EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Public Accounts NUMBER 071 1st SESSION 39th PARLIAMENT Thursday, September 6, 2007 Le jeudi 6 septembre 2007 Standing Committee on Public Accounts CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE September 6, 2007 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 071 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 071 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 071 (Version officielle) 71 06 09 2007 2007/09/06 09:05:00 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

(0905) [ English ] The Chair (Hon. Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.)) : I'd like to call the meeting to order. Welcome, everyone. Bienvenue à tous . I do hope everyone had a good summer. We're back on duty here. First of all, I want to point out that we have two full days of hearings on this matter, and that is the study of the RCMP report, the Report of the Independent Investigator into Matters Relating to RCMP Pension and Insurance Plans , pursuant to the Auditor General's report of November 2006. This morning, colleagues, we have the first panel, which is from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.

We're pleased to have with us Assistant Commissioner Sandra Conlin, who is presently the ethics advisor. We also have back with us Mr. John Spice, retired assistant commissioner, who was the previous ethics advisor. Welcome back, Mr. Spice and Ms. Conlin. I understand Mr. Sweet has a motion before we proceed. Mr. Sweet. Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC) : Mr.

Chairman, I would like to move a motion, and I seek unanimous consent from the committee for this motion: That the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of the first session of the 39th Parliament do commend, in alphabetical order, Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell, Staff Sergeant Ron Lewis, Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay, Ms.

Denise Revine, Assistant Commissioner Bruce Rogerson, and Staff Sergeant Steve Walker for their continued efforts to expose the mismanagement of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension and insurance plan administration in the face of great personal and professional hardship, for their unwavering commitment to justice and accountability, for their dedication to ensure the Royal Canadian Mounted Police remain a cherished national symbol with the full confidence of both its members and the Canadian public, and for their embodiment of the core values of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: integrity, honesty, professionalism, compassion, respect, and accountability.

I would also move that this motion, Mr. Chair, be reported to the House. The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Sweet. As everyone knows, to go anywhere at this point in time, that motion would need the unanimous consent of members at this meeting. Does Mr. Sweet have unanimous consent to proceed with the motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Chair : Mr. Sweet, is there anything further you want to say on the motion? Mr. David Sweet : No, that's fine, Mr. Chair. I'll present it to the clerk. The Chair : Does anybody else want to speak on the motion? Perhaps if I may say so, Mr.

Sweet, I certainly think it is an appropriate motion for this committee. I do hope the committee passes it. It's been a long, difficult road for each one of the individuals you did mention. Perhaps I should add that there have been others who haven't been mentioned, who were involved in this investigation also, who took a stand when perhaps it wasn't the popular or the expedient thing to do. They took a stand, and it was the right thing to do. Looking back, I think they all should be very proud of the actions that they did take. I don't vote on the motion, but I certainly think it is appropriate. Mr.

Wrzesnewskyj. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) : I would like to say a few words to the motion as well. I would like to begin by thanking Mr. Sweet for bringing this motion forward. It's an acknowledgement that's been due for quite a while. I'm sure it will help in providing us with a perspective as we go forward. The sessions through the winter and the spring were at times difficult. It was difficult to bring those very people before this committee as witnesses.

I'm glad this acknowledgement has been made that in fact it was appropriate not only to bring these witnesses forward but also to acknowledge the personal difficulties they've experienced within the RCMP. It wasn't easy to bring them here, and it wasn't easy for them to testify before this committee. The Liberal members wholeheartedly support Mr. Sweet's motion. Thank you.

(0910) The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. If there are no further comments, I will put the motion to a vote. Mr. Laforest. [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest (Saint-Maurice—Champlain, BQ) : Could you read the motion again, please? [ English ] The Chair : Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Laforest. Mr. Sweet said: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to move a motion, and I seek unanimous consent from the committee for this motion: That the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of the first session of the 39th Parliament do commend, in alphabetical order, Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell, Staff Sergeant Ron Lewis, Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay, Ms.

Denise Revine, Assistant Commissioner Bruce Rogerson, and Staff Sergeant Steve Walker for their continued efforts to expose the mismanagement of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension and insurance plan administration in the face of great personal and professional hardship, for their unwavering commitment to justice and accountability, for their dedication to ensure the Royal Canadian Mounted Police remain a cherished national symbol with the full confidence of both its members and the Canadian public, and for their embodiment of the core values of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police: integrity, honesty, professionalism, compassion, respect, and accountability. (Motion agreed to) The Chair : The motion was carried unanimously.

Thank you very much. According to the wording of the motion, that motion will be reported to the House. We're going to go back to the orders of the day. We have with us Sandra Conlin and John Spice. I'm going to go to you, Ms. Conlin. Go ahead, the floor is yours. A/Commr Sandra Conlin (Assistant Commissioner, Ethics Advisor, Royal Canadian Mounted Police) : Mr.

Chairman, thank you for inviting me here today to assist the committee in its ongoing work related to the RCMP pension and insurance plans. [ Translation ] I would like to give the members of the committee a very brief overview of my previous professional involvement and of my present role as RCMP Ethics Advisor. I served as a regular member of the RCMP for 31 years. In March 2007, I was appointed to my present position of Ethics Advisor by former commissioner Beverley Busson. Before that, from 2001 to 2007, I was Director General of Criminal Intelligence Services Canada at RCMP Headquarters.

In the course of my career, I have held several operational positions in Ontario and Quebec. Most of my work has been in the RCMP's A, C and O Divisions. [ English ] The mandate of the RCMP's Office of the Ethics Advisor is to ensure our organization's shared mission, visions and values become ingrained in the day-to-day activities of all employees. In light of a number of recent internal and external factors, the responsibilities of this office have been expanded, and I expect they will continue to evolve.

Since I assumed my role as ethics advisor five months ago, one of my first priorities has been to build capacity in the Office of the Ethics Advisor in order to deliver on policy and programs that help drive a climate of meaningful accountability, control, values, and ethics. This work has been started, and it is ongoing. Another priority of the Office of the Ethics Advisor has been to study and understand how ethics and compliance issues fit into the RCMP's overall strategic direction.

This is an important step in creating appropriate mechanisms and structures that will contribute to an ethical environment and instill value-based behaviour across the RCMP over the long term. (0915) [ Translation ] My office is also responsible for overseeing RCMP compliance with, and obligations under, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which went into effect in 2007. We are working hard to remove any obstacle that would dissuade or prevent RCMP employees from coming forward if they have reason to believe that serious wrongdoings have been committed.

Our goal is to put in place policies, and training and communication strategies in order to foster an environment in which employees may honestly and openly raise concerns without fear or threat of reprisal. [ English ] I wish to inform this committee that the Office of the Ethics Advisor has the full support of Commissioner Elliott and the RCMP senior executive committee. The commissioner's expectations are that my office will lead efforts to strengthen the climate for ethics and integrity at all levels of the RCMP.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the ongoing work of the task force chaired by Mr. Brown. Members of the task force can expect my assistance when and where it is needed. I am looking forward to the task force's final recommendations and reports being published, as they will no doubt touch on the work of my office. In conclusion, I can tell you that the RCMP is fully committed to providing its employees with the leadership, the tools, and the work environment they need in order to perform their duties in accordance with the highest ethical standards.

I am now happy to answer any of your questions. The Chair : Thank you very much, Assistant Commissioner Conlin. Do you have anything to add, Mr. Spice? You were here before, I believe. Do you have any opening comments that you want to make? Mr. John Spice (Assistant Commissioner (Retired), Ethics Advisor, Royal Canadian Mounted Police) : Nothing at all, Mr. Chair. I'm just happy to be here. Thank you. The Chair : We're pleased to have you. We're going to go to the first round of eight minutes. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome back, Mr. Spice, and welcome, Ms. Conlin.

On April 16, when former Commissioner Zaccardelli appeared before this committee, I asked him whether or not he had indicated to Mr. Ron Lewis that he would like to have a criminal investigation begun. He responded, “I never ordered a criminal investigation”. As well, Mr. Christopherson put a similar question to the former commissioner. Mr. Christopherson said, “At that meeting, did you give directions to Mr. Lewis to initiate correspondence that would have the effect of starting a criminal investigation?

Yes or no.” Former Commissioner Zaccardelli, who was under oath before the committee at that time, responded forcefully and clearly by stating, “absolutely not”. Former Assistant Commissioner Spice, do you have any information that contradicts Mr. Zaccardelli's statement? Mr. John Spice : I've had a conversation with a serving member of the force who said that this conversation did take place. When I spoke with him last night, he told me it was hearsay.

I believe it would be prudent to contact the former criminal operations officer of A Division, Chief Superintendent Wayne Watson, to make a determination as to any communication that he had with former Commissioner Zaccardelli and/or retired Staff Sergeant Lewis. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Mr. Spice, this conversation was with whom specifically? Mr. John Spice : I had a conversation with Superintendent Denis Constant. He was a superintendent at the time. He no longer is.

(0920) Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Thank you. Prior to the November 2003 audit findings, in September you received an e-mail, signed by Denise Revine and sent by Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay, with all of Ms. Revine's serious allegations. Once you had had a chance to read through that letter, did you believe that a criminal investigation might be warranted? Mr. John Spice : I don't know that I formed an opinion that a criminal investigation was warranted. I certainly believed there should have been an audit conducted to make a determination. In fact, I had a conversation with the director of audit, Mr.

Brian Aiken, regarding that. We went over the fact that should he find anything criminal while doing the audit, he would then suspend the audit and call for a criminal investigation, which was the process at the time. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : So you spoke with the auditor, Mr. Aiken. Did you speak with former Commissioner Zaccardelli as well, after receiving this e-mail? Mr. John Spice : Yes, I did. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : And what was Mr. Zaccardelli's response? Mr. John Spice : I suppose I would characterize it as being concerned. In fact, once seized with it, he was going to deal with it. Mr.

Borys Wrzesnewskyj : You mentioned that you spoke with Mr. Aiken. When Mr. Aiken appeared before this committee, I'd heard from other sources that when he began his audit, one of the things he said was that he had never seen so many red flags go up. In your conversations with him, did he say anything similar? Mr. John Spice : Yes, he did. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : And specifically did he say he had never seen so many red flags? Mr. John Spice : Yes. Mr.

Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Looking back at your previous appearance on May 14--and I'll read from your testimony--you stated: The process, for example, is that if you call for an internal audit--and I worked in audit many years ago, but I believe the principles still apply--you do the audit, and as soon as you determine that any criminality is involved or that there are code of conduct violations, you suspend the audit and proceed with the criminal investigation. Why did this not happen in this particular case? Mr. Aiken said he'd never seen so many red flags go up.

You clearly outlined what the principles are--you just restated it--that you suspend and you begin a criminal investigation. That did not occur in this case. Are there any particular reasons why? Mr. John Spice : I have no idea. You'd have to ask Mr. Aiken. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Thank you. During this timeframe, a number of people who were very concerned about the pension insurance fund approached you. In your previous testimony, you expressed great frustration with what was occurring and, in fact, with a few of the principals involved. Did you at any point say to an individual, “Go outside the RCMP.

It's not going to happen”, meaning the criminal investigation? Mr. John Spice : I probably did. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : What would have led you to arrive at that conclusion? Mr. John Spice : When I was the ethics advisor, I was also the senior officer for internal disclosure on wrongdoing in the workplace. It was a Treasury Board policy. The way the policy was structured—and the RCMP was to apply the policy—if a matter had gone to the level it required and nothing was done, then the next step was to go outside the organization to the public service integrity officer, at that time Mr. Ted Keyserlingk. Mr.

Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Preparing for retirement, you left your position in November of that year. Mr. Zaccardelli, the former commissioner, appointed a new ethics assistant commissioner, Mr. Séguin. Mr. Séguin, it turns out, was Mr. Crupi's boss. We've heard in testimony that Mr. Crupi ran the so-called rigged contracting scheme at the centre of this. Mr. Séguin worked directly under Mr. Ewanovich. We heard, in fact, that he was in a lot of ways his operations person. We heard Mr. Zaccardelli state that he wanted those individuals fired as a result of the audit, yet the person in the hierarchy immediately above Mr.

Crupi and working for Mr. Ewanovich ends up being appointed the new ethics assistant commissioner, the very person that whistle-blowers or, as in your words, public servants doing their duties would have to turn to.

When you take a look at the pattern that had been established--the strategic secondments, as in the case of the chief superintendent and, for instance, the constructed dismissal of Denise Revine--wouldn't it seem to have put a chill through the organization to see people removed and at the same time to see the person they're supposed to turn to, the ethics assistant commissioner, as potentially a person of interest in these investigations? Did you have any feelings or any thoughts on that particular appointment, and why that would have occurred?

(0925) Mr. John Spice : Are you asking for my opinion on that? I don't know what rationale was used to arrive at that decision. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Would you have arrived at the same decision? Mr. John Spice : No. No, I wouldn't have. The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. [ Translation ] Mr. Laforest, you have eight minutes, please. [ English ] Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Thank you. [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Spice and Ms. Conlin. The committee has held 14 meetings on the administration of the RCMP's pension and insurance plans.

In my view, the meetings today and tomorrow are so that that the committee can make recommendations to the government. From the outset, we have been trying to understand what happened, with a view to making recommendations so that it never happens again. I feel that the role that you played, Mr. Spice, and that you are playing now, Ms. Conlin, is very important in the process. When we look at what happened and call a spade a spade, we realize—and I am referring to your comments, Mr. Spice—that you were almost powerless. You were able to observe significant harassment abuse as a result of whistleblowing.

People came to you blowing whistles, but you had very little power. In your evidence to the committee, you suggested the establishment of an oversight committee or the appointment of an ombudsman. I said earlier that you had a crucial role that you were not able to play. I feel that if the Ethics Advisor's role is crucial, he or she must clearly be given the authority that will better protect and empower all members of the RCMP. It makes no sense that we are where we are. The public is clearly exasperated by what has happened and by the fact that the system has not been able to punish those responsible.

You also proposed that the act be changed to make the limitation period longer. My question is to both Ms. Conlin and Mr. Spice. What is the best solution? You mention an oversight committee and an ombudsman. Will that be enough? Do we not eventually have to consider unionizing the only police force in Canada that has no union? That could have positive effects. It would prevent abuses like the ones we now know about all too well or when favouritism is shown to a subordinate by a supervisor. These are rules of ethics. They are part and parcel of the values that the RCMP has to uphold.

There have been major abuses that people had no way to stop. Everyone can see that. Now we have to come up with ways to prevent similar situations. I am not saying that unionization is the only way to resolve the problems. People may say that it could well create other problems. Maybe so, but it also has a lot of merit, especially when it comes to protecting people. I would like to hear what you each have to say on the subject. (0930) [ English ] A/Commr Sandra Conlin : First of all, sir, I think the RCMP's SRR program is a very good program, which we fully support.

The Office of the Ethics Advisor is working very closely now with the SRR program. With regard to the reprisal issue and coming forward, I am the senior officer for the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. I also have the full commitment from Commissioner Elliott, and had the full commitment from Commissioner Busson as well, to be engaged in this and to ensure that any reprisals as a result of disclosure will be addressed immediately from my office. Mr.

John Spice : On the issue of a union, I agree with Assistant Commissioner Conlin regarding the relationship with the division staff relations representatives. The SRR program has worked very effectively over the years, since the early seventies. In fact, I was placed in the position of ethics advisor based upon a recommendation from the division staff relations national executive committee members. I don't know that a union per se would head off any of the issues we've been talking about here, quite frankly. I think it goes to the courage of conviction to do the right thing.

Whether you're in a union or a non-union area, you still require people to behave appropriately and to adhere to the values of the organization. [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest : Ms. Conlin, you said that the commissioner assured you that you would have all the authority necessary to ensure that matters and events reported to you would be brought to his attention and dealt with. Were specific ways of doing this suggested? When you say the commissioner, I assume that you mean the new commissioner. Has a new procedure been put in place so that your work can be truly effective? In his statement, Mr.

Spice said that his ability to act was very limited. He also mentioned that the Ethics Advisor's office is very prominently located and that people coming there for meetings can be easily recognized in the headquarters. If only for that one reason, is any thought going to be given to changing the situation? [ English ] A/Commr Sandra Conlin : With regard to your first point, sir, I would like to clarify. I have not been given any special powers. The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is the act we work under; however, we are working right now at revising some of our policies.

We are working with the public sector integrity commissioner's office as well as the SRR program, the RCMP legal services, and the professional standards and external review directorate. We are looking at our existing policies now to ensure that we meet the obligations of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and that we have the processes in place to deal with these matters in an efficient and effective manner. With regard to the movement of my office, sir, my office is still located where it was.

I don't think it is the location of the office that makes the difference; I think it is the feeling of trust the people have to come forward to the office. That's an issue of credibility; I don't think location is really the issue. (0935) [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest : So you are telling us for certain that nothing has changed. If policies and ways of doing things have not changed, does this mean that, for everyone working in the RCMP, changes will happen simply because the commissioner has changed? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : First, the act came into effect in 2007.

As you heard me say at the beginning of my remarks, the first thing I did was to staff my office. At present, we are studying all the policies. We are working with other government organizations to find out what their policies are and how we can ensure... You asked me if this was because we had a new commissioner. Well, when he talked to me, Mr. Elliott offered his complete support for the work I had to do, and so did the RCMP's senior executive committee. Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest : Thank you. The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Laforest. [ English ] Mr. Lake, you have eight minutes. Mr.

Mike Lake (Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, CPC) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to talk a little about moving forward here. As Mr. Laforest mentioned, the committee objective is to ultimately ensure that this doesn't happen again. In your opening statement, Ms. Conlin, you talked about working to address any gaps. Can you talk a little about the main gaps that you've identified through this process and about what you're doing to address them right now? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : The work is ongoing, sir.

I have been in the position for five months, and we are working with different policy centres as well as different organizations to ensure these gaps are addressed. If you recall, on April 25, former Commissioner Beverley Busson stated to this committee that we would have an outreach initiative. One of my main objectives over the last few months has been to ensure that we have an outreach initiative in place for dealing with concerns or complaints that have come forward, perhaps as a result of wrongdoings or even just concerns that people have.

This is one of the things that were put in place right after the April 25 committee meeting. Thirty-two people have brought concerns to our office, so I've been very busy working on that. We also provide ethics education as part of our mandate. We have been working very closely with the RCMP HR learning and development

section to ensure that the supervisory development course, the management development course, and the officer development course have an ethical component to them. We have a two-day ethical component. The supervisory development course was piloted about a year ago, and it is rolling out nationally as we speak. We have a management development course that was piloted in August of this year. As I said before, these are all ongoing projects. One of the other roles, which is very paramount, is the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. I now have someone in my office who has taken the lead on this.

We are working, as I said before, with different organizations like the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner's office, as well as Treasury Board and the different policy centres within the RCMP, to ensure that our policies reflect the laws and that the members feel they can come forward without fear of reprisal. These are the things I have been doing in the last five months. There's a lot that is ongoing, as you heard. We are looking forward to some of the recommendations as a result of Mr. Brown's task force. We know there is ongoing work to be done.

What we need to do now is look at where we are, where we need to be, and then put a strategic plan with initiatives in place to drive and implement those. I don't know exactly what they all are now, because it is ongoing, but these are the things I have done in the last five months since I've taken over. Thank you.

(0940) Mr. Mike Lake : Mr. Spice, do you want to add something to that? Mr. John Spice : Yes, thank you. I think it's important to recognize that what Assistant Commissioner Conlin is doing presently was being done by my office. The element that has to be there is being able to hold people accountable. That was not my role. I could call for an investigation or an administrative review under the internal disclosure on wrongdoing policies if things were not going as they should. And we did have occasion to do that.

But at the end of the day, the individual who has to hold people accountable is the commissioner of the organization. You require his support and acknowledgement of his role to ensure it's effective. I think that whether the office of ethics and integrity is effective is very much contingent upon the willingness of the commissioner to follow through with his or her-- Mr. Mike Lake : I think what you're saying is that you can make all the changes you want to the office and the role of the Integrity Commissioner, but ultimately if no one listens to what's said, it doesn't mean anything. Right? Mr.

John Spice : In short, yes. Mr. Mike Lake : I want to talk a bit about the culture and challenges of the RCMP and senior management and contrast that with where we are and where we're going. Could either of you particularly speak to where we are right now? What has changed to this point that gives you more impact in the roles you're in? Mr. John Spice : Understanding of course that I've been away for several years, I don't know what's going on. I could tell you what the culture was when I was there. I hope it has changed significantly, but I'll defer to Assistant Commissioner Conlin in that regard.

A/Commr Sandra Conlin : Sir, we have opportunities to learn from experiences. I take note of Mr. Brown and the findings in his report on culture. We are reviewing both our formal and informal systems to ensure that they're aligned to provide a culture based on ethical behaviour. I think it all goes to values. This is not just the work for one area, such as the ethics office; this involves many areas. It involves HR and learning and development. What we need to do is look at developing managers as role models of ethical behaviour in the organization.

We also need to be able to communicate the benefits of aligning our behaviour with the values of the organization. We also have to ensure that our managers respond quickly and effectively to the issues in front of them, because the front-line managers have the most influence over the people who work with them. We also need a culture in which we welcome issues and deal with them, as opposed to trying to push them up the chain. So right now we are looking at working with academia, and at working and seeing best practices. These things are what we're all looking at right now.

We don't have a plan in place yet; nothing has been decided at this point in time. We are exploring all avenues now, but these are the things we're looking at, in concert with different people.

(0945) Mr. Mike Lake : I have one final question. A lot of the language sounds like my old human resources classes in university. I want to put a practical application to this. The best way to do this is to say that if the same thing happened—if Mr. Lewis came forward with information about something similar to this, and Mr. Macaulay brought forward some information today—what would happen differently? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : Things would be dealt with, sir. Mr. Mike Lake : How so?

A/Commr Sandra Conlin : First, as Assistant Commissioner Spice (Retired) said, there is the will at the senior executive level to deal with the issues. I have the commitment that we are prepared as an organization to do so. We have learned from our experiences, and we are prepared to deal with the issues. I have full confidence that if those issues were to happen again and I went up to Commissioner Elliott, I would get the support from senior management that I require. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Lake. Mr. Christopherson, you have eight minutes. Mr.

David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP) : Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you both for your attendance this morning. Starting from the structure, help me understand how you currently deal, and previously dealt, with the issue of wrongdoing, for instance. Someone comes forward under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. Part of your responsibilities now, Assistant Commissioner, would be to provide advice to employees who are considering disclosing wrongdoing. Normally wrongdoing is not something that helps the organization in question; it's going to be negative.

As part of the senior ranks, you are ultimately answerable to the commissioner and officers above you, and their primary concern—beyond the public interest, of course—is always the interests of the institution of the RCMP, and rightly so. But somebody coming forward has interests in exactly the opposite direction, and you might be asked to give advice. How do you deal with the potential conflict of advising an individual on what the steps are for disclosing potential wrongdoing, which could do harm, and your line responsibility back to the commissioner to protect the RCMP?

A/Commr Sandra Conlin : I don't believe my role is to protect the RCMP. My role is to bring forth issues and wrongdoings that are brought to my attention. I'm not here for the organization; I'm here to make sure behaviour is ethical and that we do the right thing. That's my role in this job. Perhaps sometimes the news I bring is not the news that people want to hear, but this is the role that I have to play. I have to bring that, because if I don't, who will? Mr. David Christopherson : Mr. Spice. Mr. John Spice : Well, I agree with Sandra.

Certainly the role of the ethics advisor is not to protect the organization; it's to ensure that, at the end of the day, we do the right thing. Now, whether or not it was the internal disclosure on wrongdoing policy or the present act—and I haven't read the present act—I can only presume that it's not terribly dissimilar from what I was working with as a policy. But if somebody came forward with an issue, it was my role to take it, before it went outside the organization, to the Public Service Integrity Office.

My role was to ensure that we had done everything we possibly could have internally, with the structure and mechanisms in place to deal with the complaint. Following those best efforts, if I was unable to advise the individual who had come to me with the complaint that something was being done, then I encouraged them in fact to go to the Public Service Integrity Office. So there was never a protectionist view, from my perspective. I was there to do the right thing at all costs, notwithstanding friendships and other things. Mr. David Christopherson : Thank you.

My concern would be that we would have to rely on the integrity of the individual in the position. Structurally, it still gives me some concern that somebody may come forward and ask for advice on how to do this without blowing their career, or for advice on all the things you would ask. Meanwhile, in the back of the assistant commissioner's mind, they're still thinking of the accountability I have to the commissioner.

It just seems to me that the whole structural thing, where you're part of the command mechanism, doesn't necessarily lend itself to giving people the best advice vis-à-vis actions that might hurt the organization. I don't have a lot of time, so can you incorporate your answer into that, if you don't mind? I want to come back to the issue of what would be different. Mr. Lake asked the question I was looking at. Assistant Commissioner, I appreciate and respect your answer, but I didn't hear a lot of meat. I didn't hear of steps. What I'd really like to hear, which I think is what Mr. Lake was seeking, is this.

If this unfolded the same way—and we all know the story now, but with things being different in your office—what steps would there now be, different from what they were in the past, that might prevent us from getting to this point in time?

(0950) A/Commr Sandra Conlin : Well, I think the policies are basically very similar. Really, the person would come to my office and they would make a disclosure. I would work with the SRRs, or in concert with the SRRs. We would bring it up to the level we needed to bring it up to. The difference here is that I have the confidence that the senior executive and the Commissioner of the RCMP are prepared to act on any information that I bring forward. Mr. David Christopherson : I appreciate that. A/Commr Sandra Conlin : That is really the difference. With regards to policies, the policies are very clear.

But as I said earlier, we are working now with the different offices--the Public Service Integrity Commissioner's office, Treasury Board, professional standards, and all those areas--to look at whether our policy is meeting the needs today. If it isn't, we need to change it. But as I said before, sir, these are some of the things that are ongoing. To say that the policy is written and changed to date, I can't say that. But all those avenues are being explored right now, as we speak. Mr. David Christopherson : Mr. Spice. Mr.

John Spice : You talked about the integrity of the individual, and that's really what it comes down to. You can have policies, you can have legislation, you can have any number of guidelines in place to deal with these sorts of issues, but without people with the integrity to ultimately take those forward to deal with the issue, you can't guarantee this wouldn't happen again. It's very much personnel-centric, if you will. Mr. David Christopherson : I appreciate that and understand that we can't change everything overnight.

But part of the goal here is to structurally change things so we can minimize the possibility that we'll end up in a fiasco like we're in now. I'm disappointed, Assistant Commissioner, with respect, that I'm not hearing anything concrete. Saying that you have the support of the commissioner.... I've got to tell you, if you sat in my seat and heard all the people who swore under oath that they were full of integrity and everything was appropriate, and if you asked their kids, they'd say they were people with great integrity...but that wasn't the issue.

The fact of the matter is that the system failed the officers of the RCMP just as much as the individuals did. It's our job to try to shore up the structural part, and I'm just not hearing that. On the incident case now, I want to ask you one more time to please, very clearly, give me something concrete. Don't just tell me that everybody's concerned. I've heard that many times. We had Chief Superintendent Macaulay, Staff Sergeant Frizzell, and Denise Revine. These people were royally shafted.

If they came to your office, or if this issue came up during your time, what would be different in terms of protecting these three RCMP employees--Canadian citizens to boot--to prevent them from facing the same sort of turmoil they have? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : I think Assistant Commissioner Spice said it very eloquently: it is all about the leadership at the top. It is the integrity of the people who are there. I can't tell you today that the policies have changed; they haven't. But we are reviewing them right now. I realize that is probably not the answer you would like; however, this is an ongoing process.

We are looking now at the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which came into effect in April 2007, with the reprisal mechanism. We are working with the different areas to ensure that our policies are going to be reflective and that these types of issues get the attention they require. As I said, it's the integrity of the people who are in the office, and that's paramount to it.

(0955) Mr. John Spice : When I was here in May, I indicated that I believed there was a need for an ombudsperson role to deal specifically with these sorts of situations. You can't have individuals going forward presuming that they're going to be heard when nothing is being done, careers are being ruined, and so forth, because people always allow their egos to get in the way. Yes, if we have altruistic people in positions, if their integrity is never in question and something is going to be done, that's great.

The ethics office is critical to the organization, but I believe there is a need for an ombudsperson, or whatever moniker you want to give it. There's a necessity to have something outside to oversee those decisions and ensure that everything is as it should be. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Christopherson. Before we go to Ms. Jennings, I have a question I want to follow up on from the last answer, Mr. Spice--and to you, Assistant Commissioner Conlin. You answered a number of questions by saying it depends on the integrity of the people in the office.

You people have obviously been following this sequence of events over the last six or eight months. We had an ethics officer. The evidence was, Mr. Spice, that they came to you. You didn't have much in the way of resources or capacity, and there wasn't much done. That was reflected in Mr. Brown's report: The Ethics Advisor had no established role, very limited resources to support the function and no regional presence. Further, the high turnover rate--six individuals in six years--further limited the confidence members could develop in the person of the Ethics Advisor.

I want to get a comment from you on the structure of the organization. I disagree with Assistant Commissioner Conlin about the integrity of the people. There may be integrity now, but you have to have a system that protects the system. There has to be governance and a challenge function. The basic establishment of the RCMP is paramilitary or command and control--whatever you want to call it. It's probably fair to say that it has worked over the years, but when things go wrong they go very wrong, and there's nothing to bring the train back onto the rails. That's what we've seen here.

I really disagree that it depends on the integrity of the individuals. There has to be an organizational structure so that when things veer off, there's a self-correcting system and they veer back onto the road. We haven't seen that here. Certainly there's a lot of power in the position of the commissioner, and when things go wrong they go very wrong. Have you watched this, Mr. Spice, retired assistant commissioner, over the last six months? Do you have any comments as to how the organization could be better structured so this will never happen again? As Mr.

Lake pointed out, I think that is the objective of everyone in this room. Mr. John Spice : Frankly, Mr. Chair, I haven't been watching it perhaps to the extent that I ought to have been. It's not that you aren't doing great work; it's just that I've had other things on my plate. As I said earlier to Mr. Christopherson, I believe that the role of the ethics advisor within the RCMP is a critical one and it should remain a high-profile position. I forget what you called it, Mr. Christopherson, but it's an advisory position; it's not part of the hierarchy of the SEC.

You're there as an advisor to the SEC and not as part of the decision-making process. Having said that, I'd only be regurgitating what I've indicated. I agree with you; there have to be checks and balances. There has to be some structure apart from the force in those rare cases. Hopefully, they'll be like the Maytag repairman. In the instances when there has to be some scrutiny, you need a body to do that. You can't continually come back to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, for example, to deal with these issues. Those are my comments.

(1000) The Chair : Do you have any comment, Assistant Commissioner Conlin? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : One of the roles of the ethics advisor is to also perform that challenge function. That is one of the roles, and it was there when the retired assistant commissioner, John Spice, was there as well. My role is to challenge, to play that challenge function with the commissioner as well as with the senior executive committee. But you're right; my role is an advisory role. The Chair : Before I leave, you say that it was there when Assistant Commissioner Spice was there.

But it didn't work when Assistant Commissioner Spice was in his office. These people went to Assistant Commissioner Spice. Ms. Revine went there. Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay went there. The system was totally dysfunctional. On your answer to the questions on the integrity of the people involved, that is not going to work unless there is some systemic overhaul of the system, and I don't see that. I don't want to be confrontational, but from your evidence, you're saying that it depends on the integrity of the people involved and that we like the commissioner now.

That's all very well, but if a governance structure is not correct--and I don't see anything in your office or any changes that would give me confidence that this is coming--then I think there's a possibility, and I do hope that it's not the case, that we could be back here in two years with a very similar situation. A/Commr Sandra Conlin : If I may say so, sir, we are also looking at the different models and structures. This is some of the ongoing work. I realize that I'm repeating myself when I say that this is all ongoing, but as a result of Mr.

Brown's report, these are some of the things the organization is looking at. The organization is looking at how we are structured. What is the governance? For me to say that we have this structure all down pat would be premature. This is an ongoing work in progress, but these are all things we are looking at with the SRRs. We are researching the position of an ombudsperson. These are all things that are open to us, sir. We haven't closed the door on any possibilities, but right now they are in the research stage. We are working with a myriad of people inside and outside the organization to look at these things.

I know I'm repeating myself when I say that we don't have anything down pat yet, but we are looking at this. These are the possibilities we have. It's too premature for me to say which model we will adopt at the end of the day, but it will be done in consultation with the SRRs and the employees. It will be done. The Chair : Thank you very much. We'll go to Ms. Jennings for eight minutes. Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.) : Eight minutes? Why, thank you, Chair. I like this committee. The Chair : First of all, I'll welcome you back, Ms. Jennings. Ms.

Jennings was a member of this committee in, I think, the 37th Parliament. We certainly enjoyed having her. We welcome you back, Ms. Jennings. Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC) : Welcome back, Ms. Jennings. Hon. Marlene Jennings : Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you both for your presentations and your open and frank responses to all of the questions that have been asked of you. One thing that has become clear from your testimony is that the role of the ethics advisor is precisely that: an advisor.

You have no authority to actually implement or to force implementation of decisions that you believe are the proper ones, procedures that you believe should be carried out and followed, etc. Mr. Spice, given your experience, I assume you are familiar with oversight bodies and systems that exist in other jurisdictions here in Canada as well as in other countries. There is the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement here in Canada, which regroups members of civilian oversight bodies.

One of the primary goals of that association is to convince governments to create independent civilian oversight bodies with actual legislative power. We have that in Quebec. We have had that in Quebec since 1990. I was the deputy commissioner for police ethics for the province of Quebec.

Under that legislation there is a code of ethics, which is in the legislation itself, that applies to all members of police services in Quebec who come under provincial jurisdiction, including special constables, and any person, including a police officer or a civilian working for the police or a member of the public, can bring a complaint to the police ethics commissioner if they believe there have been possible violations of the code of ethics. That covers a wide variety. It could be excessive force, it could be abuse of power, it could be nepotism, you name it. Everything is pretty much covered.

The commissioner has exclusive jurisdiction to investigate that and has the powers to actually go into police stations to get all of the documentation necessary, to require the cooperation of the members of the police force, civilian and police, and if, upon investigation, the commissioner believes there is sufficient evidence that there have been violations of the code, to cite the individuals concerned and bring them before an independent police ethics tribunal. That system has existed in Quebec for 17 years. It celebrated its 17th anniversary on September 1 of this year.

In British Columbia they also have a system of investigating complaints against the police. Those complaints could be from members of the public, from fellow police officers, or from civilians working for the police. It's clear from your own testimony when both of you have repeatedly stated that it's the integrity of the individuals—I think the chair pointed that out. That's all very well and good, but at some point there needs to be some oversight mechanism with real teeth.

If, God forbid, the RCMP finds itself again in a position where you have members of that force who are not necessarily people of integrity or who do not have the courage to withstand pressure that's being brought to bear possibly by superiors and therefore are in fact committing acts of conduct that are not acceptable, there needs to be some kind of mechanism outside that has the teeth in order to go in and determine that, so that two years from now it will not be in front of the public accounts committee. Mr. Spice, you talked about a possible ombudsman.

The problem with an ombudsman, as you know, is that the role itself has only the power of recommendation. It does not have the power to actually impose either sanctions or policy changes, etc. I would ask what your view is about a possible recommendation from this committee that the RCMP be actually significantly reformed so that there is the creation of a civilian oversight mechanism with authority.

(1005) I'm just going to end by saying that Mr. Paul E. Kennedy, who's the chair of the public complaints commission of the RCMP, has publicly stated that his commission does not have the teeth to provide a real independent oversight mechanism of the RCMP. Mr. John Spice : Thank you. I was wondering whether or not there was a question anywhere in there, but I'm pleased that you finally got to one. Hon. Marlene Jennings : I'm noted for my own soliloquies, but I usually do manage to end it with an actual question. Mr. John Spice : And it was very informative. Thank you.

I certainly have no role to play in this, but I agree totally as far as the ombudsperson and the whole notion of making recommendations and so forth is concerned. When I was here in May, one of the recommendations that I made to this committee was to re-examine, reopen the RCMP Act. I do believe a variety of things can be done by reopening the RCMP Act. Monsieur Laforest, you spoke about the limitation of action. You indicated it was decreasing. My recommendation was to increase the limitation of action. We're worse off if we decrease it.

But yes, I agree with you that something ought to come from this group, and reopening the RCMP Act and making amendments to it would fit in that vein. That would be an excellent idea. Hon. Marlene Jennings : Thank you. A/Commr Sandra Conlin : Madam, I'd like to inform you that we spent two days...Inspector Barb Hayduck, from my office. As I said to you before, we are researching all options to look at a model that could work for us. The last two days of last week were spent with la Sûreté du Québec and le Service de police de la Ville de Montréal exactly examining the systems they have and the roles they play.

So it is one of the areas we did go to and we are researching them. (1010) [ Translation ] Hon.

Marlene Jennings : At that point, I advise you not to simply stop at meetings with the Sûreté du Québec and the Montreal Police Service, but also to meet with the Quebec Police Ethics Commissioner, the Public Complaints Commissioner in British Columbia and the director of the Special Investigations Unit, [ English ] the Special Investigations Unit of Ontario, go and meet with the actual people who have the authority to implement legislative dispositions concerning alleged misconduct and ethical lapses on the part of members of police services across Canada.

A/Commr Sandra Conlin : That was just our first stop, madam, in many of our areas that we will be researching, and it came to light when we did speak to la Sûreté de Québec and le Service de police de la Ville de Montréal. As a result, those are some of the areas we are further investigating. Thank you. The Chair : Thank you, Ms. Jennings. Mr. Fitzpatrick, eight minutes. Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm going to follow up on the theme that seems to be emerging here. I'm a firm believer that if there's a failure in an organization, it's a failure of the system. Dr.

Deming, who in the world of private management is probably viewed as the equivalent to Einstein in science, was a firm believer that if you're getting bad results out of an organization, it's defects in the system, and you've got to change the system if you want to get better results. It was his view that good people stuck in a bad system, no matter what they do, are helpless to get the system changed and get the results done. In this episode I think we see many examples of bad results and failures of the system. When I look at Mr.

Brown's report--and I've read the report three times--I think he's going at it the right way. He looks at the issues in the system, and he's looking at systemic changes so that these problems will not occur in the future. It's not based on just changing people in the system; it's changes.... I'm referring to

chapter 8, “Rebuilding the Trust”, and a task force dedicated to dealing with these systemic problems. One of his main points for the task force is “ensuring that the RCMP's workplace disclosure policy is appropriate and that mechanisms are in place with adequate resources to ensure protection from reprisal and a commitment to clear and decisive corrective measures”. It seems to me that we're on the path to making good systemic changes to the RCMP. I think everybody on this committee understands that it's the system that has to be dealt with. Knowing Dr.

Deming as I do, I think you're not going to get good systemic changes without really good, strong leadership at the top who are dedicated to bringing those changes on. I would like to ask Assistant Commissioner Conlin whether she believes Commissioner Elliott is up to the job. A/Commr Sandra Conlin : I firmly believe Commissioner Elliott is up to the job. He has my full support and he has the full support of the senior executive committee. Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick : I think a good solid task force has been set up to deal with these issues and make specific proposals for systemic change. Mr.

Spice, I think you have some good ideas in this area. Are you willing to maybe make submissions to this task force, providing some of your input on how the Office of the Ethics Advisor could better function within this paramilitary organization?

(1015) Mr. John Spice : Would I be willing to? Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick : Yes. Mr. John Spice : I have not yet been asked, so I suppose it's moot. If I'm asked, I'll certainly be willing to speak to them. Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick : Those are all the questions I have. But I do reiterate that when I read the Brown report, I think the emphasis is on systemic change. There are problems in the culture and the governance of this organization, and they're well on the road to getting at the defects in that structure and addressing them.

I think that's the news we want to hear, because everybody in this country, whether front line, RCMP, or the public at large, wants to know that they can trust their national police force and that it's doing the job and the mandate we expect of it. I think we're on the right track with where we're heading. That would be the extent of my comments on the matter. Mr. Sweet? Mr. David Sweet : Assistant Commissioner Conlin, it sounds to me as though the task force is going to be reporting in December 2007.

That's going to be the ultimate benchmark on decision-making in terms of what kind of governance modification is going to have to happen, not only in the ethics advisor's office but also in a number of other situations, in order to have some accountability. I think your term was “accountability with teeth”, or something to that degree, or “real accountability”. Are you planning on making a submission to the task force yourself?

You've been in the position now for five months, so you're going to have a good idea of the capacity you need to build, because you said one of the things you're doing is capacity-building. First, are you going to be making a submission? Second, can you enlighten us on some things you'd be submitting that you feel the office requires in order for it to be effective and have accountability with teeth? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : Well, I have had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Brown, and what I've done is this. As I said to you before, what we need to look at as well is where we need to be.

Until just recently, I needed to build capacity. What I need to look at now, based on the issues that Mr. Brown's report will bring out as well as internal issues within the RCMP, things I see that we may have to change, is alternatives. That's why all this research is being done by the people on my staff; we're looking at alternatives. We're looking at how our office can effectively perform the duties it needs to do. We are looking, for example, at re-establishing an ethics council. These are all things that are put on the table. We need to consult also with the employees of the organization.

We need to consult at all levels to see what the requirements of an ethics office are for the front-line members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. What do they expect from our office? Then once we have those inputs, we need to know how we are going to deliver the requirements and what financial or human resources we are going to need to be able to attain those goals. We have put forward some initiatives. For example, there is the ethics education, which is the big piece. That is a big piece, where we start from Depot right through to senior management.

So those are the things we are enhancing and continuing as we speak. The outreach initiative that I spoke of earlier, which former Commissioner Beverley Busson put in place, is something we're dealing with on an ongoing basis with people who are coming in--their concerns and how we're dealing with them. Mr. David Sweet : Maybe I should stop you right there. I really wanted to try to get something specific from you that you're going to direct to the task force, but it doesn't look like I'm getting there. Let me ask you this question.

This outreach initiative has been going on for just a couple of months, is that correct? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : Yes. Mr. David Sweet : So it looks as if there was a logjam and it kind of burst forward, because people are now feeling comfortable. So there is some credibility in what you say, that there is a trust rebuilding in the organization. Thirty-two people have come forward. I think that's a huge capacity. Would that be correct, Mr. Spice? You wouldn't get those kinds of complaints within two months on a regular basis, would you--32 individuals? Mr.

John Spice : Actually, when I began my tenure as the ethics advisor, we kept numbers, and yes, I think that would indicate that the trust is rebuilding, if that's your question. Mr. David Sweet : Good.

(1020) The Chair : One little question. Mr. David Sweet : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess what I'm looking for is this. Specifically, you've had five months, and you've now had 32 people come into your office. Number one, have you got more staff to handle this surge? Number two, what do you specifically plan to say from your own experience? Will you say, listen, this task force has to do this or I cannot fulfill my responsibilities? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : First of all, let me clarify. I am not directing Mr. Brown's task force. I want to clarify that, please.

In terms of receiving staff, I have seven people now in my office. I have someone dealing with the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, who is the lead. I have two people on the outreach initiative at this time. I have one inspector who is now leading that research piece that I spoke about, in partnership with other areas, to look at alternative models, to look at the way we conduct our business and what we need to do to be an effective ethics office for the RCMP. Right now we have a staff of seven.

We will come forth when we have our plan in place, and we will come forth with a business case to the RCMP senior executive committee to get approval for the plan and also to get the human and financial resources that are going to be required. But for me to say right now what exactly I'm going to need in my office six months from now.... This is ongoing. Our office may look totally different three months from now, so what I need to do is ensure that we are looking at all the alternatives, get a plan in place, and then staff it and get going and doing the things we need to do. The Chair : Thank you, Mr.

Sweet and Assistant Commissioner Conlin. Now, colleagues, we're going to start round two. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, four minutes. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : On a point of clarification, Mr. Spice, you said that an officer basically contradicted what Mr. Giuliano Zaccardelli had said before this committee, that he absolutely did not call for a criminal investigation. I wasn't able to quickly write down the name. Could I get the exact name, rank, and where this officer worked? Mr. John Spice : I gave you two names. Which one do you want? Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : I wrote down “Denis”, and I didn't get-- Mr.

John Spice : Superintendent Constant, at the time, was the executive officer for Commissioner Zaccardelli. I know that he wasn't privy to the conversation with Staff Sergeant Lewis and the commissioner. You can contact him through headquarters. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : That's why I needed the details. Thank you. Mr. John Spice : I think I'd also be looking to A Division, to Superintendent Wayne Watson. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : I got that name, yes. Mr. John Spice : Okay, good. Great. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Thank you. Ms.

Conlin, you said that things today would be dealt with, and you mentioned SEC, the senior executive committee. How many members are there on SEC? Those are chief superintendents, assistant commissioners--no? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : No, they are the commissioner, the deputy commissioners from the regions, the ethics advisor, as well as members from legal services and internal audit. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Would assistant commissioners be on there as well? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : No, sir. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : No, so it's just the commissioner, deputy commissioner.... Okay.

Regarding the internal audit that was taking place, we've heard that the auditor had said he'd never seen so many red flags. He should have stopped the audit, and a criminal investigation should have begun. That did not happen. The audit was presented that fall to SEC. By the way, Mr. Aiken, the auditor, reported to Mr. Gauvin, who was the comptroller, after all, a deputy commissioner. What's interesting is that we've heard in testimony here that a former assistant commissioner, Gordon Clark, has indicated that Mr.

Gauvin had a file of all of the inappropriate requests that the former Commissioner Zaccardelli had made. Former Assistant Commissioner Gordon Clark has indicated he'd be willing to testify before this committee. Mr. Zaccardelli claimed no recollection of that meeting and discussion of that particular issue. Mr. Gauvin is Mr. Aiken's superior. I would assume Mr. Aiken would have gone to Mr. Gauvin. The audit did not stop. It was concluded. The audit results came forward before SEC. You have all the top officials within the RCMP on the senior executive committee. What happened?

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

(1025) Mr. John Spice : If I may say so, it was not the full SEC committee that received that audit report. Quite frankly, I'm not sure who sits on the audit committee--perhaps you can tell me--but it's not a full SEC meeting. So the report, as far as I know--and I could be wrong--did not necessarily go to the entire SEC group, but it did go to the audit committee. The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. Mr. Poilievre, you have four minutes. [ Translation ] Mr.

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

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

For example, do you have any comments on the way this is going to change the process? [ English ] A/Commr Sandra Conlin : The RCMP has had policy on internal disclosure since approximately 2002 with regard to the way we handle internal disclosures for wrongdoing. The law that was brought out was the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, with some obligations for us with regard to the nomination of its chief executive, which we did. Deputy Commissioner Tim Killam is our chief executive for the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and I was nominated as the senior official for that act.

We also have some obligations with regard to ensuring that we have the policies in place that look at the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and the RCMP Act and how they interact-- Mr. Pierre Poilievre : I'm sorry, I don't have very much time. Those things, frankly, don't interest me a whole lot. What interests me is where whistle-blowers can go when they have a disclosure of wrongdoing and they're not satisfied with any of the people you've just mentioned because those people are part of the RCMP.

And what I wanted to point out is that under the Federal Accountability Act they now can go to the Public Service Integrity Commissioner, who is an officer of Parliament.

(1030) A/Commr Sandra Conlin : Yes. We have-- Mr. Pierre Poilievre : I don't know why you haven't spoken of that, because that is far more important than any of these very small things you're mentioning now. A/Commr Sandra Conlin : A communiqué went out to all employees of the RCMP when the act was put into force in April, advising all employees that they have three areas to which they can go under the act. Number one is their supervisor; number two is the senior officer; and as well, they can go to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner's office.

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

But we already had policy in 2002 with regard to whistle-blower protection and with the reprisal as well. What we need to do now is ensure that it meets all the legal requirements in how it interacts with the RCMP Act. The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Poilievre. Thank you, Assistant Commissioner Conlin. Monsieur Laforest. [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to share my time with Mr. Lussier. Ms. Conlin, since the meeting started, it seems to me that there has been a lot of talk about changes in structure. Mr. Fitzpatrick already mentioned systemic changes. So did Mr.

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

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

I do not want to deal with a specific case, but I table the document to demonstrate that people feel that there is laxity. Even if the RCMP senior executive committee and the commissioner want to change this and other situations, similar things are going to keep happening if systemic changes and major revisions to structures and policies are not made. We are talking about RCMP officers, after all. This involves someone in Trois-Rivières, in my area. I think the situation is inappropriate. I give the floor to Mr. Lussier. Mr. Marcel Lussier (Brossard—La Prairie, BQ) : Thank you, Mr. Laforest. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Conlin, the Brown report mentions that there is too much turnover. It says that there have been six people in six years. You say that you have been in your position as commissioner for five months. Do you think that you will be doing the job for a short time, or a long time? (1035) [ English ] A/Commr Sandra Conlin : First of all, let me clarify that the Brown report states that there have been six ethics advisors in six years. That is incorrect. The Office of the Ethics Advisor was established in 1997. I am the fifth ethics advisor, and I hope to be here for a long time. [ Translation ] Mr.

Marcel Lussier : Thank you. Now I would like to talk about representation or regional presence. How are you going to design your structure to resolve regional questions? Are all regional complaints forwarded to your office, and, if so, by what process? [ English ] A/Commr Sandra Conlin : It's a very good question. It's one of the areas we're looking at.

We're looking at perhaps putting through regional or divisional ethics counsellors to assist us in this capacity to ensure there is a consistent message and to ensure that the members have someone they can trust and who is credible to deal with some of their issues. This is one of the many options we are looking at to deal with these issues. [ Translation ] The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Lussier. [ English ] Mr. Williams, for four minutes. Mr. John Williams (Edmonton—St. Albert, CPC) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to be back here during the summertime. Welcome, all. Ms.

Conlin, you mentioned in your opening report that the mandate of the RCMP's Office of the Ethics Advisor is to ensure that the organization's shared mission, vision, and values become ingrained in the day-to-day activities of all employees. We've been sitting here for a number of months. Mr. Spice, you said that when you were the ethics advisor people had to check that there was nobody else in the hall as they snuck into your office so that they wouldn't be seen going in. Therefore, this notion that the ethics advisor is an integral part of the institution of the RCMP does not seem to be totally accepted by all.

We also had Chief Superintendent Macaulay tell us that he was told he was on an island of his own. Commissioner Zaccardelli was telling us how wonderful a job Chief Superintendent Macaulay was doing--so good a job, Mr. Chairman, that he sent him over to DND for a couple of years, which was the doghouse, really. And Assistant Commissioner Rogerson ended up reporting to a staff sergeant because he wanted to blow the whistle. The ethics of the organization, as we have heard here, are unfortunately quite low at the upper echelon. We don't know about down below.

As far as we can tell, down below in the ranks of the RCMP, they are just as astounded as we are at what's been going on at the top. But I want to know that you are able to walk into the commissioner's office--because he's senior to you--and say, Mr. Commissioner, you can't do that; you can't discipline a guy for blowing the whistle; you can't send somebody down to the doghouse or on an assignment out of the country or over to DND for a couple of years because you don't like to hear what he has to say. How are you going to address this from an ethics point of view?

As you stated in your opening statement, your mandate for the entire organization, from the commissioner down, is to ensure that ethics and service are number one and that honesty and integrity are there in the ways the organization is doing things. We've had far too many examples over these last few months at this committee of people at the senior level who have paid lip service or no service to ethics and probity in the institution. How are you going to turn it around?

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

(1040) Mr. John Williams : But they haven't. A/Commr Sandra Conlin : What we've failed to do, sir, is.... We had the mission, visions, and values that were put together by about 4,000 employees from all ranks of this organization. I think the mission, visions, and values of our organization are very sound. But what we didn't do is make them operational. What we didn't do is live the mission, visions, and values. And I think that's the challenge we have now, to ensure that ethical behaviour is rewarded and unethical behaviour is made accountable. I think that is key to changing an organization.

If we have the mission and these visions and values on the wall, but that's all they are, the piece of paper on the wall, and our managers or our employees are behaving contrary to those values, action has to be taken. That is what I meant in my opening statements. We have to look at the formal and the informal and make sure they're aligned and make sure that the rewards are there for ethical behaviour. Just to reiterate, it is not only my duty; it is everybody's duty. But I am really the steward of it, and so I have to ensure this.

As to whether I can go into the commissioner's officer and say there are unethical issues happening, I haven't had to do it in the last five months that I've been there, but if I do have to do it, I will do it. The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. Thank you, Assistant Commissioner Conlin. Mr. Christopherson, four minutes, please. Mr. David Christopherson : Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on Mr. Williams' question, we've got to get past the words and get to some concrete things at some point. You said action needs to be taken if somebody acts unethically. Like what?

What do you see in the future that's not happening now? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : Let's go to the lowest level: a manager in a detachment or a detachment commander who sees people being demeaned, people being bullied. They need to act on that right away. When I talk about action, I'm not necessarily talking about the formal discipline. That's down the road. What we need is people dealing with it at the first instance, people dealing with it and being able to talk and say that that behaviour is not acceptable in our organization, that it is against our core values. That's where we have to go.

It has to be at the lowest level, because those are the people who are interacting with everyone every day. Mr. David Christopherson : How are you going to do that? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : Ethics education is one, and holding managers accountable through performance agreements is another. If I am a manager and one of my people is not behaving or is allowing issues to happen, I have to step up to the plate and hold the person accountable. I can't do all of this, sir. As I said before, this is not just my sole responsibility.

I need to get the wheels in motion to ensure that this whole ethical piece is part of everybody's daily way of doing business. It's not going to change overnight. This is going to take a multi-year plan. It's going to take quite a few years to get an organization's culture changed, but at the end of the day we have to make a start, and we're prepared to start now. That is why we're looking at alternative models. There are no holds barred right now. We're looking at a different way of delivering the service to ensure that the front line meets the needs. Mr. David Christopherson : Mr.

Spice, it looks as if you have some thoughts on your mind on this. I appreciate your comments, but I have to tell you I'm still not really hearing what I had hoped, namely that at this stage of the process there would be a little more traction around these things as opposed to just flowery language. I mean, we can do that. We're looking for real change. Mr. Spice. Mr. John Spice : Take, for example, the manager or the detachment commander who observes bad behaviour. If he or she does nothing to curb that behaviour, then we will continue to have the behavioural problems that can exist in an organization.

I've often said that when we hold people accountable--i.e., leave a couple swinging in the trees as you leave town--that message gets out there. I don't know that we can legislate or cause people to change their views, but we can certainly expect that they change their behaviour, whether it's in Nipawin, Saskatchewan, or Flin Flon, Manitoba, or Tuktoyaktuk. The behaviour of RCMP personnel, public servants, civilian members, and regular members has to be congruent with the values of the organization. We have to hold people accountable, and people have to see people being held accountable.

And it has to be appropriate accountability, because if it isn't, they'll continue to behave badly. That's the bottom line. Mr. David Christopherson : It would help if they saw the ethics at the top too. We can deal with the local managers, but if they look up and don't see ethical behaviour, it's not going to be there on the front line, and that's where it has to be. Mr. John Spice : Absolutely. And they'll model the behaviour that they see at the top. Mr. David Christopherson : Exactly. Thank you. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Christopherson. Thank you, retired Assistant Commissioner Spice. Mr.

McGuinty, four minutes. Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) : Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for coming today. I'd like to really home in on what I describe as the most shocking part of this report. Mr. Brown has concluded that we cannot have faith in the Ottawa Police Service investigation. He declares and states very clearly on pages 20 through 22 that Commissioner Zaccardelli was forced to go ahead with respect to a criminal investigation. Then we find out, as you know, in the testimony that was given in May, that the OPS investigation, according to Mr. Brown, was not independent.

We find out it was staffed almost entirely by members of the RCMP. The RCMP provided the office space for the investigation in one of its own buildings, hardly the appearance of transparency and objectivity and arm's length. Third, the A Division file number for the project was the same number used for the original investigative file to open as a result of Staff Sergeant Lewis' complaint, and it goes on and on from there. It reminds me of, just to paraphrase a Shakespearian quote, peace officer, investigate thyself. What is going on with the OPP investigation now?

Is there an investigation pursuant to this report? Has your office, Ms. Conlin, been involved in any way in this investigation? What is your view, Mr. Spice, given now that you have all this retrospective opportunity to look back? Should Canadians be as concerned as Mr. Brown is about the criminality of what may or may not have gone on inside the RCMP?

(1045) A/Commr Sandra Conlin : First of all, to answer your first question, our office is not involved in any of this. Secondly, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any ongoing investigation. Mr. David McGuinty : Is there an investigation? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : I believe Mr. Brown has asked that the RCMP contact the OPP. I believe that has happened, but it is not in my area of expertise, so therefore I'm not sure whether it has happened. You should perhaps direct that question tomorrow to Commissioner Elliott, sir. Mr.

David McGuinty : So as the ethics advisor you have no knowledge of a potential or ongoing investigation right now by the OPP? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : No, I'm not aware, sir. Mr. David McGuinty : Would you normally be advised of such an investigation? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : No, I wouldn't, sir. Mr. David McGuinty : Would you normally be consulted in such an investigation? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : No, I wouldn't, sir. Mr. David McGuinty : Why not? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : Really, it's not my.... My role is an advisory role. Once an investigation is ongoing, our office is not involved in the investigation at all. Mr.

David McGuinty : Mr. Spice? Mr. John Spice : Is your question whether they should be advised, in the ethics office, that there is an ongoing investigation? Mr. David McGuinty : No, my question is, do you agree with the conclusion of Mr. Brown that the OPS investigation was not independent? Mr. John Spice : Not having read the report, and not being part of that investigation—it occurred after I had left the organization—but from speaking to individuals who were involved in it.... There are differing views, quite frankly. Mr. David McGuinty : What's your view? Mr.

John Spice : I think it probably could have gone further. Mr. David McGuinty : Do you think the OPP should be investigating the RCMP right now? Mr. John Spice : I don't know. If the point of the matter is to further the investigation that was conducted by the Ottawa Police Service and staffed by numerous members of the RCMP, I think the optics of it certainly are that it could have been done differently. Should it be reinvestigated? I don't know. I don't know whether or not the investigation was sufficient. I wasn't involved in it, so I can't proffer an opinion. Mr. David McGuinty : Mr.

Brown asserts in his report that there should not be a commission of inquiry, but then goes on to state there's a massive elephant in the room, recommending: The OPP should review the OPS criminal investigation files and assess the adequacy of the OPS investigation with a view to determining whether a new criminal investigation is warranted. I practised criminal law for a while; this is pretty serious business. Does anybody in that office now, Ms. Conlin...? Have you been asking nobody at all? I find this astonishing. This is, I think, the number one recommendation that Mr. Brown is making.

And you've not been consulted? And Mr. Spice, retrospectively, looking back, you don't agree? You disagree? Mr. John Spice : What you're asking us is whether or not we agree with the recommendations of Mr. Brown? Mr. David McGuinty : Yes. Mr. John Spice : From what you've read—and I haven't read the report, nor do I have any inclination to do so, because I'm no longer part of the organization—do I think they should take a second look at it? Yes, I do. Mr. David McGuinty : Thank you. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. McGuinty. The last person is Mr. Lake.

(1050) Mr. Mike Lake : I want to talk a little about some of the words we've heard today. There are a few words I have some questions about. I guess I'm a bit concerned in the sense that earlier you talked about things such as the confidence of the RCMP rank and file officers and the will of leadership. Those are rather subjective and fairly intangible. It seems that a lot of what you're talking about is dependent on the character of the commissioner. I think Mr. Christopherson was talking about that a little earlier.

But the question is still that when you have a great commissioner who does everything right, none of these things is an issue; what we're dealing with is what you do when you're not in that situation. I don't think that what I've heard today answers how we're addressing those issues. What do we do when there's something wrong? You talked a little bit—and the first time I thought you misspoke, but you talked twice and used the phrase—about outreach initiatives to deal with people who bring forward concerns. That struck me as a bit of an oxymoron.

People who bring forward concerns are outreaching to you; that's not outreach on your part. I'm interested in what you're doing. When you do outreach and are talking to rank and file officers, what are you telling them to do when they're concerned about an issue? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : Well, let me clarify, please.

The outreach initiative I'm speaking of is the outreach initiative that former Commissioner Beverley Busson put in place on April 25 as a result of the public accounts committee meeting she was at, when she said she had put in place, through the Office of the Ethics Advisor, an outreach program to present and past employees who had concerns about how their issues had been dealt with in the past. That is the outreach, sir. You are very correct. That was an outreach by Commissioner Busson to the membership to talk about things that had gone on that perhaps they felt didn't meet their requirements.

That is the outreach initiative I am speaking of. Mr. Mike Lake : Okay, that now clarifies it a little bit for me. In terms of your outreach to the general population of rank and file officers, those who maybe haven't brought forward concerns, when you go out and advise them of what to do in these types of circumstances, I'm curious to know what specifically you're telling them about the structure and what's different and what to expect, and where to go.

Do you, for example, inform them of the role of the Public Service Integrity Commissioner who will be in place, and the powers they have under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act? Are they informed of that option, or are they not informed until they come to you with an issue? A/Commr Sandra Conlin : No, sir. I do presentations. I meet with them in various courses; we have our ethics course.

I also speak to all the new officers as part of officer development, where part of my presentation is about the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner's office, and what their obligations are to each and every one of the supervisors. As you know, we have many supervisors across this organization who now have a legal obligation. An individual or an employee can go to their supervisor and disclose a wrongdoing. So we are also now putting in place a training or education package to be able to educate all of the supervisors.

That was done, as I said in my earlier comments, through the supervisory development program, in the management development program, and in the officer development program. I do admit that we also have to reach a number of employees who don't fall into those categories, and that is going to be done with a phased approach. We also have a communications strategist with us. We have a communications strategy that involves, first of all, the 1-866 number, which is a disclosure line.

Also, we have a communication strategy that speaks to the employees about what the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is, and their obligations and our obligations as an organization. Again, we're working to change the policies to ensure they reflect everything. The other thing we're also doing is ensuring at the end of the day that we have a website with frequently asked questions and answers, and right now that is in the works or being established. We're working with communications to get that done. The Chair : Thank you very much, Assistant Commissioner Conlin.

That, colleagues, concludes the second round. I'm going to ask Assistant Commissioner Conlin if she has any concluding remarks she wants to present to the committee, and also retired Assistant Commissioner Spice.

(1055) A/Commr Sandra Conlin : No, I thank the committee for taking the time today to ask me to appear in front of them. Thank you. The Chair : Well, we thank you for your attendance. Thank you, again. Mr. John Spice : Thanks very much. The Chair : That, colleagues, concludes this part of the meeting. I understand Mr. Wrzesnewskyj has a motion, but before I go to him, I just want to point out that the committee is meeting for two days. For the benefit of the public here, I'll say that we're now going to adjourn for 10 minutes and we're going to go in camera to discuss reports from 11 to 12:30.

This afternoon, from 2 to 4 o'clock, we're going to have another meeting. The witnesses at that point in time will be Paul E. Kennedy, chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Catherine Ebbs, chair of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's external review committee; and as an individual, the Honourable Anne McLellan, former Minister of Public Safety. We are going to continue in camera from 2:15 to 5 o'clock this afternoon. Tomorrow we come back. We will meet in public from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.

The witnesses at that time will be William Elliott, the present Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; Beverley A. Busson, the retired commissioner; and we're also going to hear from Linda Duxbury, a professor at the School of Business at Carleton University. Again, later that morning we're going to have an in camera meeting to discuss reports. Then in the afternoon we will have two meetings. The first meeting will be from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., and we're going to hear from David A.

Brown from the Office of the Independent Investigator into RCMP Pension and Insurance Matters—and of course we have been talking this morning about the Brown report. And then from 3 to 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon, we're going to hear from the Honourable Stockwell Day, the present Minister of Public Safety. I just wanted to bring everyone up to date as to what we're going to be doing here today and tomorrow. I'm going to adjourn. But, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you indicated that you have a motion. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Yes, that's correct, Chair.

I'd like to move that Superintendent Denis Constant, the former executive officer in former Commissioner Zaccardelli's office, and also retired Chief Superintendent Wayne Watson appear as witnesses before this committee. The reason is that we've heard conflicting testimony before this committee. Former Commissioner Zaccardelli has unequivocally stated—in fact he used terms such as “absolutely not”—that he did not request a criminal investigation. We heard the exact opposite from Mr. Ron Lewis. His notes from that meeting indicate the exact opposite. His actions seem to indicate the exact opposite.

We've heard in testimony this morning that there may be individuals who would help us try to figure out which side of this conflicted testimony is the correct version. As we've said on numerous occasions here, we expect truthful and fulsome answers. People are protected by parliamentary privilege, and we treat with great seriousness any situation that may indicate a contempt of this committee or of Parliament. Consequently, I'd like the committee to have these two individuals appear, and I seek unanimous consent. The Chair : Thank you very much, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. There are two points I want to make.

As everyone knows, before this motion can go any further, he needs unanimous consent to even put it on the table. I do want to remind members that we're in kind of what I call a complicated period here. The Prime Minister has indicated his intention to prorogue Parliament. It would come back on October 16 of this year with a new Speech from the Throne. He has not done that. The prorogation has not occurred. Once prorogation occurs, the committee and all the workings of the committee are suspended until the new session starts. So we are kind of in a period of what I would call a certain amount of uncertainty.

However, that event has not occurred yet. Having said that, before anyone can discuss this, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj needs unanimous consent to put the motion. Does Mr. Wrzesnewskyj have unanimous consent? Do you have point of order, Mr. Williams?

(1100) Mr. John Williams : You just pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to prorogue in the very near future. As you pointed out, the committees will be disbanded, there is no Parliament, and there are no committees until they're reconstituted. Unless Mr. Wrzesnewskyj thinks we're meeting over the weekend, which I would object to, there is no point in this going forward at all. What is the point? It's a moot issue. The Chair : Go ahead, Madam Jennings. Hon. Marlene Jennings : I'm amazed to hear Mr. Williams say that, when Mr.

Sweet asked for unanimous consent to present a motion at the beginning of this hearing this morning, with a whole list of potential witnesses that he wanted to commend. He asked for the unanimous consent of this committee to allow him to present the motion. The committee gave him that consent. We then unanimously adopted that motion, which was a laudable motion, and we were thrilled and delighted that the Conservatives had finally come around to the thinking of the opposition parties, particularly the Liberal and the Bloc, that these witnesses needed to be lauded and honoured.

However, it is also clear parliamentary practice that even when Parliament is prorogued and committees are reconstituted, the newly reconstituted committees can, via a simple motion, look backwards at what their committee has been doing if the previous committee has not completed a particular study, and by a motion ensure that all of the transcripts, all of the testimony, all of the documents that were presented in a previous Parliament be accessible to the committee. Therefore, this motion is not moot.

It provides—should the Prime Minister move forward and actually prorogue Parliament—the newly constituted public accounts committee, when Parliament resumes, with the clear thinking of this committee as to how it wanted to go forward. That newly constituted committee would have the freedom to decide whether or not it wanted to follow the direction that the previous committee-- Mr. John Williams : Which is why it is all moot, Mr. Chair. Hon. Marlene Jennings : It is not moot. I would ask that all members support the request of Mr.

Wrzesnewskyj to allow him to present this motion, and should all of the members give unanimous consent, that then all members actually support the motion. Mr. John Williams : That's not a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Hon. Marlene Jennings : Yours is not a point of order either. The Chair : Mr. Laforest. I'm going to restrict interventions to one minute. [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest : Mr. Chair, with regard to Mr. Williams' point of order, I agree with Ms. Jennings that it is not moot. On the contrary, it is necessary.

The material that the new committee will have at its disposal after prorogation will not be as fresh as it is today. So it is absolutely necessary for the committee to pass this motion today so that the situation can be fully examined. We know how many times this has led us to other discoveries. I think that Mr. Wrzesnewskyj has put his finger on something very important and that the motion must be passed. [ English ] The Chair : Okay, I'm going to allow Mr. Wrzesnewskyj 30 seconds or a minute to wrap up, and then I'm going to ask if he has unanimous consent. Mr.

Borys Wrzesnewskyj : At the start of today's meeting, I was quite encouraged by Mr. Sweet's motion. It appeared that the Conservative members had turned over a leaf. We'd seen their stonewalling throughout the winter and spring, attempting to prevent witnesses from coming forward before this committee-- Mr. Pierre Poilievre : On a point of order, Mr. Chair-- The Chair : We have a point of order from Mr. Poilievre. Please, gentlemen, lady, we're talking about whether he has unanimous consent. I don't think we have to get into a debate on the history of the workings on this particular issue. Mr.

Borys Wrzesnewskyj : To conclude, since I am on a point of order, we unanimously agreed to pass Mr. Sweet's motion, and a component of that motion was that it be presented before Parliament. We didn't get into a big discussion about prorogation and whether in fact it might be a moot motion. I'd like them to apply the same logic to this particular motion and for the Conservatives to agree to unanimous consent.

(1105) The Chair : We have heard the discussion. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj has made a motion. As everyone knows, it doesn't proceed any further unless he gets unanimous consent. Does Mr. Wrzesnewskyj have unanimous consent to deal with this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Chair: He does not have unanimous consent. Mr. John Williams: I didn't deny it. Ms. Marlene Jennings: I just asked if anyone opposes it. The Chair: Does anyone oppose providing Mr. Wrzesnewskyj with unanimous consent? Some hon. members: No. The Chair: I do not see anyone opposed to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. The motion is on the table.

Do you want to speak further to your motion? Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : No. I think everything that's required has been said. I was quite concerned to find out that there may be evidence out there, or witnesses that would have information that runs contrary to former Commissioner Zaccardelli's statements before this committee under oath. I would request also that this be a recorded vote. The Chair : I'm going to hear from Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Christopherson, but before I do that, I want to point out that you've been very patient, Assistant Commissioner Spice, retired, and Assistant Commissioner Conlin.

You are excused if you want to leave. You're probably not as interested in this issue as other things in life. Mr. Poilievre. Mr. Pierre Poilievre : Yes, Chair, I'm prepared to support this motion. I know that Mr. Wrzesnewskyj is moving it for publicity purposes, because he knows we're not going to call these members before the prorogation occurs, but regardless, we can support it now. It will die with prorogation, but it can be revived when we return to the House of Commons. I do appreciate the way we've set up these couple of days of hearings, though. I'd like to thank you for that.

I think we're breaking it down into two parts. One

part is what went wrong, and of course we're going to be hearing about that from the previous minister who was in charge when that occurred, and we'll be hearing about the future and how we can get it right from the new minister. The Chair : Mr. Williams, you have a comment. Mr. John Williams : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was a little disturbed at what Mr. Wrzesnewskyj was saying about why he wanted these witnesses to come forward to contradict the testimony of the former Commissioner of the RCMP. These are serious allegations that have not been upheld by substance laid before the committee by Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

He just wants to bring people in to hopefully verify what he would want to achieve, which is to demonstrate that some statements before this commission may or may not be upheld as being factual or otherwise. Mr. Chairman, these are serious issues and they should be dealt with either at the steering committee or in camera, long before we debate these at this point in time unfounded allegations in public, because we should take our positions very seriously. We should not be besmirching people's reputations in public just because we happen to be a parliamentary committee. Therefore, Mr.

Chairman, while I'm the first to uphold Parliament's right to get to the truth, the process that we are starting down, Mr. Chairman, if we do all this in public with people's reputations, bothers me greatly. And I'm the first to agree with Mr.Wrzesnewskyj; there's some testimony before this committee that has been troubling to me, and we may discuss that at some other time.

But the point is, if we are to bring these witnesses forward, I want to have an in camera discussion as to how we're going to handle this so that we do not mess around with people's reputations willy-nilly just because we have the authority to do so. The Chair : Ms. Jennings, and then I'm going to put the question. One minute, Ms. Jennings.

(1110) Hon. Marlene Jennings : I appreciate what Mr. Williams has had to say. I have experienced the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in a previous legislature, which studied the Auditor General's report into the sponsorship program. The committee was under Mr. Williams' chairmanship. He has personal experience, as do I, as a member of that committee, as to how names of potential witnesses were brought forth in public and their reputations besmirched in discussions in public hearings. Unfortunately, it took a-- Mr. Pierre Poilievre : I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Hon.

Marlene Jennings : --while before the committee, under Mr. Williams' chairmanship-- Mr. Pierre Poilievre : I do have a point of order. A point of order does interrupt that. The Chair : But is it a point of order? Mr. Pierre Poilievre : Yes, it is a point of order. You have a tendency to interrupt comments from members that you feel are extraneous. Here's a clearly extraneous remark going back three years now, I think, on a totally separate matter. You've not intervened. I'm just asking that you restore some balance in your chairmanship. Thank you. The Chair : It's not a point of order. Mrs. Jennings. Hon.

Marlene Jennings : Thank you. My comments are not extraneous. The chair was making the point that it would be important to have some kind of process, and Mr. Williams was doing the same, for how to deal with witnesses who are agreed upon to appear. I was giving a clear example of experience of this same committee in a previous Parliament, under Mr. Williams' chairmanship, where as a result of exactly what Mr.

Williams was alluding to, the committee ultimately came to a process where it was in camera and selected representatives from the different parties to sit down with the witnesses prior to their actual testimony before the committee. I'm proposing that this committee may wish to look at that. The Chair : Okay, Mrs. Jennings. I want to remind members who are making these comments and have concerns that you just gave Mr. Wrzesnewskyj unanimous consent. I didn't give unanimous consent; it was the people around this table.

That is something you might want to consider, because I believe, as others do, that this issue would be better dealt with at the steering committee, where all parties are represented. It can be discussed in camera, and then we can go forward. If any member does not agree, or disagrees with the decision of the steering committee, that member can bring it to the committee as a whole. But that's not what has happened. I'm going to hear from the NDP, and then I'm going to put it to a vote. Mr. Christopherson, you have up to one minute, please. Mr. David Christopherson : Thank you very much, Chair.

Again, let's differentiate between supporting the right of someone to place a motion versus whether or not you're going to support the actual motion. These are two different things. Here's my concern, and I hope you will give the mover of the motion an opportunity to respond. We already know that there's conflicting testimony around what happened in terms of what orders were given or not given and rescinded or not rescinded. That's not in question. I have a whole list of other issues.

I think this whole committee does, for the most part, because we overwhelmingly supported the notion that we need a public inquiry. We believe this because we know that a lot of work has not been done. We're not going to be able to conclude all of it through this committee. So my concern is not that the issue isn't justified, but that there are many issues that would come under that same category. We've already said there needs to be a public inquiry. The government has disagreed. We're dealing with what they have the power to put in front of us. Could you please give Borys a chance to respond?

Why would this be any different from a whole myriad of unresolved issues that many of us believe would be properly dealt with by a public inquiry, and only by a public inquiry? But that is not going to happen. That's my concern. The Chair : I'm prepared to give Mr. Wrzesnewskyj 30 seconds to respond. Mr. David Christopherson : Thanks, Chair. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : As Mr. Christopherson knows, we've been calling for a public inquiry as well, because we don't believe this committee has the resources and capacity to get at all the details of this particular issue.

Unfortunately, the government is preventing a public inquiry. Consequently, we have no choice but to address these issues as they arise. The Chair : Okay, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. Since we didn't hear from the Bloc, I am prepared to hear from Monsieur Laforest for one minute, please. [ Translation ] Mr. Jean-Yves Laforest : Mr. Chair, I am in full agreement with Mr. Christopherson: a public inquiry would allow us to fully understand. But while we are waiting, I think that the motion made by Mr. Wrzesnewskyj is perfectly valid. I am going to vote in favour of the motion.

When he made it earlier, I recall him telling us that, given today's evidence, having Mr. Constant and Mr. Watson appear would help us arrive at the truth of the matter. Once again, we seem to have conflicting versions of the facts. I agree completely, and the Bloc will vote for this motion. (1115) [ English ] The Chair : We've heard the motion, and I'm going to put the question. (Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3) The Chair : Okay, I'm going to adjourn for 10 minutes, and then we're going to resume in camera. The meeting is adjourned. [ Proceedings continue in camera ]

(1400) The Chair : I'd like to call the meeting to order. I want to welcome everyone to this afternoon's meeting. Bienvenue à tous . This, colleagues, witnesses, and visitors, is the continuation of the RCMP report, the Report of the Independent Investigator into Matters Relating to RCMP Pension and Insurance Plans , raised on June 15, 2007. We're very pleased to have with us this afternoon Paul E. Kennedy, chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Welcome, Mr. Kennedy.

We also have with us Catherine Ebbs, chair, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee. Also, as an individual, we have the Honourable Anne McLellan. Ms. McLellan is the former Minister of Public Safety . I should point out that she has already appeared before this committee on this particular matter and has given testimony beforehand. I want to welcome each and every one of you. I want to thank you for appearing. I understand, Ms. Ebbs, you have opening remarks and you do not, Mr. Kennedy. Ms. McLellan, of course you have come before us, so you have nothing further. Is that correct?

(1405) Hon. Anne McLellan (former Minister of Public Safety, As an Individual) : No, I don't. The Chair : Ms. Ebbs, I invite you now to present your opening comments. Ms. Catherine Ebbs (Chair, Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee) : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The creation of the RCMP External Review Committee arose out of the report of Mr. Justice René Marin, head of the Commission of Inquiry Relating to Public Complaints, Internal Discipline, and Grievance Procedure within the Royal Canadian Police in 1976. The report identified the need for more independent labour relations in the RCMP.

The committee was created in 1986 to fulfill the role of providing an independent review mechanism with regard to labour relations issues. The RCMP External Review Committee is an independent and arm's-length labour relations tribunal established by

part II of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. The mandate of the committee is to review grievance, discipline, and discharge and demotion cases referred to it by the RCMP and to provide recommendations on these cases to the RCMP commissioner. The committee's reviews are intended to ensure transparency, fairness, impartiality, and independence in the internal RCMP labour relations process.

As Justice O'Connor recently stated in the Arar commission policy review report, a primary objective of external review is to maintain public confidence in the agency subject to review, and it also ensures that the agency respects the law and human rights. [ Translation ] The committee's jurisdiction is with respect to regular and civilian members only. Public servants employed by the RCMP have separate labour relations processes. These remarks will focus on the committee's work in the area of discipline and grievances.

Committee representatives would be happy to provide further information on the discharge and demotion process if requested. At this time, the committee has one member who is both the chair and the chief executive officer, appointed by the Governor in Council for a term not exceeding five years. Under the act, anyone who sits on the committee cannot be a member or former member of the RCMP. The committee also has one person who is executive director and senior counsel, and five other public servants. The committee has a budget of approximately $1 million.

In 2006-2007, the committee reviewed 42 grievances and issued 40 recommendations, compared to 34 cases reviewed and 30 recommendations issued in 2005-2006. In 2004-2005, 24 cases were reviewed and 23 recommendations were issued. The committee issued five recommendations on appeals on disciplinary measures. No recommendations in the area of discharge and demotion were issued. The committee dealt with no cases related to matters raised in the Brown report. [ English ] The committee does not have authority to initiate reviews. The cases must be referred to it by the RCMP commissioner.

The act sets out the types of cases that require committee review. As well, the committee does not have investigatory powers. In all grievance, discipline, and discharge and demotion matters referred to it, the committee bases its review on the record before it. This includes all of the original documents, the decision made, and the submissions of the parties. Where the review involves an appeal of a disciplinary or discharge and demotion matter, the transcript of the board hearing is also before the committee, as well as any exhibits entered at that hearing.

The chair may request that the parties provide additional information or submissions. If this is done, the other party is given the chance to respond. As well, the chair has the authority to hold a hearing if it's deemed necessary, although use of this option is rare. The chair reviews all the evidence, legal issues, relevant legislation, and case law in coming to the determination on the matter.

After consideration of all the issues, the chair of the committee provides findings and recommendations to the RCMP commissioner, who is the final decision-maker in the internal process for these cases, as well as to the parties. If he decides not to follow them, the law requires that in his reasons he give an explanation for not doing so.

The RCMP commissioner's acceptance rate of committee decisions is in the range of approximately 85%: in the area of grievances, 89%; disciplinary matters, 70%; discharge and demotion, where only four recommendations have been issued in the history of the committee, 75%. (1410) [ Translation ] The committee has a very distinct mandate. Over the years, the RCMP has made changes in a number of areas because of recommendations made by the committee. Specific areas of concern have been raised, leading to policy changes with regard to medical discharge, suspension without pay, and harassment.

Procedurally, the committee has raised diverse issues, such as maintaining and protecting procedural fairness, ensuring access to information, preventing bias or the appearance of bias in the decision-making process, and protecting the right to be heard. [ English ] The Chair : Thank you very much, Ms. Ebbs. We're going to have two rounds, colleagues. On the first round we can go eight minutes, and on the second one I believe we can go five minutes. I'm going to start with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, but before I do that I'm going to urge all members to keep their questions short and relevant to the issues we are studying.

Secondly, I'd ask all witnesses to keep their answers to the point and as brief as possible. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Ms. McLellan, in regard to the pension insurance fund

chapter of the Auditor General's report, when you were previously here Mr. Williams questioned Mr. Zaccardelli. He asked whether or not Mr. Zaccardelli.... In his words: ...you mentioned...you kept the minister informed. Do you actually recall talking to the minister, or was it just a departmental briefing? To this, Mr. Zaccardelli responded: I do not specifically recall speaking to Minister McLellan. I do recall...discussions with Minister Day. Does that correspond with your recollections?

And could you once again go through what occurred when you were made aware that there were some serious problems in the pension insurance funds? Hon. Anne McLellan : Thank you very much. I think the record would show—and when I was here last I outlined it very clearly—when I became aware of the situation surrounding irregularities related to the pension and insurance fund. I also outlined at that time the steps we took when I received Mr.

Lewis's communication, sent via the Treasury Board Secretariat, and my office's communications with the commissioner's in relation to the fact that there would be a criminal investigation undertaken. That took place in, I think, less than a week, if I remember correctly, of my office contacting the commissioner's office. In terms of direct communications with the commissioner on this matter, as I think I indicated in response perhaps to a question of Mr. Christopherson the last time I was here, I think again the record speaks for itself. Nothing has changed in that regard.

When I became minister in December 2003, obviously I went through extensive briefings, many of those in writing. Clearly, every agency and department outlines the issues of concern, and challenges, and so on. At that point, sometime in that mid-December to mid-January or late January, I became aware of the fact that there was this issue and that an audit had been done, a management plan had been developed, and the plan was being implemented. Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Thank you. Mr. Kennedy, in his report Justice O'Connor came up with a number of recommendations for oversight mechanisms for the RCMP.

Are you familiar with those? The current minister publicly stated that he would implement them. Has anything been implemented in regard to those recommendations? Mr. Paul E. Kennedy (Chair, Commission for Public Complaints Against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) : I am familiar with the recommendations. I appeared before Justice O'Connor myself and made suggestions, and with a colleague I actually drafted what I thought was an appropriate legislative model, which I shared with Justice O'Connor before he published his document. The two largely run in parallel. That document is up on the web.

At this point in time, no, nothing has been done vis-à-vis the legislation. We have the same legislation we've had since 1988.

(1415) Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj : Another concern has been raised, one that we haven't particularly spent a lot of time on in this committee. It's the issue of political interference. Every commissioner, when asked, states quite clearly that there is no political interference in our national police forces, but the issue keeps coming up over and over again. You've made a number of recommendations. People have talked about civilian oversight, a body to look into internal complaints or public complaints against the RCMP.

Has there been any thought about the creation of an administrative body that would still allow for government oversight of the federal police force, but at the same time would act like a firewall to prevent political interference in either direction, either from the national police force into the realm of politics, or by the government into the RCMP? As we've seen, those situations can be quite corrosive for democracy. Do you have any thoughts about how that type of body could be structured? Mr. Paul E. Kennedy : Obviously you're referring to the task that I think Mr.

Brown has been assigned, which is to come up with some type of governance structure. I think we're dealing with multiple things when we deal with an organization such as a police force. Through the history of the country, which obviously comes out of the British tradition, the Attorney General function and the policing function are recognized as having a special status in law in terms of the independence that we expect to flow from them, and certainly in my more than 33 years in public safety issues, every minister I've dealt with has been cognizant of the need to maintain the integrity of that function.

That having been said, you can still have a number of structures in place that give the public the assurance it needs, because the reality is that public expectations have changed over the years and are very high today. The function we provide in terms of a public thing is that a complaint allows us to go in and look at it. Separate from that is an issue of governance. There may be things that don't fall within my mandate in terms of review, nor within Ms. Ebbs's mandate in terms of review, but those go to how the force is managed.

There are decisions there that clearly would be of interest to a manager but would also be of interest to a minister. There's nothing wrong. Other police forces have boards of governance in place that people report up to. Municipal police forces go up to boards that are separate from the city council, and they have mixed memberships on them, so you can do things like that. I would just point out, though, from my own experience, that it is a touchstone and hopefully remains a touch