:
At this point in time I'd like to call the meeting to order and to extend to everyone here a very warm welcome.
Bienvenu à tous.
Before we start the meeting, I want to point out to the members of the committee and all public present that we're joined today by nine members of the Malawi Public Accounts Committee. We have their chair, Mr. Respicius Placid Dzanjalimodzi, and they're here on a tour of Canada and the United States dealing with governance and oversight. I'm going to be meeting with them tomorrow.
Mr. Dzanjalimodzi, perhaps I'll ask you and the members of the delegation from Malawi to stand up.
[Applause]
The Chair: On behalf of this committee, I want to extend to you all a very warm welcome to Canada and a warm welcome to this meeting.
Today we're dealing with the continuation of our hearings under chapter 9, “Pension and Insurance Administration--Royal Canadian Mounted Police”, pursuant to the November 2006 Report of the Auditor General of Canada.
The witnesses before us today are Acting Commissioner Beverley Busson; the assistant commissioner, community, contract and aboriginal policing services, Mr. Darrell LaFosse; and as an individual, Garry Loeppky.
I want to welcome each and every one of you to the committee. We'll swear the witnesses in before we get the opening statements.
:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think all of the members of this committee are quite frustrated because we can't really understand the allegations being made, the defence being made, and allegations of crimes committed and not committed and so on.
I thought, Mr. Chairman, to try to enlighten the committee, that we should ask Superintendent Macaulay and Staff Sergeant Frizzell to prepare a presentation for this committee, and we give them an hour to an hour and a half to make that presentation, so that the people who spent 14 or 16 months on this case, who feel that there are problems still to be resolved, can tell us what their concerns are. So we ask them to do that forthwith--so in the next couple of weeks or a week, whenever it's ready--and we set the time aside and we hear from them, and they can present to us what it is we're trying to discuss.
Therefore, I would move, Mr. Chairman, that this committee request Superintendent Macaulay and Staff Sergeant Frizzell to prepare a presentation for the committee, assisted by the RCMP officialdom, and to make this presentation to us at their earliest convenience.
:
Thank you and good afternoon.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to be here today to assist this committee in its ongoing effort to bring clarity to issues related to the administration of the RCMP pension and insurance plans.
I would like to start by expressing how disappointed I am that these events have unfolded in such a way that the RCMP now finds itself before this committee. I'm even more distressed when I see employees of this respected Canadian institution sitting side by side in this very public forum disputing what has occurred. This is not the way we do things in the RCMP. We're a family of more than 26,000 skilled professionals who resolve problems for Canadians every day. We've been doing this for 135 years.
What is occurring before this committee does not reflect the values and behaviour of the RCMP as a whole. It is a conflict between a number of people involved in the management of a very specific issue.
It's painfully obvious to even the most casual observer of these hearings that the standard of excellence for which the RCMP is renowned has not been met in this case. I find this unacceptable. It erodes the trust that is the cornerstone of the RCMP tradition.
I believe that hard-working men and women of the RCMP and all Canadians deserve to know the truth. I'm committed to you to getting to all the answers. This is critical if we are to maintain the respect and confidence of those we serve.
I want the members of this committee to know that I fully support your efforts to get to the truth. I am also committed to supporting Mr. David Brown in his independent ministerial inquiry.
In conjunction with the external reviews, we, the RCMP, have a responsibility to complete a thorough self-examination to identify the problems and find solutions to these issues if we are to move forward and ensure that this doesn't happen again. We owe this to our employees and we owe it to Canadians.
I've already set in motion a number of initiatives to take action on what has been identified. You are likely aware that both a code of conduct and a statutory investigation are ongoing. These are processes that stem from my concern surrounding some of the allegations raised before this committee.
I have met with individuals who testified before this committee to listen and hear their concerns. I've already taken action in dealing with some of them, and I will continue to do so until they're resolved.
I've also directed that an employee outreach initiative be developed to provide employees with a channel to report their past and present concerns or complaints to the office of the ethics adviser. Internal communication was disseminated to all employees to reinforce the mechanisms and rights available to RCMP employees concerning whistle-blowing and protection.
Finally, a team has been formed to support the ministerial inquiry conducted by Mr. Brown.
Mr. Chair, I would like to address the commitment that I made to the committee on February 21. I agreed to provide you with a written summary of the circumstances surrounding the alleged dismissal of Staff Sergeant Frizzell. The committee was kind enough to give me until Thursday, March 1, to fulfill this undertaking. I asked Barbara George, in her role as deputy commissioner, human resources, to develop a reply.
On March 1 I met with Barb George, who brought Department of Justice representatives with her, to review this reply. I felt that the draft reply did not provide the necessary detail. As a result, I instructed Deputy Commissioner George to prepare a more complete response immediately.
Later that same morning I was presented with another draft. It was still not to my satisfaction, as it had little or no factual information other than that Assistant Commissioner Gork would be called to appear before this committee to address his role in Frizzell's situation.
After reviewing a third draft, I confirmed with Deputy Commissioner George that the final version was a complete report of the facts to her knowledge. She informed me that it was complete, and I signed it.
Since that time a number of revelations were brought to my attention. They caused me to order a code of conduct investigation on March 29, which largely centres around the circumstances of Staff Sergeant Frizzell's removal and the letter to this committee that was prepared for my signature. I'm as anxious as you are to get to the bottom of this matter.
I know now that my letter of March 1 was not a full summary of the details surrounding the removal of Staff Sergeant Frizzell. This specific issue is now the subject of a code of conduct investigation that will establish conclusively what happened.
Let me be clear. I do take advice from the Department of Justice legal adviser. I'm accountable for my own decisions. I am in charge of the RCMP, not the Department of Justice.
I have committed to support Mr. Brown in his independent ministerial inquiry and have taken action in this regard. I look forward to his report to the Minister of Public Safety and the President of the Treasury Board. I expect this will address all matters relating to the administration of the pension and insurance plans, including the circumstances around the dismissal of Staff Sergeant Frizzell.
During the committee hearings on April 23, a motion was passed to request that the RCMP provide the committee with a detailed organizational chart covering the period of 1997 to 2007, along with a brief description of the responsibilities of the people involved, all the hierarchical links that bind them. Mr. Chair, I have received this request and have directed that these documents be prepared for delivery to the committee.
This organization, as can be appreciated, is constantly evolving. During the period of 1997 to 2007, the structure of the senior levels of the RCMP underwent numerous changes, both operationally and administratively. Organizational charts and reporting structures were modified with these changes. I'm told that it will take a week to prepare the proper documentation and we'll have that information available.
In the interest of helping the committee better understand how the RCMP is structured, I have brought with me today the current RCMP organizational chart and a chart that reflects the structure that was in place in 2003 when the pension and insurance issues came to light. I had hoped to have these translated for you today. However, it was not possible given the short time, but I will provide them to you as soon as possible in the translated form. I believe this latter document will provide the committee the information it needs to better understand the roles and responsibilities of those who have testified before this committee.
Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to table these documents, and I believe the clerk has them. I commit to delivering a full package to the committee as soon as possible.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I am proud of the job that our employees are doing every day across this country. As Canada's national police force, we enforce the law, prevent crime, and protect Canadians.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
By way of introduction, I am currently privileged to be the assistant commissioner in charge of provincial and territorial policing, or community, contract and aboriginal policing--CCAPS, as we call it. I am posted here in Ottawa at our national headquarters.
I understand that I am here to possibly bring some clarity around the matter of Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell's transfer from his temporary duty back to his original duties within my area of responsibility.
By way of context, I have to go back to 1995 when I first met Staff Sergeant Frizzell. At that time, we were both posted to E Division, British Columbia. Staff Frizzell was as a constable at the Nanaimo detachment, I believe, and I was a newly commissioned officer at our divisional headquarters. Including my regular duties as the executive officer to the deputy commissioner, Pacific region, I was asked to participate in a project that saw me collaborate with four other members, including Staff Sergeant Frizzell.
Over the years between my departure from British Columbia in 1997 for Nova Scotia and his arrival in Ottawa in 2003, we would run into each other periodically. But we did not work together.
While in my current role, I learned that Staff Sergeant Frizzell had competed for and won a promotional transfer from British Columbia to sergeant in the operational policy section in my area. I was pleased because I was aware of his abilities and knew that he would be a good fit for the operations in that section.
After his arrival in December 2003, I received a telephone call from Assistant Commissioner Dave Gork, indicating that he had been tasked with finding resources for an investigation and asked if I could contribute one regular member to the team. I spoke with my management staff and Sergeant—his rank at the time—Frizzell's name surfaced, as he was fresh from the field and had the recency and skills to fit the requirement. Sergeant Frizzell was assigned to the investigational team during April 2004. I was never given details of the investigation, nor was I particularly interested.
Please understand that regular members, by their very nature, are moved from task to task as the need arises. His move to this project was perfectly natural.
On June 15, 2005, I received a penned note from then Assistant Commissioner George. I do not have a copy of that note but recall that it confused me considerably. I must point out that upon reading the document, even partway through, it was evident to me that she was upset with Sergeant Frizzell and wanted his actions on the investigation addressed. I cannot be more specific on the contents of the note, simply because I dismissed any possibility of my involvement or contact with Sergeant Frizzell, because he didn't work in my area any longer.
Assistant Commissioner George's note prompted me to immediately write the following e-mail:
Subject: Your penned note.
Pls give me a call on your note...Mike has not worked here in over a year, matter of fact we are staffing his position.
I signed it “Darrell (Still Confused)”.
As a result of my e-mail, Assistant Commissioner George called me. It was a very short phone call lasting no more than a minute. It was clear to me that she was very upset with the actions of Sergeant Frizzell and in fact wanted him removed from his assigned duties.
I quickly told her that he was not my responsibility, and she should call either Assistant Commissioner Rogerson or Assistant Commissioner Gork.
We ended the call, and subsequent to my original e-mail, she sent me an e-mail stating that she now understood and would communicate with Assistant Commissioner Rogerson.
I then composed a short message to her asking the following: “Want your note back?” She responded with words to this effect: no, please don't leave the note lying around, and she would compose another note to Assistant Commissioner Rogerson.
From that telephone call, I walked into the office of Chief Superintendent Macaulay, who works in my shop, and said the words to this effect: You won't believe who just called; Barb wants Mike removed. I don't recall Chief Superintendent Macaulay's reaction or the discussion that followed.
I ask that the committee members understand that at the time, the telephone call had no bearing whatsoever on my operations and in fact only touched on a member who at one time had worked in my area. Any discipline or guidance would not have been my responsibility, and in fact I had no reason to question the legitimacy of her concerns.
In short, once I pointed Assistant Commissioner George in the right direction to the appropriate supervisor, I completely dismissed the note or telephone call.
In closing, I must point out that my total contact with Deputy Commissioner George on this matter did not last longer than one minute. I simply pointed her in the appropriate direction to voice her concerns. At the time, it seemed a simple question of her believing that Staff Sergeant Frizzell was still my responsibility. When I explained that fact to her, she accepted the answer and I believe telephoned either Assistant Commissioner Rogerson or Gork. I had no idea, then or now, whether her concerns were founded or not.
Thank you very much.
I apologize that it's not before this committee. I sent it in about a week ago, so it's obviously in the system. But my comments are brief.
I appear before you today as a retired member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I would like to provide a very brief overview of my service in the RCMP for the benefit of the committee members, so that my role is clearly understood. I joined the RCMP in 1972 and spent the first 18 years in various assignments in British Columbia. I was then transferred to Ottawa as one of the security officers responsible for the protection of the Governor General.
Following a variety of other assignments in Ottawa, I was transferred to New Brunswick, as the officer in charge of criminal operations, in 1996. I then became the commanding officer in charge of New Brunswick until 1999, when I was moved back to Ottawa in charge of human resources, a position I held until the fall of 2000.
In October 2000 I was appointed to the position of deputy commissioner responsible for operations. This included six unique operational areas, which were as follows: community, contract and aboriginal policing—that's one unit—criminal intelligence; Criminal Intelligence Service Canada; federal policing; protective operations; and technical operations.
In addition to internal responsibilities I represented the force on numerous national and international organizations, such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and intergovernmental committees focusing on public safety.
I retired from the RCMP, my last day of work being June 17, 2005, and I currently live in British Columbia.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner, retired officer Garry Loeppky, and Assistant Commissioner Darrell LaFosse.
Assistant Commissioner LaFosse, in your opening statement you basically answered a few of the questions I had been intending to put to you. You were unequivocal that although your communication was short—you specified it was about a minute—it was absolutely clear what the communications intent from Deputy Commissioner George to you was. The error she committed was assuming that you were responsible for Staff Sergeant Frizzell.
My question then becomes this. You made a very clear statement, and in my questioning of Deputy Commissioner George I clearly asked questions surrounding the removal of Mr. Frizzell, to which she replied unequivocally. She made it absolutely clear she had nothing whatsoever to do with the removal of Mr. Frizzell and then afterwards, in her testimony, went even further in saying that she had heard something about its having to do with health reasons. Did you hear, watch, or perhaps read the transcripts of that public accounts committee meeting? What was your reaction? What did you say after seeing Deputy Commissioner George's statements when she was asked these questions?
:
On March 4, Assistant Commissioner Dave Gork, who was the appropriate officer at headquarters for internal matters, was in my office with respect to a meeting on the sex offender registry. At the conclusion of the meeting, he mentioned that there were internal issues around the pension investigation. He mentioned it in passing.
Later that day, he and Assistant Commissioner Killam, who was in charge of technical operations, came to my office. It was probably about 7 o'clock. Assistant Commissioner Killam indicated that there were some significant concerns and issues, and it was my understanding that those had been relayed to him by Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay.
He outlined that there were issues around contracting that appeared to be criminal in nature. They were very serious and beyond any internal matter. It was my assessment at that point that we needed to proceed with a criminal investigation, which would be conducted by an outside organization.
The commissioner of the day, Commissioner Zaccardelli, was out of the country at that point. He was in the U.S., and it was a Friday.
During the weekend, I met with him and we talked. I proposed that we needed to do a criminal investigation, given the information that had been relayed to me, and he agreed.
On March 8, I contacted Chief Vince Bevan of the Ottawa Police Service. I gave him a very high-level overview of what some of the issues were. I didn't have details; I just knew that it was serious and had to do with contracting and contract issues around the pension fund that were potentially criminal in nature. I requested that they undertake an independent investigation and appoint whoever they thought could lead that investigation from their department.
At that time, I pointed out that if they so wished, we had space available at technical operations, which was a building removed from our headquarters. It was vacant space and an option that could be undertaken.
I further advised that Assistant Commissioner Dave Gork would be the administrative contact point for the investigation. He would not be involved in any operational issues, but he would provide logistical support. If they needed some more space, computers, or resources, they would go to him.
That was the extent of my involvement in the investigation.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon.
Mrs. Busson, you said a while ago that the fact that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has been receiving contradictory testimony for about a month or a month and a half, from the beginning in fact, is absolutely unacceptable. I fully agree with you. It is very difficult for us to see where all this is going. We keep hearing contradictory testimony at nearly each meeting, which makes our job even more difficult, which is to get to the truth of this matter. There's no smoke without fire. I think this saying is especially appropriate in this case.
How can such a situation happen in an organization like the RCMP?
I am wondering what were the motives of those persons who came to tell us that they had discovered quite inappropriate behavior at the RCMP concerning both the management of human resources and the transfer of moneys between the pension and insurance funds.
Is there a process at the RCMP to allow people to really express their opinion to the appropriate persons?
At our last meeting, Mrs. McClellan, the ex-Minister for Public Safety, told us that people can address their complaints to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. However, I believe that the Commission is open only to members of the public.
Is there a forum, based on the code of conduct, that would allow anybody to complain in an appropriate manner about situations that are ethically unacceptable?
You probably have a long experience since you are now the acting commissioner. Based on your experience, can you tell us if there is at the RCMP a system to make sure that the truth comes out in an appropriate and democratic manner in order to ensure the protection of the public?
:
There are actually two parts to your question that have to do with timelines, past and present. Being put in place as we speak through the proposed public servants protection act is a very robust and formal system to allow people to come forward.
The prior Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act stated that every member who finds a wrongdoing or a misconduct issue, whether it involves a peer or a supervisor, etc., has the responsibility to come forward to their supervisor. I believe the issue in that situation in the past was that the system was not as robust as it should have been in certain circumstances. In some cases, the issues were not managed properly.
One of the things that I did in the meantime was ask the ethics adviser to put out a note to everyone with my endorsement, saying that if there are any lingering issues, either past or present, that need to be dealt with, they should be, and we are anxious to do that.
Also, we are off the mark already. We have named people to be the designated officer for the new public servants protection act. I have issued communications to make sure people understand that this leadership is anxious to manage conflict properly.
There will always be conflict in organizations such as the RCMP, where there are a lot of type A personalities, a lot of very assertive people. But these conflicts need to be managed properly.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
And thank you all for your comments and for being here today.
Commissioner, I have a hypothetical question, but I'm not going to pretend it's not about the David Brown investigation. It is, but I want to put it in a hypothetical sense, and maybe you'll see why in a moment.
One of the difficulties this committee has--certainly the majority have--with the investigator process rather than a public inquiry is that there is no ability to subpoena anyone, there is no ability to put people under oath, there is no ability to subpoena documents, notwithstanding the fact that it's all being done in the backroom--reports to the minister, not Parliament.
But I wanted to ask you this, purely from an investigative point of view--and there is more investigative talent in this room right now probably than anywhere else in the nation. So my question would be this. If you're doing a simple investigation, usually you need to find out what the two sides have to say and then you sort out, finding out if they disagree, where and why and is somebody lying to you. If only one person volunteers to come in to meet with an investigator of any sort and you ask the other party to come in and give their side of it, and they won't do it, and they won't give you any documents pertaining to the information you want, how does an investigator then give a fulsome report at the end of that process, if they haven't been able to meet with both sides of whatever issue they're investigating? How do you do that, and can you?
That, I think, points out the problem we have with that. And I say that to you, Chair. It just reinforces that you cannot get to the truth if you cannot get to the facts. And without the legal ability to call in those facts, people can just say they don't want to meet with the investigator.
Anyway, I just wanted to get that out of the way. I want to move on.
I appreciate that you're working with the investigator, as you should. It would be improper for you to do anything else. It's just a shame that you're spending all that time and effort on a hamster wheel in a cage, because that's not going to get us to the end of this.
Changes, shift of gears: is it your understanding that Staff Sergeant Frizzell was removed?
:
Yes, and it says right here, in written order number 3, “that you report for duty in person by 15h00”. It doesn't say anything about health. It wouldn't say removed, but it doesn't indicate anything at all about there being health concerns, and yet Deputy Commissioner George twice gave evidence that it was for health reasons.
Then just to complicate things further, Commissioner, we had the accusation against Staff Sergeant Frizzell that it was because of his interrogation techniques, that he had witnesses fleeing out of a room crying and screaming, and that this was part of the reason—which Inspector Roy then included in his final answer. But the first time he was asked, it was just very straight up: he stopped working there because the investigation was completed. And yet, Commissioner, you're using the word “removed”.
With the greatest respect, ma'am—and I mean this sincerely, with the greatest respect—I appreciate that you have some investigation going on to get to the bottom of this, but the reason we're in this public domain, ma'am, is that the internal processes within the RCMP failed Canadians, and so that's not going to be sufficient. I'm sure it will be helpful, and I'm sure you have the finest officers on it; I have no doubt. Nonetheless, it's a question of some of these internal things. You used the word “conclusively”, I believe. With the greatest respect, Commissioner, it will not be conclusive if it's done internally.
:
Yes, I may be able to provide a bit of clarification. I cannot with respect to the removal order. That took place after I left.
But I can tell you this. Approximately on May 23 I received a call from Assistant Commissioner Dave Gork in Lyons, who asked if I would meet with Mike Frizzell. His words were that he was creating problems for Paul Roy and he had lost focus in the investigation.
As a result of that, on May 27 at 1 o'clock, I met with Paul Roy in my office to get a briefing on what the issue was before I met with Mr. Frizzell. He started the meeting with a high-level overview of where they were at with the investigation. He said that the Ottawa Police Service was dealing directly with the Crown, and that Chief Bevan would be presenting the results of the investigation to the senior management within the next month. I asked again about the reporting relationship with Dave. He felt that was excellent, that there had been no interference.
I asked him what the specific issue was with Staff Sergeant Frizzell, and he indicated that Staff Sergeant Frizzell was concerned that the RCMP wouldn't deal with the situation, and that in his view there were leads that could still be pursued. Inspector Roy told me that it had started out as a three-month investigation but it had taken over a year, that in his view Staff Sergeant Frizzell was inflexible, and that the Crown had reviewed the material and a forensic audit had been done. Inspector Roy was of the view that it was time to conclude the file and move forward, and that the internal matters were outside of his mandate. And he felt that they had gone as far as possible on the investigation.
One hour later, I met with Staff Sergeant Frizzell, and he told me he was concerned about the scope of the investigation and that more needed to be done. I advised him that decisions needed to be taken by the investigative team and by the lead investigator as to when a file is concluded. That is why we brought in an outside police force with an inspector in charge. I also indicated that Chief Bevan would review the report and would report back to the RCMP, likely the commissioner.
Mr. Frizzell had some concerns about the competency of Mr. Roy. We didn't get into the specifics of that. I simply responded that the OPS was asked to lead the file, and I trusted Chief Bevan's judgment to appoint somebody who could do that investigation. I said, “If there is something major that you uncover, then I have every confidence that it'll be addressed, either through Chief Bevan or through the Crown or whatever.” And I encouraged him to stay focused and continue on with his career.
I think, before this committee, Staff Sergeant Frizzell himself said that there are times when investigators lose focus in a complex investigation, and there was obviously a disagreement between the two with respect to that issue. But I was not involved in any discussions with either of them together in a room.
:
Yes, I have. I believe the issue has become an issue of conflict between individuals and about people having been treated badly.
In my own opinion, if that's what you're asking, I believe the management of that issue could have been done in a much more robust and facilitative fashion.
When I first came to this new position and was briefed around the issues, I had a certain opinion about what was happening. Since I've heard people's testimony before the committee, I've come to a different conclusion. As I said, I believe it's an issue of poorly managed conflict.
As I said before, most organizations have conflict at one time or another, but these need to be facilitated in the right and proper forum when people find issues that need to be dealt with. That's a very healthy thing, but if it's not dealt with properly, it becomes quite unhealthy quite quickly.
:
Chair, while I'm at it, we have a session that's devoted to this audit and the contracting, which I think Fraser Macaulay rightfully brought to the attention of the authorities, he and Staff Sergeant Frizzell. I think it's absolutely imperative that we have the manager of this KPMG audit at that meeting. He's like the Auditor General on things, and we have to have that person here when we do that.
I have a question for Mr. Loeppky. We heard Mr. Roy, the inspector on this thing, acknowledge that he had worked very closely with Barbara George and Rosalie Burton; that he had been seconded from the Ottawa police department into the RCMP and worked pretty closely with these people.
Now, I'm looking back here, and a lot of people are asking this question. There were 15 people involved in the investigation on an ongoing basis. Two of them are from the Ottawa police department, one of whom is the chief, and he has a lot of things to do, so he won't have his hands on this thing. The other one is Mr. Roy. Everybody else is RCMP, and it's on RCMP property, and so on.
Is this what you would call an independent investigation, from an outward appearance?
:
Well, if I can continue, during the investigation, Chief Bevan and I spoke about it several times. In October, we did kind of a check to see how was it going. Is there a conflict? Are there issues? He called me back on October 14 and said no, things were running fine, but they would continue to monitor it.
In previous testimony by Assistant Commissioner Gork, Roy, and Chief Bevan, they've all spoken about the total independence of the investigative team.
With respect to the composition of the team, I believe that if there's the appropriate accountability framework and reporting structure in place, then it can function very well. I go back to a file in the Toronto Police Service, where it was headed up by a member of the RCMP, with primarily Toronto Police Service investigators, and my discussions with that individual are that there were no issues.
Now, the perception is there, I agree, and it's something that certainly needs to be addressed. But in this case, it was not brought to my attention, nor was it raised by anyone else that there was an issue around that.
:
I will share my time with Mr. Lussier.
Commissioner Busson, after the criminal investigation of the Ottowa Police Service, the RCMP started some internal disciplinary investigations relating to allegations of misconduct. However, no disciplinary measure was ever taken because there was a limitation rule of one year.
Since we have started this review, I have met several persons of my riding who have the feeling--this is similar to the Gomery Commission--that some people have behaved inappropriately, have put money in their pockets or allowed others to put money in their pockets, but have not been punished, especially because of the limitation rule of one year.
Do you believe that the limitation rule of one year in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act should be changed? It seems clear to me that some people who were recognized as really deserving to be sanctioned did not have to face any consequences because of that rule.
:
I, first of all, want to repeat that, to my knowledge, there was no money stuffed in people's pockets, and I think it's important to say that. From what I understand of the truth, there was money used for other purposes and wrongly spent, and golf games taken, and those kinds of things. We've discussed all of that.
The limitation act that applies to the RCMP has been problematic. The act was written in a day when I think it envisioned code of conduct issues such as rude members doing traffic stops, perhaps assaulting or seen to be using excessive force with an arrest, etc. The act was certainly not written to deal with this kind of situation, nor could anyone ever have envisioned that we would be in this state.
So the short answer is yes, I would like to see the RCMP Act changed.
One of the things that happened with regard to the statute of limitations as it applies to the RCMP Act specifically is that we had a ruling called Thériault that actually brought that year to a very succinct and narrow definition. That decision was made after this investigation and a number of other investigations that had been problematic for us—this isn't the only one—were in vigour. So we are doing what we can to deal with that issue.
In that regard, I have also asked for a review of that whole issue with regard to the one-year limitation as it applies to this case, to have that reviewed by, I believe, a subject matter expert in the area, and to assure me again that either formal or informal discipline is precluded in this case.
:
I will just conclude, because I see that this is my last intervention.
You mentioned in response to the member's question about people putting money in their pocket.... I think if you read this KPMG audit, you will find without question that there are individuals who put money in their own pockets at the expense of the pension program that was meant to support the retirement of your members. Instead, it went into the pockets of some very well-favoured insiders, and that's unfortunate.
Your job, and I and I think all of us believe you're up to it, is to restore the public perception that we see on top of your letterhead, that your organization is guided by integrity, honesty, professionalism, compassion, respect, and accountability. We believe that you're up to that job, and we're here to work with you to make sure that happens.