things happen--but that there was so much of it in the very senior ranks. It's demoralizing, because if the top doesn't believe, why the heck should anybody on the street believe? They're the ones out there putting their lives on the line. So that is really critical. I have so many questions. Professor, I want to ask you two quick things. I'm curious.

I went through your report and happened to notice--and I'm sure there's a logical reason, it just sticks in my craw, and I can't figure out what it is--pages 8 and 9 of the report that was circulated talk about male employees specifically. I couldn't find where there was a separation between females and males. All of a sudden there were these two comments about male officers, and I wondered why they were about males specifically. Prof. Linda Duxbury : When we did the report, we wanted to look at the impact of rank and the impact of gender. So there is a bunch of stuff on females in there.

But the interesting thing is that we could only get a sufficient sample to look at females in the two lowest ranks of constable and corporal. There were not enough females above those ranks to give us a sufficient sample size to make sure it was statistically accurate and that we could promise confidentiality. Mr. David Christopherson : That tells us something. Prof. Linda Duxbury : Yes, it does, actually.

(0950) Mr. David Christopherson : The other question I wanted to ask you is this. Notwithstanding the exceptional individual beside you-- Prof. Linda Duxbury : There were some very senior people, but there is a shortage of women above the constable and corporal ranks. There's no doubt about that. Mr. David Christopherson : Let me just take that a step further. Is recruitment a problem in that area? I'll ask everybody. Are we having problems attracting people other than white men? Ms. Beverley A.

Busson : From my perspective--and of course I haven't done the scientific study around it--once females get to the corporal level they also start making some different choices with regard to family issues and those kinds of things, so it's a very complicated issue. I think that over the years the organization has been trying to build in more infrastructure to make it work for females, but it's still an issue--the family issue. Prof. Linda Duxbury : They leave after reaching the constable and corporal levels. They're coming in but they're not staying, and it goes back to this culture of work or family. Mr.

David Christopherson : We'll follow up on that later. Thank you very much. Thanks, Chair. The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, seven minutes. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Thank you, Chair. Mr. Elliott, as the deputy minister to public safety minister Stockwell Day , did you advise the minister on his dealings with former Commissioner Zaccardelli and the RCMP? The Chair : It's not proper to ask a question about any confidential advice given to a minister. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : I'm not asking for the actual advice. The Chair : Mr. Elliott knows that.

Commr William Elliott : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should clarify. I hate to be bureaucratic on you, but I was in fact the associate deputy minister, not the deputy minister. And I did deal with former Commissioner Zaccardelli, including in the context of his dealings with the minister. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Thank you. In the July 9 issue of the Globe and Mail , Mr.

Day is quoted as saying, in terms of his relationship with you: There were a number of times...where he would be the first to say, when it came to the terms of the RCMP, “No, a minister cannot go there, a minister cannot say this, a minister...cannot tread on this particular ground because of the independence of the RCMP,” It almost sounds as if you really had your hands full. We also know that the minister likes sending out communiqués. I saw a communiqué in which he referenced a cheesecake that he enjoyed in Newfoundland. It almost sounds as if he'd like to be the commissioner.

How often did you have to stop the minister from politically interfering in the operation? I don't want to know the details, as was pointed out by the chair, but I'd like to know how often. It sounds as if you've had to take on that role over and over. Commr William Elliott : I will say the following. Mr. Day is certainly very respectful of the independent role of the police. In very many cases it is quite clear where that role begins and ends, and in other cases it is less clear.

I am not in a position to talk about the specifics of situations or the number of situations in which those issues arose, but I would say that Mr. Day and the other ministers I have dealt with in the past, of various governments, in the role of Solicitor General or Minister of Public Safety, were very respectful of the independent role of the force. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : You were also an adviser to Prime Minister Harper and the PCO on security issues. Did you, at times, discuss the issues of the difficulties under Commissioner Zaccardelli or the difficulties of the culture? Once again, we don't want details.

But were there discussions with the Prime Minister about the difficulties in the RCMP? Commr William Elliott : Certainly there were discussions about issues relating to the RCMP while I was national security adviser both to Prime Minister Martin and then subsequently to Prime Minister Harper. The O'Connor inquiry was going on. I don't recall the matters that the committee is seized with today being the subject of discussions. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : In your previous roles, your instincts have been...and your job entailed protecting the minister or ministers and the Prime Minister.

These days it's quite different; it's to protect the RCMP from interference by the minister, Stockwell Day. In fact, as I said, in his quote he has a tendency to overstep his bounds. You were a key adviser to the Prime Minister. Are you up to the role now, instead of protecting the minister and the Prime Minister, to protect the RCMP from their interference?

(0955) Commr William Elliott : I'm reminded of an interesting exchange I had with a former minister of the Crown in Mr. Chrétien's government, in which I indicated that my role was not to protect the minister but to protect the Canadian public. I think my job as a bureaucrat is to provide frank advice to the ministers and the government that I serve, and I try to do that to the best of my ability. Am I up to the task of being commissioner? Well, I guess I would respond in two ways. First of all, I would echo Mr. Christopherson's comment, that time will tell.

It is certainly a very, very daunting and challenging task. All I can say is that I will do my best. The Chair : On a point of order, Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) : I simply want the record to be clear on this point. I heard the evidence given here today in which it was said that Mr. Day was very respectful of the independence of the RCMP. The whole premise of this continued line of questioning is that there is some sort of evidence here that would indicate otherwise. The Chair : That is not a point of order. Please, let's move on. Mr.

Brian Fitzpatrick : Well, there has to be some evidence or some facts behind the line of questioning. The Chair : Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you have the floor. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : You just talked about providing frank advice to the former Prime Minister. One of Mr. Harper's first acts after being sworn in was a pretty big photo op with Mr. Zaccardelli in front of the RCMP headquarters. That's a very powerful subliminal message, especially when put into the context of the events just prior to that. Did you provide frank advice on that issue? Commr William Elliott : Mr.

Chairman, I don't think it's appropriate for me to indicate on what matters I did or did not provide advice to the Prime Minister. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Since you've become the commissioner, how often are you presently in direct contact with the minister, Stockwell Day ? Commr William Elliott : I was with the minister when he made the announcement on behalf of the Prime Minister. Since the day the announcement was made, I've spoken with the minister by phone once and I saw him in person twice. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Well, the lines of communication appear to be quite good.

What contact have you had with the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office? Commr William Elliott : Actually...I'm sorry; you remind me I saw the minister one additional time. He and I met with the Prime Minister. That's the only dealing I've had with the Prime Minister; it was in the week intervening between the announcement being made public and my assuming office on July 16. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Thank you. The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. Mr. Williams is next, for seven minutes. Mr. John Williams : Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I hope we can turn and look forward, rather than looking back and looking under every rug and corner to see if we can find something that can tarnish somebody's reputation. Anyway, first of all, former Commissioner Busson, again, my congratulations for the job you did, which was a phenomenal job under the most difficult circumstances. It's very much appreciated by Parliament and indeed by all Canadians. As you go into retirement, go in with your head high, knowing you did a fabulous job. Mr. Elliott, you're now in the hot seat. It was mentioned earlier in relation to the CFO, Mr.

Gauvin, that it would take a couple of years of dismissal processes before we could get him out the door. We had that with Mr. Crupi and we had it with Mr. Ewanovich and others. Here are people who haven't lived up to the job--in fact, with Mr. Crupi, there may have to be some serious allegations of a criminal nature or whatever--and they couldn't get them fired. Are you going to do something about that, so that people who have crossed the line in the RCMP, people who need to be fired, are going to get fired?

Do you think it's appropriate that it takes two or three years to fire somebody if they obviously deserve to be turfed?

(1000) Commr William Elliott : I think we should have a regime in which people who take actions--or fail to take actions--that justify dismissal should be able to be dismissed expeditiously. Mr. John Williams : Then we have the other side of the coin. We have Denise Revine, who was summarily terminated in a different fashion, but terminated nonetheless. She was a whistle-blower. How are you going to be able to differentiate between the people? Somebody says turf them out the door, but they're the good guys and they should be sticking around.

How are you going to ensure a timely process to protect the innocent, punish the deserving, and go forward? Are you contemplating any new processes--task forces, committees, whatever? Commr William Elliott : My background includes the beginning of my professional career as a defence counsel. Certainly everyone is entitled to due process. I'm not suggesting that “expeditious” means you shouldn't have due process. People need to be able to provide fair answer and defence.

The government has taken a number of steps to provide a mechanism, external to government departments and agencies, that will protect whistle-blowers and people who come forth with information. One of the things the task force has been asked to do is to look at the discipline regime. I am certainly interested in improvements being identified and implemented. Mr. John Williams : Okay. Ms. Duxbury indicated that there are some serious problems within the RCMP with morale and with women who tend to leave because the job is more important than family.

And for women, of course, family should be--and in 99% of the cases it is--their number one priority. If they have to choose between the force and the family, Ms. Duxbury is pointing out-- Prof. Linda Duxbury : I didn't say that. I didn't say that for women family should be their number one priority. I think that family should be-- Mr. John Williams : No, I didn't say that you said it. I said that most women consider family to be their number one situation, and if they have to choose-- Prof. Linda Duxbury : No data supports that, actually.

Family is number one for both men and women, and work-life balance is important for both men and women. Mr. John Williams : I didn't exclude men. I just said that women are making the choice, as you said, to leave the force rather than stay with the career. These are the types of morale issues that need to be addressed. So it's not just the upper echelon that you have to deal with, Mr. Elliott. You have to deal with the whole structure, all the way right down to corporal and constable, to ensure that you have an organization that feels part of an organization of integrity.

Do you have any plans to do that at this point in time? Commr William Elliott : That's a very broad question. Mr. John Williams : You do intend to address the issue. Commr William Elliott : The issue of ethics is certainly very much front and centre. I think you heard from Assistant Commissioner Conlin yesterday that we do provide training, both to cadets and entry officers, on ethics. I think we need to reinforce the ethics and values of the organization. In fact, I've just signed off a communication in relation to that.

I said earlier, in response to a question, that we needed to have processes and mechanisms in place that support the type of environment that we want the RCMP to be. I don't have specific structures to propose at the moment, but I certainly think that we need to find ways to reinforce the values and ethics and positive culture that are necessary for everybody to feel that they can have a productive career, from constables to the most senior ranks. Mr. John Williams : You're going to be changing the ethics or the core values.... How to describe it?

You're going to try to bring the RCMP up to an effective force where people have credibility and faith in their own organization, as opposed to what has happened in the past. That's why you have been appointed--to bring a new culture to the RCMP. Do you have any vision of what success is or what you're trying to achieve in the RCMP?

(1005) Commr William Elliott : I have a couple of comments. First of all, we're not starting from ground zero. We have a very well articulated set of values. They are broadly recognized. Certainly one of the things I described from meeting with some of the women and men across the country was my sense, on their part, of hurt. I think that is actually a positive reflection of the fact that the men and women of the RCMP, almost without exception, actually believe in the values and are very disappointed and hurt when people fail to live up to them.

As I indicated with respect to the survey results that we have received, there is a positive trend, and certainly senior leaders in the organization have made concerted efforts to improve the morale. And actually-- Mr. John Williams : But do you have a vision of what success actually is?

Commr William Elliott : I guess success with respect to morale is that people feel that they are operating in an organization that respects them, that provides them with the scope for them to carry out their responsibilities, that supports them with training, that has appropriate mechanisms for them to come forward, without fear of suffering negative consequences, with information with respect to where individuals or the organization fail to live up to the values.

Certainly, work like our ongoing work to survey the employees will give us some measurement with respect to how successful we are at achieving that objective. The Chair : Thank you. That concludes round one. We're going to start round two. Before we go to round two, I have a question for Mr. Elliott, and it's a process-driven question. I believe that at the end of the day we want a performance-driven accountability regime of the RCMP.

We heard yesterday from the ethics adviser , the public complaints commissioner, and the other commissioner, and it seems to me that the checks and balances are—and I think most people agree with me—woefully inadequate and probably the governance structure has to be totally redone, although you did clarify, and you're quite correct, that the values are there and a lot of good work has been done. Going forward--and Mr. Lake asked you the question about your idea--you indicated that you wouldn't be making any changes until the task force reports, and that's very understandable.

But on that process I have questions on basically three areas. First, is the senior echelon of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police involved in the task force? Second, you mentioned earlier talking to the public. I think that's a very important issue. This task force is behind closed doors. We don't know who they're talking to and what they're doing, but I believe there has to be a dialogue with the public, and especially the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The third one is perhaps much more complex—and it may be an unfair question because you've only been in the job for a couple of months—but at the end of the day, this is a very tough issue regarding the secrecy of law enforcement. We do not want politics driving the law enforcement agency of the country, but there has to be some tie-in with the Canadian people, and the best way is Parliament. Do you see any tie-in with Parliament, similar to what is done with CSIS, which you would be very familiar with from a previous life? Commr William Elliott : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, maybe I could clarify one of the things I said, which you just referred to. I indicated, or meant to indicate, that I didn't see any major structural change being introduced prior to the report of the task force, but that's not to say that we are standing still or can stand still. As I said, I've already made some changes with respect to the senior executive committee and I anticipate more changes will occur. I mentioned specifically, as an example of that, the need for us to find and staff a permanent chief financial officer.

The senior executive of the force is very much engaged with the task force. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we have struck a steering committee to carry out work in relation to the eight areas the task force is mandated to examine, and that steering committee includes three deputy commissioners. Deputy Commissioner Sweeney is our lead in that regard. We also have Chief Superintendent Graham Muir, who is our policy and strategic planning executive. He's working virtually full time on the task force.

And we're also regularly engaged, as the senior executive committee—the committee that I chair—with all of the deputy commissioners as members. And there are a number of other folks: the head of human resources, our chief legal counsel, and the executive committee of the SRR program. I agree that we need to have dialogue both within the force and with Canadians. I also mentioned that Mr. Brown has invited, on behalf of the task force, all of the members and employees of the RCMP and in fact our veterans to communicate directly with the task force. I've also stressed the need for us to have discussions internally.

There are a number of formal mechanisms in place to engage Canadians more broadly. I am meeting in the next few weeks with the commissioner's advisory council on aboriginal issues. We also have an advisory council on visible minority issues. We have mechanisms to engage our contract partners. With respect to the secrecy of law enforcement, certainly there is a balance to be struck. On the one hand, there is obviously a need that some things not be completely open when you're conducting a criminal investigation.

For example, you don't necessarily want to tell the people you are investigating that you are investigating them, or to expose to them or to others the details of your investigation or investigative techniques. There is certainly a requirement for independent oversight of the police and the RCMP. We have mechanisms in place. I think you've heard from Mr. Kennedy. I certainly would not argue that the mechanisms in place are adequate. We're engaged in some interesting work in that regard. We're participating in a pilot project in British Columbia, where we have Mr.

Kennedy's folks involved or informed about investigations right from the get-go with respect to allegations of inappropriate behaviour on behalf of members of the RCMP. Again, I think there were shortcomings demonstrated in Mr. Justice O'Connor's report in relation to the Arar affair. There is certainly need for improvement with respect to those mechanisms. I don't know offhand, frankly, whether there should be some specific special parliamentary committee or process set up to deal with policing issues.

(1010) The Chair : Thank you very much. Mr. McGuinty, you have four minutes. Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Thanks, Mr. Chair. Mr. Elliott, I'd like to come to you with three different succinct questions. I notice from your background that your career is primarily that of a lawyer. You are a former general counsel of line departments in the federal government, I understand. So I want to ask you a question more in my own capacity as a lawyer and your capacity as a lawyer, as graduates of the same law school. In the report that was written by Mr.

Brown in two months, which was the extensive timeline given to him by the minister—two months to investigate this affair—the elephant in the room in this report is the fact that he is calling for the OPP to take a serious, serious look at what took place between the Ottawa Police Service...in its investigation of the RCMP. First of all, can you tell us if there an OPP investigation under way today? Commr William Elliott : My understanding is yes. Mr. David McGuinty : Have you been consulted about that investigation? Commr William Elliott : I have not. Mr.

David McGuinty : Can you tell us whether that investigation is taking place with the assistance of RCMP officers of any rank, any station? Are any of them involved directly in the investigation, as they were with the Ottawa Police Service? Commr William Elliott : I do not believe so, although certainly members of the RCMP and employees of the RCMP, I would anticipate, will be and are being interviewed by the OPP. In fact, I recently sent out a piece of correspondence encouraging members and employees to cooperate with the OPP in the investigation. Mr.

David McGuinty : Are you satisfied, sir, that this report actually and seriously gets to the bottom of what took place?

(1015) Commr William Elliott : I'm not really sure how to respond to that question. Mr. David McGuinty : You've read the report. Commr William Elliott : I've read the report. I read the Auditor General's report. Mr. David McGuinty : So have I, and I want to put this to you now, because we're really short on time. You've been there only for a short period of time, and I respect that. I have my own serious concerns about the task force mandate and its own terms of reference. Are you satisfied with what's taken place here in 60 days, with interviews, that the people of Canada really know what's happened here?

Commr William Elliott : I believe Mr. Brown indicated that he felt he got all of the information he required to come to his conclusions. Mr. David McGuinty : He may have indicated that. How do you feel? Commr William Elliott : I don't have any basis to take issue with Mr. Brown's conclusions. Mr. David McGuinty : Okay. Can I go to the question, then, of rebuilding the trust-- page 47,

chapter 8 of the report? It builds on the remarks made by the chair. I have to tell you that I'm not comforted at all by your comments about consultation or engagement. I think the report written by Mr. Brown is rife with references to a culture of fear, a culture of authority, authoritarianism, a culture of risk--if one were to raise questions--a culture of taking orders, and that may be very well the culture of a paramilitary organization like the RCMP. I've never worked in the RCMP. I don't know that for sure, but I'm very worried by the fact that in the report Mr.

Brown is now suggesting that even though the report that he writes is rife with references to secrecy and lack of transparency, he says the task force that is supposed apparently to oversee new governance and cultural change in the organization will be secret itself. In fact, all the serious deliberations are supposed to take place behind the scenes. You say that a letter has been electronically distributed to, I assume, 26,000 members of the RCMP, but I don't think anybody believes that is meaningful consultation or engagement.

I think most people will be very fearful about writing a letter in to you or to anybody else on the task force. Are you confident that this process, this task force of now until December 15--about three months--is being rushed by the government? Do we really know for sure? Are you confident that this is going to lead to blowing this wide open so the people inside the RCMP who are desperate to have their say are going to be able to say it? Commr William Elliott : There are a number of mechanisms, a number of venues open to individuals in the RCMP to make their views known.

As I said, they can communicate electronically with the task force directly without any involvement of anyone else in the organization. We have an ethics adviser. People can go to their supervisors. Employees have union representatives. Members have access to the SRRs. As we have seen, there is this committee. I have certainly been very consistent in all of my communications, direct and electronically, with individuals, encouraging them to make their views known to me, encouraging them to make their views known to their commanding officers, encouraging them to speak directly to the task force.

Certainly on the feedback that I have received from people, they have not been shy about making their views known to me, including being very critical of some things that have gone on in the past. The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Elliott. Mr. Fitzpatrick, four minutes. Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick : I'd like to pick up on Mr. McGuinty's point as well. We're involved in a process here, a task force that's going to deal with culture and governance and so on.

I'm going to observe something I see in Parliament quite often: there are a lot of members of Parliament who believe that as soon as they identify a problem, we can resolve the problem by ordering a result—by passing some legislation, and so on—and that magically the problem will go away. It doesn't work that way, I don't think. There's too much involved in issues and problems just to order or command that they disappear. The concern I have is that in modern organizations that are successful, high-quality organizations....

It seems to me the front-line people are very much involved and engaged in those organizations. They're the benchmark that people should be looking at for strong organizations. You build a team and you get their involvement in it. I think it's crucial that when the task force recommends changes and we get involved in implementing changes, the thousands of RCMP members across the country be engaged in those changes and be onside and supportive of those ideas and understand what we're trying to do. If they aren't, I think we may end up not getting the results we want.

That's just an observation that I would pass on. I also think it's very important.... There's a lot of fear in the RCMP organization, among the members. A lot of that fear is unnecessary fear, and I think it's incumbent upon the RCMP to eliminate a lot of that fear from their organization. I want to also pass on to the former commissioner that I've talked to a lot of front-line police officers back in Saskatchewan, and they had a lot of trust and confidence in your leadership. Now I want to deal with an issue.

When I talk to RCMP members—this goes on over a lot of years, and it certainly didn't apply to the past commissioner, but it has applied to other commissioners and senior leadership people—they don't have trust in the leadership of the RCMP at that level. They say things such as Ms. Duxbury has said: that there's too much politics involved at the senior level of the RCMP; that It's not about law enforcement, and police work, and so on, but is about a whole range of other things. A lot of members aren't confident that rising in the RCMP is really based on merit or real performance on the job; it's other matters.

Could you perhaps enlighten us as to what is meant when members say there's too much politics in the senior level of the RCMP? What do they mean by that? I'm addressing it to—

(1020) Prof. Linda Duxbury : I'm sorry. I was just listening, saying, “Yes, yes, I agree.” I think from my interviews—300 interviews of an hour or an hour and a half, or two hours, some of them—a lot of people thought that people were agreeing with leaders so that they would be perceived positively, when they didn't agree with what was going on. The idea of “politics” is.... The culture of the RCMP was one where we shot the messenger. So quite frankly, the politics meant that if you thought you were going to be shot, you ended up not saying anything.

The members at large, the rank and file of the RCMP, saw that as sucking up, being political—their language was sometimes much more colourful than that—and thought such people were doing things because they were protecting their own job, as opposed to protecting their members. That was not the case right across the board, but they definitely perceived that in the senior ranks. The Chair : Mr. Fitzpatrick is out of time. If the former commissioner or Commissioner Elliott want to make a comment on either of those issues, I invite you to do so. Commr William Elliott : Very briefly, Mr.

Chairman, as I have mentioned a few times, we need to have the mechanisms and practice in place where we do what we can to ensure that we have an environment where people feel at liberty to come forward and discuss their concerns, to make allegations or bring forward information. With respect to the performance of people in the RCMP, including at the most senior ranks, I certainly think we have to hold them to account not only for what they do, but how they do it.

I will certainly be looking at building those kinds of expectations into the performance accords of my direct reports and those who report to them and throughout the organization. I talked about the fact that we have done quite a lot of work over the last few years to survey people. I think we should look at other means to get feedback from people. When we're looking at the assessment of leaders, for example, I and other organizations have seen the utility of feedback on a 360-degree basis, where you solicit feedback from superiors, peers, and people in lower ranks of the organization.

I think there may be other tools that we can look at where we can solicit views of employees on issues in addition to a survey that takes place every year or two.

(1025) The Chair : Thank you very much. [ Translation ] Mr. Lussier, you have four minutes. Mr. Marcel Lussier (Brossard—La Prairie, BQ) : Thank you, Mr.Chair. Mr. Elliott, you have undertaken the reform of the RCMP and you mentioned in your document that it was your intention to improve its transparency. When you hide behind confidential recommendations or even national security, people wonder about this fine transparency in the RCMP. As to the fraud in the RCMP's pension and insurance plan, was Mr. Brown's inquiry conducted with complete impartiality and independence? Are you satisfied with Mr.

Brown's recommendations? [ English ] Commr William Elliott : First of all, with respect to the view of Canadians, I again cite our survey results that indicate, in 2007, 87% agreed with the statement that the RCMP is an organization with integrity and honesty. So I do not accept the premise that Canadians believe, by and large, that the RCMP is an organization that differs from that. With respect to Mr. Brown's report, as I indicated in the answer to a question posed by Mr. McGuinty, I accept the report and recommendations of Mr.

Brown, as I believe my predecessor, Commissioner Busson, did on behalf of the organization. [ Translation ] Mr. Marcel Lussier : Are there still matters to look into? Will RCMP investigators continue to dig into the fraud? [ English ] Commr William Elliott : The only ongoing investigation, to my knowledge, is the investigation being conducted by the Ontario Provincial Police. [ Translation ] Mr. Marcel Lussier : So no officer or investigator is looking into the matter. Turning to the Brown Report, was Mr. Brown involved in the police groups that included officers from the Ottawa Police Service and the RCMP?

In previous investigations, was Mr. Brown involved in joint groups that included the Ontario Provincial Police, the Ottawa Police Service and the RCMP? [ English ] Commr William Elliott : To my knowledge, no. With respect to the pension and insurance matters, to my knowledge, Mr. Brown's involvement began when the government appointed him as an independent investigator. I'm not sure I completely understand the question. I suspect that in his capacity with the Ontario Securities Commission, Mr.

Brown may have had some dealings with the RCMP and other police services with respect to investigations. [ Translation ] Mr. Marcel Lussier : Could we be talking about financial investigations? Commr William Elliott : Perhaps. Mr. Marcel Lussier : Let me come back to one point. Earlier, you said that you wanted to have direct contact with your officers and your employees in your office. But Ms. Ebbs, who often deals with grievances in her role with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee, told us yesterday that not all grievances are brought to her attention.

According to what we gathered yesterday, the commissioner has the power to screen those grievances. Some employee grievances do not reach the Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee because the commissioner has the power to screen them. Are you aware of that? (1030) [ English ] The Chair : Mr. Elliott. Commr William Elliott : I believe that the mandate of the External Review Committee has limitations with respect to the types of issues they can deal with. I think for a number of grievances I am, as commissioner, the final-level decision-maker.

I guess the other thing I would say is that we have an organization of 26,000 people, and although I'm encouraging people to communicate with me directly, I obviously can't by myself deal with all allegations or situations of impropriety. We need to have the mechanisms in place, which include the grievance processes and the roles for the ERC and Mr. Kennedy's public complaints commission, to deal with issues as well, in addition to the other officers to whom I have referred earlier. [ Translation ] The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Lussier. [ English ] Mr. Sweet, for four minutes. Mr. David Sweet : Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a comment upfront about some of the conversation and questions that have been going on regarding the Brown report. I think it's important to note on the record that Mr. Brown drew from multiple investigations, including the work of this committee, and in nine weeks brought together reams and reams of information. I think 35,000 documents and thousands and thousands of e-mails have already been investigated and have culminated into a report. So although the figure of nine weeks has been used quite a bit, it's been years of investigation at different levels. Mr.

Elliott, I'm glad to hear about the increasing numbers on trust and also your realization that there's still a substantial way to go. I'm also very happy to hear about a true, confidential, 360° review. You mentioned that this worked in other organizations you've been with. I hope it's something that's implemented. It's something that will bring a lot more trust, and people will be more open.

In that regard, yesterday we had the chairman of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as the chairman for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee, as well as Assistant Commissioner Conlin.

The questions were around exactly what kinds of initiatives were being taken now to move towards providing a place for members like Denise Revine, Staff Sergeant Lewis, or Chief Superintendent Macaulay, so that when have a concern, they can understand that they have protected, unfettered access to a place where they can get resolution easily and fairly when the mission and vision values of the RCMP have been corrupted by another member. In every case when we were asking those questions, it seemed that there was no place to go.

Assistant Commissioner Conlin mentioned that they could certainly go to her, but she had no authority to actually make changes. My question to the assistant commissioner, and it would be the same to you, is this. This task force is working. I understand that you want to wait for the results of that and I understand you've only been in the position for a couple of months as well.

However, as a leader now, are you formulating some ideas about some recommendations that you're going to make to the task force to make sure no member will have any fear in the future of coming forward with a complaint that goes to the core of the mission and vision values of the RCMP? Commr William Elliott : I certainly think we need to have mechanisms, processes, and practices in place for people to come forward. I think those need to be multi-layered. I think you need to start with internal mechanisms.

It would be ideal if there was an ability for issues to be identified and resolved without going to extraordinary measures. Perhaps the word “extraordinary” isn't the most apt. For example, we've touched on grievance procedures. To me, most grievances are an indication of a failure on behalf of the organization to resolve issues. Be that as it may, some issues don't get resolved and you need to have internal mechanisms like the grievance process. There is certainly a role for supervisors, CEOs, and executives, but I think we also need to look at the ability of people to go outside the organization.

One of the options that I think should be looked at is the potential for an ombudsman with more defined authorities than we currently have for the ethics adviser. Certainly one of the things the task force is looking at is the notion of a police board. I know that in the exchange yesterday, there was an indication that in other jurisdictions, including Quebec and British Columbia, there are mechanisms outside police forces for redress.

I certainly think the role of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner can also play an important role with respect to the RCMP, which of course is covered by the legislation and the mandate of the commissioner.

(1035) The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Sweet. Mr. Christopherson, for four minutes. Mr. David Christopherson : Thank you very much, Chair. Again, to Commissioner Elliott, along the same vein as Mr. Sweet's question, I'd like to hear a little more about how you're going to try to separate those who are categorized as being disgruntled employees from those who have a legitimate complaint. It's a very stark question.

I've asked it in that way because let's not forget it wasn't that many months ago when, after hearing from senior police officers before we called anybody in or before we even agreed, we heard the world was wonderful and there were no problems. If there were problems, they were attributed to other things, but it was not because there were real problems. The opposition all voted, in a formal vote against the government, to have Frizzell, Macaulay, Revine, and Lewis come to speak. Remember that when it happened, at that time, they were troublemakers. They were disgruntled employees. It's in Hansard.

I won't name names, but government members said they weren't going to let them come here and be given a platform to launch against senior officers just because they were disgruntled employees. We brought them here and started to hear from them. It's when this started to unravel. It wasn't that long ago that the names—and I'm going to say them again—Frizzell, Macaulay, Revine, and Lewis, who are now going to be legendary heroes in the RCMP, were troublemakers. It was a few months ago. I'd like to know what you're going to do.

I know you don't have the steps, but what's your vision of how you're going to be able to separate them? There are disgruntled workers and employees, and then there are legitimate people who are concerned about the organization. How are you going to do it? I have one last thing, because I won't get another question. We heard Chair Kennedy from the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP, Chair Ebbs from the External Review Committee, and former Assistant Commissioner John Spice, the former ethics adviser, make a recommendation around an ombudsperson.

I'd like to know what level of support you have for the recommendations they made. I think you're going to find that our report is going to contain a lot of support for what they've suggested on both legislative changes and the creation of the ombudsperson. I'd like a sense of where you are on those and an early indication of how much support you're prepared to give their recommendations. Commr William Elliott : Thank you. I have several things to say in response.

There are various models out there, but I think we need to have mechanisms and processes in place so people can come forward and bring information or make allegations without fear of retribution. We need to be able to have an independent examination of that information and allegations. There are several ways that can be done. I'm not yet in a position where I have a specific recommendation on what the best mechanism might be for the RCMP. I think you need to tailor your mechanism to some extent to reflect the reality of the organization you are dealing with. The other comment I would make is this.

I'm not suggesting this is a solution in and of itself, and I would be interested in the view of Ms. Duxbury, but in my view, leadership matters. It matters not only to the individuals you have named but to the entire organization that Commissioner Busson recognized them for doing what it did. I and others are saying to people that if there are issues, they should bring them forward. They will be treated with respect, and the situations will be appropriately investigated and dealt with. My saying that is not enough. We need to have the mechanisms and processes in place to do that.

I look forward to the recommendations of this committee and the task force to help us put those mechanisms in place. Some of them will be within the purview of the RCMP to do, and some of them, I anticipate, will be external to us and may require legislation.

(1040) Mr. David Christopherson : You might just want to hold off on the “leadership matters” phrases for the next five weeks. Thanks. The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson. Thank you, Commissioner Elliott. Mr. McGuinty, you have four minutes. Mr. David McGuinty : Thanks, Mr. Chair. Mr. Elliott, I'd like to come back to a line of questioning that you were exposed to a few minutes ago. It has to do with your relationship with the minister. Does the minister regularly sending e-mail to the staff of your organization?

Commr William Elliott : The minister, as I understand it, periodically sends e-mail to employees in all of the agencies within his portfolio. Mr. David McGuinty : Are you in a position to table that e-mail with this committee? Commr William Elliott : I expect I could do that. The only e-mail within my direct control, if I can use those words, is e-mail that has gone to members and employees of the RCMP. I know that the minister has sent e-mail to others. I'm aware of at least two or three occasions where e-mail went to the RCMP, and I'd be happy to table that. Mr.

David McGuinty : Would you have received copies of any recent e-mail since your appointment? Commr William Elliott : There has been no such e-mail since my appointment. I believe the last one was after the government announced my appointment but before its effective date. Mr. David McGuinty : Is it true that in that e-mail you are referred to as Bill by the minister--sort of like Steve? Commr William Elliott : I may well be referred to as Bill by the minister, because the minister calls me Bill, as do all of my friends, relations, and co-workers. Mr. David McGuinty : Do you report directly to the minister?

Commr William Elliott : I'm independent of the minister. I report to Parliament through the minister. Mr. David McGuinty : Mr. Commissioner, in your almost 20 years of public service as a senior public servant, have you ever seen a minister of the Crown communicate this way with a special operating agency, a crown corporation, or even their own employees in a line department? Are you a little uncomfortable with being referred to as Bill in these communications? Don't you think you should be referred to as Commissioner Elliott? Commr William Elliott : I'm not uncomfortable with being referred to as Bill.

I might point out that Prime Minister Martin , Prime Minister Harper , and many other ministers with whom I served in a number of successive governments called me Bill. That is my name. And I'm not uncomfortable with Minister Day 's direct communications with employees. Mr. David McGuinty : Did Prime Minister Harper or Prime Minister Martin ever send out e-mails to 26,000 RCMP staff referring to you in a cozy term like Bill?

Commr William Elliott : I'm not sure I can agree that calling someone by name is a cozy term, but to my knowledge, and in answer to your question, the individuals you indicated, other than Minister Day, have not sent out such e-mails. [ Translation ] Mr. David McGuinty : Commissioner, you were not able to answer the questions from my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois in French. Are you bilingual? Commr William Elliott : I am not perfectly bilingual, but I have achieved a certain level of ability in French. Mr. David McGuinty : Excellent. I was just checking because you did not answer the questions in French.

Commr William Elliott : Let me clarify: my first language is English and when I want to be very precise, that is the language I prefer to use. I work in both languages, I speak to employees and colleagues in both languages. [ English ] Mr. David McGuinty : Have you had any discussion in the last week with the minister, his office, or the PMO in anticipation and preparation for your appearance here today? Commr William Elliott : No. Mr.

David McGuinty : Going back to this question of consultation—I want to go back to the question I left you with after the last round—do you seriously believe that what you're proposing or what the task force is proposing to do is really going to help shift the culture inside the RCMP by having hidden deliberations, outside the eyes of the staff of the RCMP and not open to the Canadian public? Is this really the kind of transparency that Mr. Brown is calling for and that I think everybody in this room is calling for?

(1045) Commr William Elliott : First of all, I'd like to clarify one thing. The answer I gave a moment ago was not completely accurate. I did meet with Mr. Day this week; we did discuss the fact that I would be appearing. But we did not have discussions about what it is I would be testifying on. Mr. David McGuinty : Not about your testimony in any way? You did not talk to the minister about your testimony in any way for today? The Chair : That's it, Mr. McGuinty. Do you have any parting comments, Mr. Elliott? Mr.

David Christopherson : On a point of order, on the need for full disclosure, I didn't realize this was an issue at the time, but as the Solicitor General of Ontario I did refer to former commissioner Thomas O'Grady as Tom. I'm sorry that I got too cozy. Now that I know it's a big problem, I want to throw that out. The Chair : We will reprimand you in due course. Mr. David Christopherson : Okay. I'll feel better then. Mr. Mike Lake : I'm a little disappointed about the line of questioning— The Chair : Just before you start, Mr. Lake, if I may, I want to clarify the undertaking to table e-mails.

That will be done within two weeks, Mr. Elliott? Commr William Elliott : I'd be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. The Chair : Mr. Lake, you have four minutes. Mr. Mike Lake : I want to walk through this in terms of what happened. I want to be comfortable that if this were to happen again, things would be handled differently. Taking a look at the order of things, we have Ms. Revine fulfilling her responsibilities. She is charged with this A-base review, and in the course of her work she finds a problem. She takes it to her direct supervisor, Chief Superintendent Macaulay. He advises the ethics commissioner.

It seems that these are reasonable things to do. The staff relations representative, Staff Sergeant Lewis, gets involved and informs the commissioner that there's a problem. It seems that internally they're doing all of the things they should have done. Nothing happens, so finally they go to what they see as their last resort. In February 2004, Staff Sergeant Lewis actually writes a letter to the President of the Treasury Board, the minister responsible for the RCMP—at the time, it would have been Anne McLellan—and the Auditor General with respect to the pension plan matters.

In the letter he states that Commissioner Zaccardelli had failed “to meet his obligations under the RCMP Act and as our leader, in relation to serious accusations of wrongdoing by senior managers...”. He has basically gone everywhere he can go and done everything internal that he can do—they all have—and nothing happens. They finally go to the minister. It seems that the minister is as high as it gets, the absolute last resort. I know there are other mechanisms in place now, but going back, what more could they have done?

If you were the commissioner at the time, what would you expect the minister to do in that situation? Commr William Elliott : I'm not sure I can answer that question. Mr. Mike Lake : What would you expect your minister to do now? You're in the position of commissioner now. Would you expect that a minister would take action at that point? The commissioner is not acting, and their whole frustration centres on the fact that the commissioner is doing nothing. So the minister's action at the time was to have a meeting with the commissioner.

The commissioner says it's all okay, and the minister just goes on her way, trusting that everything's going to be fine. But the whole problem centred around the commissioner at the time. What more were they to do? Commr William Elliott : As I said, I don't have an answer with respect to what more they could do. With respect to the minister, I guess the only comment I would make is that the RCMP Act provides that the minister can give direction to the commissioner. Mr. Mike Lake : Okay. I want to talk a little further to what Mr.

Sweet was saying and ask the question in terms of the situation and, if it were to happen today, what would happen differently. Again, maybe speak a little further to the structural mechanisms that would ensure that they would get a fair hearing now. Outside of a commissioner who happens to be a good listener, what assurance do they have that they're going to get a hearing and their careers aren't going to be ended now, going forward, if this were to happen today?

(1050) Commr William Elliott : We have legislation passed by the Government of Canada to provide protection to those who come forward with information or allegations of impropriety. We have the creation of the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. Internal to the RCMP, there is what I guess I would describe as informal reinvigoration of the role of the ethics adviser, but I think up to this point nothing further formally has been put in place. I think that is a shortcoming and I think that it should be addressed.

One of the things we are examining in the course of our work in support of the task force is what those mechanisms might be. Mr. Mike Lake : I know my colleague Mr. Sweet has a question that I think is important, so I'm going to pass it on to him. Mr. David Sweet : In Ms. Duxbury's study, on page 6, under “Objective Three: Recruitment and Retention”, there's a really glaring concern. I would like to ask you about whether you're specifically trying to handle this for the future.

It states: Two thirds of this sample (90% of those in the Sergeant/Staff Sergeant and Inspector and above groups) say they plan on leaving the RCMP in the next several years. These data suggest that the RCMP will likely have a succession planning problem in the near future. I was just wondering if you were aware of that, that this exodus may be coming, and if you have some action that's going to be taken to make sure there's a recruitment initiative so that the ranks aren't thin.

Commr William Elliott : Certainly the RCMP has had a demographic challenge for a number of years, like other departments and agencies of the federal government. The intake was very limited. We have taken concrete steps to increase our recruitment. Significant investments have been made in the training academy in Regina. We will graduate more recruits this year than we have in any of the recent previous years. Having said that, we are having some challenges meeting our targets with respect to recruiting. We're recruiting more recruits, but we are not recruiting as many as we need, and we need to make more efforts.

We are in the process of taking steps to do that and examining ways that we can do better. For example, I don't remember the exact number, but I think it's around 20 individuals whose full-time occupation is to do proactive recruiting, and that is certainly paying some successes. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Elliott. That concludes, colleagues, round two. I have a question for Ms. Duxbury. I understand one of your emphases is on change management. You've heard the testimony today; obviously you're following this issue. In your opinion, what is required here? Prof.

Linda Duxbury : I teach the PhD class in managing change. I teach the MBA class. I think that if you looked at my report, the RCMP is definitely not change ready. The biggest issue, of course, is a lack of trust and a real doubt that the RCMP is actually going to stick to it this time. The RCMP, like a lot of public servants, like a lot of other people, are change weary. They've had a lot of changes thrust on them in the last several decades, but very little follow-through. My advice is, first of all, don't go in there expecting to change the world immediately. You have to build credibility.

You have to build trust. You build credibility and trust not by what you say but by what you do. I think it's very important in the next six months to actually show that things will be slightly different, that there is a respect. In fact I think the accountability frameworks need to be changed. There has been a real recognition that changing policies is a necessary first step, as is changing structures, but it will do no good if the culture remains one of policy and not practice.

I really think we need to recognize that this is an incredibly difficult task that—I did call him Bill as well, I'm sorry to say, but I'm an academic and inappropriate anyway. I think it's very important to recognize that while dramatic action is needed, there's a real risk. I would say that right now the majority of RCMP are sitting on the fence and saying “let's see what happens, not what they say but what they do”. I emphasize that as being important.

(1055) The Chair : I want to thank you for those comments. Monsieur Laforest. [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest : Thank you for giving me the floor, Mr. Chair. I will be very brief. On a number of occasions, I have expressed the desire to have a public inquiry in order to shed light on everything that has happened in the RCMP. After hearing Ms. Duxbury's evidence today, in which she told us how difficult it is given the considerable resistance to change, and Mr.

Elliott's who hides behind state secrets and national security in order to avoid answering questions, even in the Maher Arar case where we know that national security was not an issue and is a complete red herring, I want, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, to demand a public inquiry in the clearest terms so that the people of Quebec and of Canada can find out what is happening and so that real changes can be made. Thank you. [ English ] The Chair : Thank you very much. I'm going to invite you to make closing comments, Mr. Elliott. That concludes the meeting, colleagues.

Before we do adjourn, though, I'm going to invite Ms. Duxbury, former Commissioner Busson, and Commissioner Elliott to make any closing comments that they see appropriate. Commissioner Elliott, I understand you do have a closing comment. Commr William Elliott : Mr. Chairman, I just want to begin by saying I take exception to the honourable member's comments accusing me of hiding behind things. In my role as a public servant, I had an obligation to the governments that I served to provide frank, confidential advice. It is not appropriate for me to reveal that advice.

With respect to the specific issue about national security issues and confidentiality, I point out for the record that the Federal Court of Canada determined that a number of the things that were redacted were in fact redacted appropriately. With respect to the issues that we came to discuss today, Mr. Chairman, I just want to reinforce that I'm very honoured to be Commissioner of the RCMP. The RCMP is made up of thousands of women and men who provide exemplary service to Canadians. There are certainly shortcomings.

I would say that there are more than a few weaknesses that we have to address, but even having said that, I would say that there is far more positive than negative about the RCMP. There is far more right about the RCMP than there are areas that need improvement. The areas that need improvement are numerous and they are very significant, and I am committed to do my best to work with the organization, to work with the task force, to work with the minister, to work with the government and parliamentarians to bring those improvements that are necessary and that the RCMP requires and that Canadians also require.

Thank you. The Chair : Thank you, Commissioner Elliott. Do you have any closing remarks, former Commissioner Busson? Ms. Beverley A. Busson : Thank you very much. I want to thank the committee for the kind comments they made about my leadership. And I would echo what Commissioner Elliot said. I do believe that leadership does matter. And in this organization, that change, as Mr. Lake said, will not be easy and it will not be immediate.

I do believe that leadership from the top and the kinds of changes and the kinds of initiatives and the kind of trust this organization is building from the top down and from the bottom up with the people of Canada is a very important step forward. Senior management in this organization exists to support the courage and the amazing work that gets done in the field every day. And I believe that the message from the top, as Ms. Duxbury said, reinforced over and over again by actions, will again build that trust both among the membership and among the public. There is amazing work to be done every day.

It is dangerous work, and the safety of the country is at stake. I want to thank the committee. It has been a true privilege to have served for over thirty-two and a half years and a real honour to have been commissioner for the short time I was. I want to thank the committee for its support in moving the force forward. The Chair : Thank you, Ms. Busson. Ms. Duxbury, have you any final comments? Prof. Linda Duxbury : Yes. I want to provide a word of caution to this committee. Cultural change is the most difficult kind of change. The majority of cultural changes fail.

We know that even if all the stars are aligned, it takes five to ten years for cultural change to occur. And not all the stars are aligned here, so I would just caution the committee that we have to give the RCMP a chance here. We can't expect miracles and overnight things to happen. The other thing is that leadership does matter, especially with respect to cultural change, because the leader sets the culture by his or her own behaviour. The leader also has access to the resources and the levers needed for this kind of change, such as changing the accountability framework, changing reward structures, and so on.

I also want to say that leadership is not positional. To be a leader you have to have followers, and I think we have to make that distinction. There can be leaders from every level of the organization. It is going to be a significant challenge, and I wish them luck.

(1100) The Chair : Thank you, Ms. Duxbury. Just to conclude, I want to thank you, Commissioner Elliott, for being here today. You've taken on a very difficult and challenging job. Everyone here on the committee certainly wishes you all the best. I certainly want to echo your comments about the 17,000 members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who are serving Canadians every day and every night. The studies that we're doing really reflect on that top echelon and do not in any way reflect on the tremendous job that the members of your force are doing currently. Again, Ms.

Busson, I want to echo the comments that were made previously. You've had a stellar career with the RCMP. You have been before this committee four or five times on this particular issue, and we certainly want to thank you very much for your help and assistance. Ms. Duxbury, again I want to thank you. Your report will be invaluable to the committee as we move forward on this particular issue. Having said that, colleagues, I'm going to pause. I remind members that we will take a 10-minute break and then we'll come back in camera. [ Proceedings continue in camera ] [ Public proceedings resume ]

(1400) The Chair : At this point in time I call the meeting to order. I want to welcome everyone back to this session of today's meetings. This meeting will last one hour, colleagues, and we have one witness before us, Mr. David A. Brown. Mr. Brown was the independent investigator appointed by the public safety minister earlier in the year to report on some of the issues surrounding the insurance and pension funds of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Mr. Brown did report to the minister on June 15. That report is public, and I believe all members have a copy.

He's also been appointed to chair a task force to deal with governance structures regarding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That task force has been under way for about six weeks. It is served by four other members besides him, and their mandate is to report by the end of the year, by December 31. Mr. Brown, I want to welcome you to the committee. I thank you for coming. First of all, do you have any opening comments or remarks you wish to make? Mr.

David Brown (Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters, Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters) : No, I don't, thank you, Chair. I'm aware that many people coming before you do start with opening comments. As I thought about what I might say to you, I couldn't really think of anything you didn't already know. Rather than summarize things in my report, which would have been a waste of your time, I thought we would simply launch into it and I would be prepared to take your questions. The Chair : Okay.

First we're going to have one round, seven minutes each. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. I should remind members, too, that there are some pictures being taken by a House of Commons photographer. He's not one of the local media, so he's certainly welcome to stay and take pictures. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Brown, for appearing, and for all of your hard and diligent work you've been conducting. Mr. Brown, there must have been preliminary drafts of your report. Is that assumption correct? Mr. David Brown : I don't think there was a preliminary draft of the entire report.

We did it in pieces. As we found issues that we were comfortable with, we started the draft. Given the timeframe, if we'd waited until the end before turning out drafts, we probably wouldn't have got there. So there were various pieces done. It was pulled together and some final drafting done, but if you're asking me if there are preliminary drafts somewhere, I suspect...I don't know. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : I was going to ask if it would be possible to table those. Mr. David Brown : If indeed they exist.

This was all being done electronically, and as drafts were being done we were making changes, sometimes even on the screen, because we were working well into the night. I'll see what we've got. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Sure. Perhaps we could request them should you be able to locate them. Were any of those harder hitting than— The Chair : On a point of order, Mr. Williams. Mr. John Williams : Mr. Brown has tabled a report. This is the official document. I'm sure there were editing and spelling mistakes that were corrected and grammatical mistakes that were corrected and things that were added in and thrown out.

We don't want draft reports and interim reports and first-draft reports and so on. This is the report. This is what we have. This is the official document, and anything that preceded this is not really relevant. The Chair : That's not a point of order, Mr. Williams. I don't know why he would want them, Mr. Williams, but they are documents in the public domain; they're not privileged. If they're available, as a member of Parliament he would be entitled to receive them. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Chair, I hope that didn't eat into my time, that non-point of order.

Were any of those portions of drafts harder hitting than what appeared in the final draft? Mr. David Brown : No. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Okay. Your report goes on at length, and a yardstick you used was whether the RCMP acted in a timely and effective manner at every instance when allegations and serious allegations came forward. These were your yardsticks. It wasn't part of your mandate to take a look at whether the minister, Minister Day , upon hearing these allegations from various sources—members of Parliament, his caucus members, whistle-blowers—a year previously....

Did you take a look at whether or not he acted in a timely and correct way when he was first made aware of these allegations?

(1405) Mr. David Brown : No, that was not part of our mandate and we did not look at that. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Okay. In your report and during the tabling of that report, you had two months to conduct this within the limitations of the mandate and within the limitations of time. You did the best you could; however, you made a couple of very categorical statements. When asked whether or not there should be a public inquiry, you said there was “nothing new, or at least nothing new in value” that it would provide. That's actually your quote.

It's interesting, because just a couple of days prior, you referenced Mr. Gauvin and the fact that he'd abdicated his duty of comptrollership and holding departments to account. Just a couple of days before that, and I guess when the final versions of these were written, we found out that it was more than just not fulfilling duties; he was actually quite proactive. In the commissioner's boardroom he tried to put pressure on an officer from the ATIP

section who was about to release documents, and he wanted to replace those documents with documents he'd prepared in his office. This is a deputy commissioner. Just yesterday we heard new allegations. Potentially we'll have to hear from witnesses who will contradict the commissioner's testimony before us here, so how can you have this tremendous comfort in stating that there's nothing new and nothing new in value to be found in a public accountable process and that in fact the preferred course is a secret behind-closed-doors task force? Mr. David Brown : There are several questions there.

If I miss one of them, perhaps you could remind me at the end, and I'll try to circle back. First of all, with respect to the time period, it's true that we had only nine weeks, and it was really only eight weeks of operating time, because it took us a week to get organized and up and running. In order to accomplish the work that had to be done during that timeframe, I needed to be assured that I had the necessary resources to be able to do it. It quickly became clear that an awful lot of background material was already in existence. There had been a number of studies done previously, as you know.

Your work here in this committee had been ongoing; there were witnesses who had come and testified here, so there was a great deal of information coming from those witnesses. We were able, very quickly, to get all the information that we thought was necessary from the RCMP. It was delivered to us quickly. I was able to get a staff of people moving very quickly, within a couple of days of my being appointed. I interviewed the five largest forensic accounting groups in the country and selected one that had the resources and was able to put them on the ground here.

So we had a tremendous amount of material available to us even from the start and we had the resources to be able to do it. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Would you still stand by that statement today? Mr. David Brown : Yes, I would. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Another statement you made was that--and it's a quote, once again--there were no signs of cover-up, and that these were inadvertent and not deliberate acts. I just referenced the situation with Mr. Gauvin. Here's a case; I don't know how else we could describe that.

We also have this problematic situation of the very top officials within the RCMP providing us with contradictory statements, diametrically opposed statements. Do you still stand by the statement that these things were inadvertent and not deliberate?

(1410) Mr. David Brown : Absolutely. I say inadvertent, and I also believe there were some mistakes in judgment and some mistakes in management. These issues were well known throughout the RCMP. One of the big problems from the inaction by the commissioner and senior management was that people in the RCMP knew about some of these goings-on, and they knew that things weren't being done about it. This was not a secret.

What we found was that management, including the commissioner, failed to understand the seriousness of it and failed to understand the messages that were being sent to those who were aware of what was going on by their inaction. They failed to really grasp this and to do something with it. The commissioner thought he had dealt with the issue. He removed two people from their jobs and thought that was all he had to do. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : He also punitively transferred a number of people and he-- Mr. David Brown : Yes, okay, and the report found that, as you know.

But this was not because people were hiding things under the rug. These were all out in the open. It's just that the decisions that were being made were not appropriate in the circumstances. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. Monsieur Laforest, sept minutes . [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Brown. In your report, you agree that there are significant leadership shortcomings in the RCMP's senior management, and that a kind of culture of secrecy exists.

Is it not a little paradoxical, not to say untenable on your part to denounce secrecy on the one hand, and, on the other, to suggest that the solution is the creation of a working group that would operate in camera? Do you not find it a bit of a contradiction to criticize a practice and then to correct it by operating in exactly the same way? [ English ] Mr. David Brown : First of all, given my background, I'm a strong proponent of transparency as a securities regulator. I spent seven years advocating transparency and I feel very strongly about transparency.

What I recommended in the report is that deliberations of the task force be conducted in private. And I did that for the simple reason that we're dealing here with careers. We're hoping that people who are still employed by the RCMP, committed to the RCMP, will feel comfortable coming forward and sharing with us their innermost thoughts, and that they will feel comfortable in doing that. Having said that, what we're doing is by no means in secret. We are meeting with as many people as we can.

We've met with the leadership of the SRRs; we're meeting with the entire SRR caucus; we're meeting with all of the assistant commissioners; we're meeting with the pay council; we're going out to Depot next week to meet with cadets; and we're meeting with division commanders. We're trying to get to and talk to as many people as we can. It's not secret, as you say-- [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest : Mr. Brown, you are telling me that the process inside the RCMP is not secret, and I accept that. But in the eyes of the public, the secrecy persists, and the public deplores that. I have one more question.

You also mentioned in your report that possibly the Ontario Provincial Police would conduct an investigation, or take a look at the Ottawa Police Service's report on what happened at the RCMP. You suggested that perhaps the investigation was not independent. What is your basis for making that statement? [ English ] Mr. David Brown : Again, if I may, there were two points there. One was that the public is very interested in knowing the results of what we're doing.

My intention is that as a result of the work of the task force, we will do analyses of what we've seen, we'll do analyses of what we see as best practices in other police forces around the world, and those will all be made public, as will a report of our recommendations. So there will be that public aspect to it. Did you have a follow-up on that or do you want me to talk about the OPP? [ Translation ] Mr.

Jean-Yves Laforest : For example, on page 26 of your report, you say that there was a memorandum of understanding between the Ottawa Police Service and the RCMP, under the terms of which the principal investigator of the OPS reported to Assistant Commissioner Gork. You were told—and you said it yourself in your report—that this was a typographical error. What are you referring to? Do you have the memo? (1415) [ English ] Mr. David Brown : No, I don't have that memorandum-- [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest : Were you aware of it? [ English ] Mr.

David Brown : I've not personally read the memorandum of understanding. Members of our team looked at it and summarized it for me. Let me, if I may, just address our recommendation on the OPP, because I think it is important. [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest : But I have to interrupt you there, Mr. Brown. I am tabling the copy of the memorandum of understanding for the committee. You mention a typographical error, but two paragraphs deal with the relationship between the inspector in charge and Assistant Commissioner Gork.

In point 3.1 of the memo, it says—and I think the reference is to Inspector Roy: The inspector [...] will be in charge of the RCMP investigation. He will report to Assistant Commissioner D. Gork while the investigation is in progress. If there is a typographical error, we need to know where it is. Still on the subject of the lead investigator, point 3.2 says: Assistant Commissioner Gork, representing the RCMP, will oversee his work, and may from time to time provide instructions to help him in his inquiries.

So I believe that Inspector Gork could direct the investigation any way he liked because, as the memorandum makes clear, he had the authority to oversee the investigator's work and give him instructions as needed. I see this as a long way from typographical errors. There are no incorrect words here: an entire paragraph clearly states that the RCMP was overseeing the work of the Ottawa Police Service's investigator. I think that it is easy to conclude from this that the investigation was not independent.

In fact, the OPS's investigation was not independently conducted because it was supervised by a direct superior in the RCMP. I do not understand why you were not aware of that. You were told about a typographical error, but it seems to me that you should have examined and analyzed such a