:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to the committee for allowing me this opportunity to respond to the very serious allegation that has been made against me by the member for .
As the member for said on Monday, “In this process, it is unfair for people to have accusations made against them and not to have sufficient time to be able to respond.” I therefore welcome this opportunity to address the accusation directed against me, and to respond to any further questions committee members may have.
In the course of the committee's meeting on March 28, the member for suggested that I had perjured myself during my initial testimony almost two months ago.
Given the severity of the allegation, which the member repeated publicly and to the media, I have been suspended from my duties by the Commissioner of the RCMP, pending a full disciplinary investigation. The utterance of the term “perjury” was the catalyst that changed my life forever.
I have proudly served as a member and officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for 29 years, and this is the first time in my entire career that my conduct and integrity have been called into question. Worse still, because of the confusion surrounding these hearings, some press reports have even suggested that I was somehow involved in the problems with the RCMP pension and insurance funds. I was not.
Further, I did not and have not resigned from the RCMP. On the evening of March 26, 2007, I was asked to step down from my position as deputy commissioner, human resources, at the urging of the commissioner, who told me that while she believed me and felt I had done nothing wrong, it would be in the best interest of the force in light of the increased pressure on the RCMP.
This was prior to any allegations having been made against me, two days before the hearings of March 28.
I made that very difficult decision in a state of disbelief and shock, and I do not yet know how I managed to drive myself home following that meeting.
The arrangement we had reached, which followed her private meetings with other witnesses, was that I would step down and take a combination of educational leave and pre-retirement leave.
The reasons for my suspension, which followed the hearings, relate exclusively to issues arising out of testimony before this committee, and in particular the allegation made by the member for . Indeed, the main purpose for my appearance here today is to address the allegation of perjury, an allegation that is as unfair as it is unfounded.
Let me be perfectly clear. At no time did I either mislead this committee or provide false testimony. The evidence and answers that I gave in response to your questions were at all times honest and accurate.
When I testified on February 21, I was asked the following question: “Did you or Mr. Zaccardelli order that Staff Sergeant Frizzell be removed, and was it you or Mr. Zaccardelli who ordered that the investigation be shut down?”
My response was, and I quote: “I can state with absolute finality that it was neither Commissioner Zaccardelli nor me who had anything whatsoever to do with, as you say, the removal of Sergeant Frizzell.”
Mr. Chairman, I stand by that answer. Moreover, I would refer the committee to the testimony given by Assistant Commissioner Gork, where he stated that the order to remove Sergeant Frizzell was made by him, in consultation with Inspector Paul Roy of the Ottawa Police Service. Inspector Roy is here today. More specifically, in response to repeated questions from committee members, Assistant Commissioner Gork further confirmed that I had never contacted him to have Sergeant Frizzell removed.
Notwithstanding these assurances, the member for tabled a selection of e-mails that he claims show that I had ordered Sergeant Frizzell's removal. He then quoted for the record a short passage from an e-mail written by Chief Superintendent Doug Lang. It read, and I quote: “I have an electronic copy of the written order we served on Frizzell at the request of A/Commr Gork and D/Commr George...”
Mr. Chairman, I have since reviewed the e-mails that were tabled by the member for , including the e-mail from which he quoted. The committee will note that the e-mail in question was part of an exchange of e-mails written between Chief Superintendent Lang and Assistant Commissioner Bruce Rogerson. Following the e-mail I have quoted, Assistant Commissioner Rogerson asked Chief Superintendent Lang to clarify my involvement, as my name had not appeared on the final order given to Frizzell.
Either deliberately or carelessly, the member from Etobicoke Centre failed to read the explanation and the clarification ultimately provided by Chief Superintendent Lang.
As Chief Superintendent Lang's explanation accurately details the events in question, I believe it should be quoted in its entirety. I quote:
I spoke with Deputy George on the phone during this period (before the order was prepared), who provided me further details of Sgt Frizzell's continuance of this investigation after he had been asked to stop, and what she had deemed as continued harassment of one of her employees by Sgt Frizzell.... I received no formal order from either A/Commr Gork nor Deputy George, just requests from both to ensure this situation was rectified, and A/Commr Gork's direction that it be served on Sgt Frizzell in the form of a written order. I advised both when it had been formally served.
These comments further confirm that I did not order the removal of Sergeant Frizzell and that my answer to the committee was accurate. I am deeply troubled by the fact that the member for Etobicoke Centre used a misleading quote, taken grossly out of context, as the basis for alleging that I had lied to this committee and the public.
Given the horrific consequences that my family and I have endured as a result of these false claims, it is my sincere hope that this will put to rest any suggestion that I have been dishonest.
These e-mails also reference an issue that has not been fully explained to the committee, the issue of Sergeant Frizzell's conduct during the Ottawa Police Service investigation. Although Inspector Roy is far better able to discuss the problems he had with Sergeant Frizzell during his investigation, I want to be clear about the concerns that I had expressed to others at the time.
In June 2005, Ms. Rosalie Burton told me that some members of her staff were being aggressively interrogated by Sergeant Frizzell. In fact, it was my understanding that at least two staff members were so upset after their interviews with Sergeant Frizzell that they had to be sent home. As a career RCMP officer, I can attest that this type of conduct by an investigating officer is neither acceptable nor productive.
Shortly thereafter, Sergeant Frizzell left a voice-mail message on Ms. Burton's telephone, which he played for the committee during his appearance on March 28. In the message, Sergeant Frizzell indicated that “a criminal act is ongoing and seemingly condoned by senior management”.
Ms. Burton and Deputy Commissioner Gauvin both assured me that Sergeant Frizzell had failed to understand the matters he was investigating with respect to the insurance outsourcing. Moreover, it was highly inappropriate for an officer involved in an investigation to leave such a message for someone he subsequently wished to interview.
In respect of both complaints, I telephoned Assistant Commissioner Darrell LaFosse and told him of what I had learned, and I asked that he speak with Sergeant Frizzell regarding his interviewing methods. Assistant Commissioner LaFosse, in turn, told me that I should express my concerns to Assistant Commissioner Rogerson, which I did shortly thereafter.
In the course of these calls I was informed that, unbeknownst to me, a decision had already been made by the Ottawa Police Service to terminate the probity investigation. Upon learning this, I spoke with Chief Superintendent Lang to see what now was being done with respect to Sergeant Frizzell. Chief Superintendent Lang later advised me that he had served Sergeant Frizzell with an order from Assistant Commissioner Gork instructing him to return to his regular duties. A copy of that order was provided to this committee by Commissioner Busson as an attachment to her letter of March 1, 2007.
The order states in part:
You have been previously advised by Inspector Paul Roy of the Ottawa Police Service to cease and desist any and all investigative activities relative to the project probity investigation. This investigative team has now been dismantled. We have now been made aware that despite the instructions you have already received, that you continue to conduct further inquiries relative to this investigation for which you have no mandate or authority.
In the weeks and months after the investigation ended, I came to learn that others had experienced similar problems with Sergeant Frizzell.
In support of this, I would like to table an e-mail exchange that took place between me and Assistant Commissioner Gork following my first appearance before this committee. The e-mail outlines a series of problems that the Ottawa Police Service and others had had with Sergeant Frizzell in the course of the investigation. Again, however, Inspector Roy will be better able to speak to these issues.
Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that I continue to have a great respect for the important work of this committee. For 29 years I have been a career RCMP officer. My husband was a former RCMP member. Our eldest son is an RCMP member, and our two younger sons hope to join the RCMP after graduating university. We are proud of this force and proud of its members.
As difficult as these hearings have been for me personally, for my family, my friends, and my supporters, I recognize their role in restoring the public's trust and confidence in the RCMP. I support and applaud your continued efforts to understand what took place during this difficult period.
Unfortunately, given the limited time period we have for opening statements, I have not been able to address all of the issues that this committee has heard of. To that end, I would be pleased to take any questions you may have on the issues I have raised in my opening statement, or indeed any other issues as well.
Thank you. Merci.
:
Mr. Chair and honourable members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before committee today.
I appear before you today as a public servant, having more than 20 years of experience in the federal public service, mostly in human resources management. Prior to joining the public service, I obtained an honours Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of Ottawa, specializing in human resource management and management information systems. Later in my career, I obtained a master's certificate from Royal Roads University. I started my career up at Chalk River nuclear labs with Atomic Energy of Canada.
I'd like to start by sharing with you that it was a very proud time in my career when I joined the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. To have the opportunity to contribute to safe homes and safe communities, to know that in some small way I could contribute to the men and women on the front line who protect our citizens and be part of a proud tradition and a national icon, was a highlight in my career and a true honour.
My first day with the RCMP was August 27, 2001. I transferred from my position at Treasury Board Secretariat, chief information officer branch, to the RCMP's executive officer development and resourcing section. My role there was to design and implement a suite of leadership development programs, and I completed these tasks successfully.
In the late fall of 2003, I took on the role of acting director general of the organization renewal and effectiveness team, replacing Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay.
On or before September 11, 2003, and prior to my arrival in the acting director general role, 12 individuals had been identified to be declared surplus. One of these employees identified for surplus was Denise Revine, an individual for whom I had not had any line responsibility prior to taking on my new role. Due to funding pressures, the HR branch budget had a shortfall of $1.3 million for the fiscal year 2004-05, and some programs would simply not be funded. I consulted the public service staff relations adviser at the RCMP and implemented these budget decisions, ensuring due process was followed.
I was appointed by the Public Service Commission as an EX-2, director general, effective April 1, 2004. Around this time, I also assumed responsibility for the National Compensation Policy Centre, among other entities. This was as a result of a reorganization of the human resources team that was announced in February of 2004.
I understood my mandate concerning the National Compensation Policy Centre to be one of sustaining operations. The employees on this team were working very hard, but by the time I arrived, they had been without their director for several months. Part of my task was to restore morale and bring focus to their work.
While sustaining operations, I attended an insurance committee meeting that prompted me to ask several questions pertaining to the administration of the insurance program. I suspected a lack of management controls for our members' insurance program. On November 29, 2004, I requested an internal audit through our chief audit executive, with the concurrence of both the chair of the insurance committee and my superior, the chief human resources officer. Also, at the suggestion of the executive assistant to the chief human resources officer, I contacted an investigator on the criminal investigation, who, as I understood it, was working under the direction of an inspector of the Ottawa Police Service, to share my concerns about the insurance program.
In my role as director general, I created a management action plan that consisted of corrective actions to the insurance audit findings. The management action plan was supported by the RCMP audit committee, chaired by the commissioner. These corrective actions were implemented and subsequently reviewed by the Office of the Auditor General, as indicated in chapter 9 of the Report of the Auditor General, on RCMP pension and insurance administration, dated November 2006.
Also, as a result of the lessons learned from the audit and an A-base review, I created an organization design for the National Compensation Policy Centre based on current and future work requirements with increased management oversight and quality assurance elements.
While I do not presume to know the process or procedures that were undertaken in the criminal investigation and the subsequent RCMP internal investigation, I am confident that I exercised my responsibilities in the best interest of the Crown, underpinned by the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, honourable members.
:
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the investigation into the RCMP pension fund undertaken by the Ottawa Police Service between March 2004 and June 2005 was an independent, thorough, and complete criminal investigation. It was concluded with integrity and professionalism in accordance with the principles of major case management and in keeping with conventional practices in modern Canadian policing.
[Translation]
My name is Paul Roy and I was the officer in charge of this investigation. By way of background, I am a 32-year veteran of the Ottawa Police Service, having retired last January as an inspector. Over half my career has been spent in the field of criminal investigations. Of relevance to this committee is the fact that I spent five years with the Professional Standards Section conducting and managing investigations of other police officers.
For the last five years prior to retirement, I was a senior officer responsible , first, for directing the Major Crime Unit and subsequently, for directing the property and enterprise crime units, including the Organized Fraud Unit, the High Tech Crime Unit and Forensic Identification Services.
[English]
I wish to make the following comments about the investigation. The investigation took 15 months. There were 238 interviews, including an interview with the Commissioner of the RCMP. There were 75,000 documents researched. There was a provincial crown attorney assigned to the file from the onset. A number of significant investigative techniques were employed. Relevant documents were obtained, regardless of where they were held and in spite of the security classification surrounding them. The final report, including several binders, filled a banker's box. The executive summary was 51 pages long.
Why were no criminal charges laid? Gone are the days when police officers, in doubt over laying charges, can simply let the judge sort it out. Royal commissions and judicial inquiries have reiterated that in Canada the laying of criminal charges is an extremely serious exercise of public authority. In Ontario, charges will only proceed where there is a “reasonable prospect of conviction”, considered to be a higher legal threshold to lay a charge than “reasonable and probable grounds”, called for in the Criminal Code of Canada. In this case, there was no reasonable prospect of criminal conviction.
That does not mean, however, that no wrongdoing took place--to the contrary. The Ottawa Police investigation report identifies that 21 persons at different levels of the RCMP were alleged to have committed wrongdoings or improper actions, with 14 pages of specific allegations.
I would like to tell you how the investigation operated. I was in charge of this investigation. That meant that I made the investigative decisions. In doing so, I met regularly with Ottawa Police Chief Vince Bevan, alone or with Deputy Chief Sue O'Sullivan and Ottawa Police Superintendent Peter Crosby, my immediate supervisor. We discussed strategies and operational options, but the decisions were mine.
In making those decisions, I also met with Mr. Robert Wadden, the assigned provincial crown attorney, and Sergeant William Sullivan from the Ottawa Police Service, who worked with me, and I met regularly with Ottawa Police Service general counsel Vincent Westwick, who is also in charge of our professional standards section. I consulted regularly with the investigative team members to elicit their opinions and views. I encouraged each member of the team to be involved, to debate, to challenge operational theories and decisions. That is more than just good management; it is a test against tunnel vision or rush to judgment, an essential part of the integrity of any investigation.
Now I wish to comment on the role of Assistant Commissioner David Gork and the independence of the investigation.
It's very difficult to conduct an investigation of this magnitude within a large institution without a contact or liaison person. During this investigation, I met with Assistant Commissioner Gork when I needed something from the RCMP, whether it be resources, facilities, specialized or technical operational support, or access to documents or persons. In each and every case Assistant Commissioner Gork provided full and complete support to my investigation. At no time did he attempt to interfere or influence me in any way. I did not report to Mr. Gork, nor did I take any direction from him. Indeed, in my opinion, Assistant Commissioner Gork and all the RCMP members assigned to the investigative team put the interest of the investigation ahead of their own interests and those of the RCMP.
[Translation]
While I accept the comments of the Auditor General and others about the perceived lack of independence, I invite the committee to consider the following:
This investigation was directed by the Ottawa Police Service.
I was the officer in charge and reported to the chief of the Ottawa Police Service.
It started out as a 3-month investigation, but lasted 15 months; the decision to increase the duration and magnitude was mine.
The crown assigned to the investigation was from the office of the provincial Crown Attorney and was involved throughout the investigation, not just at the end.
The Ottawa Police ordered and relied on an independent forensic audit.
The results of the investigation were announced publicly by the Ottawa Police in a media conference on June 27, 2005.
There was no influence attempted or exercised in relation to this investigation.
This investigation uncovered all the wrongdoing, mismanagement and unethical behaviour that existed and outlined detailed evidence as to who was accountable for such actions, regardless of their rank or position within the RCMP.
The report provided was a detailed and a complete review of all the findings.
I presented my final report to Chief Bevan who in turn delivered it directly to the Commissioner of the RCMP.
I am fully committed to cooperating with this committee and with the independent investigation called by the government.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
:
I kind of feel like cannon fodder here, especially after Ms. George complained to the committee about how she was treated, and then she sat here and made allegations against me that I've heard for the first time. I'm not sure how the chief human resources officer justifies saying I was such a bad person, and yet nobody ever sat down with me and explained to me all of these allegations. I would have liked the chance back then to deal with that.
But that aside, Ms. George contacted me on the Thursday before I was removed—her office did—asking to see me. I said yes, and then I started thinking about it and called back and asked why. To make a long story short, I was told it was about a phone call I had made. Obviously it's the phone call I made to Ms. Burton, but at the time I believed it was a phone call I had made to Great-West Life when I'd learned about half a million dollars being taken out of the insurance fund.
Now, Ms. George has been nice enough to say that I failed to understand the intricacies of that investigation. No one has ever pointed that out to me. In fact, I made a presentation directly to Ms. George in February of this year, where Ms. George would have had plenty of opportunity to set me straight or to realize I was pretty serious and have somebody else set me straight. Instead, out of that meeting, Mr. Gork sent me an e-mail telling me:
I want to thank both of you, especially Mike, not only for all the work you've done, but for your ability to put it together in a package that someone as untrained as myself can understand. You did a great job this a.m. with the CHRO, Mike. You bring credit, not only to the investigation, but to yourself. Good on you.
That was February 2005.
So I thought it had to do with this money, but I found out otherwise, and was told that Ms. George was gunning for me. You've heard about her trip to see Mr. LaFosse.
Anyway, that aside, come Monday morning, when I was supposed to go to see her, I hadn't heard back from her on why she wanted to see me. I felt that was important, because I felt she was involved in removing this money from the insurance plans. So I sent her an e-mail that morning:
I would like to meet with you to discuss further moneys that had been removed from the members' insurance plans, but if the topic is something else, then, as per my last e-mail, I would appreciate knowing what it is so that I might properly prepare.
That e-mail was sent at 10:22. I was supposed to see Ms. George in her office at 10:30. Within 40 to 45 minutes of that, Mr. Lang and Mr. Newman showed up at my door to give me the famous order you've all heard about. There was no mention of anything to do with Ottawa, other than the line that Ms. George mentioned. When I challenged it, Mr. Lang didn't know anything about it, but Mr. Newman was extremely preoccupied with the fact that I should have been at the CHRO's office and I wasn't, and how dare I not show up at the CHRO's office as demanded.
All I said to him was that there were an awful lot of ranks, as he could clearly see, between me and the chief human resources officer of the RCMP; that it was not appropriate for her to be calling me there, and certainly not appropriate for her to be calling me there without my knowing why. There was absolutely no question in my mind, due to the conversation with Mr. Newman, due to the e-mails, due to the fact I was supposed to be in her office at the time, that I was being removed from the investigation because of Ms. George and the money taken out of the insurance plans.
That's a long answer.
:
With regard to Mr. Frizzell's comments about Doug Lang, etc., and Mr. Macaulay's comments, I'll put it all in together.
When Rosalie Burton came into my office and talked about the sad state that the witnesses were in following interviews by Sergeant Frizzell, we talked about the fact that NCPC was being decimated and that these people were witnesses.
What I did was I immediately picked up the phone and spoke with Assistant Commissioner LaFosse, and I asked him if somebody could speak with Sergeant Frizzell to ask him to tone down his interviewing methodology. For people to run screaming out of the office after a witness interview is simply not productive and not normal. So Assistant Commissioner LaFosse asked me to speak with Bruce Rogerson, and I told him the same thing.
At about the same time, Rosalie Burton forwarded me an e-mail, it was a voice mail that she had put to paper, from Staff Sergeant Frizzell to her, outlining serious wrongdoing going on with the insurance. I don't have a background in insurance, but I knew that Rosalie had been heavily involved in correcting the gaps in the insurance file for the RCMP and that she had been working closely with corporate, and in particular Deputy Commissioner Paul Gauvin.
Upon receipt of this e-mail, I took it forward to Paul Gauvin, and I said, “This looks like there are still continuing wrongdoings or crimes being committed within the insurance.” Paul said, “Barb, I'm telling you right now there is nothing there. Everything that needs to be done to correct the insurance is done.” He said, “You can rest assured that your members are covered with life and disability. Every other insurance is covered.” The problem is that the RCMP never did, and still doesn't, have the authority to administer insurance programs for our members.
I asked him about the premiums. I said, “Our members are thinking that the premium costs are going to double or triple.” He said, “A little, but really, it's only 2.5% for administrative fees, because that's how the insurance is paid.”
If I may elaborate, following Commissioner Zaccardelli's severe disappointment with Chief Superintendent Macaulay's failure to come forward in a timely manner with the knowledge he had concerning the alleged wrongdoings in the HR and corporate areas, he had a meeting with him. My recollection of that meeting—because I was there too; the commissioner was there speaking with Fraser Macaulay, and I was there too. There were three of us in that room.
I should tell this committee that Chief Superintendent Macaulay had no intention whatsoever of coming in to see the commissioner and relaying to him exactly what it was he knew, listed as “noise”, around the outsourcing and other issues. I made that appointment early that morning. I asked the commissioner if I could come over to see him, and I said, “Commissioner, I would like to bring Fraser Macaulay. Will you listen?” He said, “Yes, bring him in.”
I went across the street to the Hampton Inn, where there was a meeting in place—an HRMT meeting. I looked at Mr. Macaulay and said, “Fraser, you're coming with me. We are going to see the commissioner.” He was not happy about that.
We went in. We sat down, the three of us, and I introduced it. I said, “Commissioner, Fraser has some information here. I've heard little bits of it, but I think there is a lot of information that you need to hear with regard to what's going on in the HR sector and possibly in corporate.”
Fraser sat down and started to relate to the commissioner, face to face, all of the alleged wrongdoings, from contract splitting to nepotism to harassment of employees to overpayment, and on and on it went.
At the end of that conversation the commissioner, to my recollection, asked Fraser two questions.
He said: “Fraser, how long have you known about this?” Mr. Macaulay answered: “A year, maybe longer.”
The next question from the commissioner: “Fraser, when were you going to come to tell me about this?” Fraser's answer: “I wasn't. I report to Jim Ewanovich. He's my boss; he'll kill you. I have to look out for my career.”
The commissioner said: “Fraser, you should let me look out for your career.”
Following this, the commissioner said he had to be held accountable, that we had to look at giving him an opportunity—he is young, with 22 years' service, and he had a chief superintendent's rank—
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. George, you have reviewed the testimony, and I presume you read the chair's opening remarks the other day, when he said that witnesses are required to give fulsome answers to the committee. This is not a court of law where you're in defence. You are protected by parliamentary privilege; therefore, fulsome answers are what we expect and will require.
I'll go back to your testimony on February 21 where, first of all, you talk about an e-mail from Bruce Rogerson to Fraser Macaulay prior to Mr. Macaulay's appearing before the committee. He said, “Barb George called Darrell LaFosse, then me and, then, Dave Gork, surrounding Mike Frizzell's harassing behaviour and he needed to be dealt with swiftly. ... As we are aware of the calls that were made, Dave and Barb were consulted and, they were both advised of the order served whereby Frizzell was removed from his office...”
I believe in your opening statement you also mentioned that you were advised when the thing was formally served. I think you acknowledged that.
Now, on February 21, you said, “I can state with absolute finality that it was neither Commissioner Zaccardelli nor me who had anything whatsoever to do with, as you say, the removal of Sergeant Frizzell.” And I acknowledge that you did not give the order, but you acknowledge that you were aware it was all happening.
says, “Can you tell us who it was?” You say, “No, I'm not aware of who it was. The best I can state is that when Sergeant Frizzell left, I understood he returned to his home division...”.
Now, you were aware of the circumstances regarding the removal of Mr. Frizzell. I'm not asking whether you gave the order, I'm not asking if you made the decision; I'm just saying you were aware. Am I correct?
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
And thank you all for your attendance here today.
Let me just say at the outset that I appreciate Mr. Williams' feeling of outrage. And the more we dig, the more we realize that there's more to find.
I would just point out that the investigation that has been called into this could get no closer to this issue Mr. Williams just raised than we did—in fact, less so. We at least have put people under oath. The investigator can't do that. The investigator can't command documents. Even if they do, there's nothing to require them to make those documents part of the final submission, and that's the problem.
It would help a lot—and I say this very sincerely—if the Conservative members moved from abstention to lending their considerable weight to the call for a proper judicial inquiry so that these witnesses can have the protection they need and ultimately we'll get to the truth, because we're not here. We're going to keep going in circles. We're going to keep doing this because it's better than that investigation, but this is far from perfect.
Every time we go around the table, to me it just reinforces that much more that what the RCMP deserves, what the officers of the RCMP deserve, and what the Canadian public deserve is a proper, full public inquiry, and we're not going to stop hammering away at that until we bloody well get one.
Deputy, I'd like to return to some of your comments.
By the way, I have a great deal of sympathy for the concerns you raised at the beginning. We're no closer to getting to the truth than we were at the beginning. I have no idea, at the end of the day, who is going to be held responsible, but I really worry about people being wronged in this process. So I appreciate what you said, Deputy, but as you know, we have to persevere, we have to do the best we can, and hopefully the minister will step in and give us tools to do a better job.
When you met with us the last time, you said, “It was felt at that time by the then commissioner that Chief Superintendent Macaulay would benefit from a secondment. He was actually given a short secondment with the military.”
Can I ask you to give us your recollection of that discussion you had with the commissioner, given that—I'm going from memory, so I stand to be corrected—the former commissioner's testimony stated that he thought Chief Superintendent Macaulay had made some kind of mistake and that by going off to DND he could reclaim his reputation and get his career back on track? That didn't sound to me like it was only about furthering Chief Superintendent Macaulay's career, and he has given direct testimony that he believes he was removed for other reasons—meaning, bringing forward these issues.
Could you tell us what that conversation was, as you recall it, with the former commissioner about how this was going to be a benefit to Chief Superintendent Macaulay's career?
There was a lot of conversation following what the commissioner saw as a grave disappointment in the fact that Chief Superintendent Macaulay had not come forward on a timely basis to tell him about the issues that were running rampant in NCPC, HR, and corporate. Remember, as I said, according to the commissioner, he heard Macaulay say, “Well, I knew about it for a year and a half.” I heard, “I knew about it for a year, maybe more.”
So to the commissioner, he was gravely disappointed. Had he come forward sooner, a year ago maybe, we could have gotten our teeth into this situation, and whatever wrongdoing was ongoing, whatever was happening with the pension plan, whatever was happening with the insurances, and God knows what else could have been seen to much sooner and probably wouldn't have gotten to the state that it did.
That said, the commissioner said, “You know, this person was promoted early, 22 years of service, to chief superintendent. What he needs is to go somewhere to learn some courage and some leadership. Look at some places where he can go.” That's what he said. There was a little bit of talk about returning him to E Division for a while, because I think that's the operational division whence he came.
Finally, we settled on DND. They have a marvellous military ethos. They are famous for their leadership. So that's where that came in. It was a two-year secondment, and Macaulay spent seven months there.
Ms. George, before the end of the previous round, I had spoken to you about this letter from Mr. Lewis, dated January 5, 2004. Could you provide us with any documentation, e-mails, or anything you might have on file that would show action on this? The record up to this point shows that nothing transpired for another three months, until such time as Mr. Lewis went to Treasury Board and Minister McLellan. A couple of days afterwards, the Ottawa Police Service then began their investigation.
I'd like to move on to another part of your testimony, Ms. George, dealing with Mr. Crupi and his rampant nepotism. I asked you on February 21 whether Mr. Crupi got 18 months leave with pay. Your answer was short and succinct: “Mr. Crupi was suspended.” I asked, “With pay?” You said, “Yes.”
Now, before the committee, Mr. Zaccardelli said—and this is a quote: “I can only repeat again that the day I received the report...I appointed Barb George as the new chief human resources officer, with the instructions to remove Crupi from his position.” He then went on to say: “If that was not immediate action...”.
When Mr. Williams was questioning you just now, you referenced your knowledge of Treasury Board guidelines. The public service staff regulation act states, under point (h)(1)(e): “if the alleged misconduct so warrants, suspend the employee from duty immediately”--that's Mr. Zaccardelli underlined that he did--“and obtain approval without delay”--well, he instructed you to do that--“tell the employee that he/she is suspended from duty without pay pending an investigation of his/her alleged misconduct, and that it will be confirmed in writing.”
You quite clearly said you suspended him, and you suspended him with pay. Your guidelines say that should not have happened. Why?