PACP Committee Report

DISCLOSURE OF WRONGDOING

The audit by the Office of the Auditor General looked at whether the RCMP had adequately responded to the findings of an internal audit and a criminal investigation. These audits and investigations would not have come about, however, without the dedication of several RCMP employees. Wrongdoing in the administration of the RCMP’s pension plan came to light due to the tenacious work of Staff Sergeant Ron Lewis (who retired from the RCMP in 2004), Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay, and Ms. Denise Revine. Unfortunately, reprisals were taken against C/Supt Macaulay and Ms. Revine for their efforts. The Committee also heard that reprisals were taken against Assistant Commissioner, Bruce Rogerson, for exposing a separate matter regarding unethical behaviour in the RCMP. The new Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act should make it easier for RCMP members to disclose wrongdoing and be protected from reprisals, but it is important that this Act is consistent with the RCMP’s current Code of Conduct procedures. ¹

Uncovering wrongdoing in the administration of the pension plan

In early 2003, Staff Sergeant Ron Lewis, who represented RCMP members as a Staff Relations Representative, ² received complaints from senior RCMP employees of abuse of authority, nepotism, and misappropriation of pension funds within the human resources branch of the RCMP. He met with and made a formal complaint to Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli about these allegations on May 28, 2003. S/Sgt Lewis subsequently made a formal written request for a criminal investigation on June 5, 2003. He says that Commr. Zaccardelli instructed him to do so, which Commr. Zaccardelli denies. (The Committee was unable to determine whose version of events was correct.) Regardless, the Commissioner stopped this investigation on June 25 and ordered an internal audit instead.

In the spring of 2003, independently of S/Sgt Lewis’ actions, Denise Revine, a public servant working in the human resources branch under the supervision of Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay, was charged with responsibility for conducting an “A base” review of spending within the branch to determine the adequacy of funding and how resources could be best allocated. Shortly after beginning the review, Ms. Revine began to uncover what she believed to be gross mismanagement and possible fraud and corruption in the administration of the RCMP’s pension plan. She found that many items charged to the superannuation account and pension fund (collator code N2020) were not directly attributable to delivery of the pension program, such as hospitality costs, gifts to suppliers, language training, and the salaries of employees who did not work on pension administration-related projects. In addition, she uncovered instances of nepotism and favoritism in making appointments, the circumvention of contracting standards and processes, and possible conflicts of interest. The concerns centred on the actions of the Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO), Jim Ewanovich, and Dominic Crupi, the Director of the National Compensation Policy Centre (NCPC), who were managing the outsourcing of the administration RCMP’s pension plan.

Ms. Revine first reported her findings to C/Supt Macaulay in early June 2003, who then took his concerns about the actions of Mr. Ewanovich and Mr. Crupi to Assistant Commissioner John Spice, who was the Ethics Advisor. A/Commr. Spice discussed these concerns with other senior officers, including then Assistant Commissioner Barbara George. She insisted that C/Supt Macaulay relay his concerns to Commr. Zaccardelli. C/Supt Macaulay told the Committee that he was reluctant to take his concerns to Commr. Zaccardelli because they had only begun to collect findings on wrongdoing. Regardless, A/Commr. George took C/Supt Macaulay to meet with Commr. Zaccardelli on June 17, 2003 in order to discuss Ms. Revine’s findings. C/Supt Macaulay and Ms. Revine subsequently met with A/Commr. John Spice and those conducting the external audit in late September.

As a criminal investigation did not seem to be forthcoming after the completion of the internal audit in October 2003, S/Sgt Lewis sought Ms. Revine’s help in making a formal request in January 2004 to A/Commr. George, who had then been promoted to CHRO, for a criminal investigation. A second criminal investigation was eventually started in March 2004. This delay between the completion of the internal audit and the start of the criminal investigation will be discussed further in the section on external review.

Reprisals

It is abundantly clear that the actions of C/Supt Macaulay and Ms. Revine were fundamental in bringing wrongdoing in the administration of the pension plan to light. However, rather than being congratulated for their diligence and integrity, they both suffered reprisals for their efforts.

In September 2003, A/Commr. George told C/Supt Macaulay that Commr. Zaccardelli had decided that he would be sent off on a secondment to the Department of National Defence. Commr Zaccardelli believed this move was justified because C/Supt Macaulay had not reported his concerns soon enough. Commr Zaccardelli told the Committee, “I determined as Commissioner that he had made a serious error in judgment in not reporting what he had known when he had said he had known it for almost a year and a half.” ³ Despite saying that C/Supt Macaulay had made an error in judgment, Commr. Zaccardelli tried to claim that this was done for his own good. Commr. Zaccardelli said, “In my judgment, the removal of Chief Superintendent Fraser Macaulay was part of that – not to punish him, but to reconstitute what should be done and improve it, and also to give him an opportunity to get out of there and to grow from there.” ⁴ According to Commr Zaccardelli, “There are no punishment transfers in the RCMP … I have never, ever transferred anyone or directed anybody to ever be transferred for a punishment purpose.” ⁵

The Committee cannot accept Commr Zaccardelli’s position because it strains all credulity. It is not possible to send someone off on secondment against his will for “an error in judgment” without that rightly being perceived as a punishment. As C/Supt Macaulay said, “for me, being removed from my position was a punishment and a clear message to others.” ⁶ Commr Zaccardelli tried to claim that he was not pleased because C/Supt had not told him soon enough about his concerns about Jim Ewanovich, but C/Supt Macaulay could not have had firm evidence of wrongdoing in the administration of the pension plan until Ms. Revine undertook her review in June 2003. Moreover, it is not relevant when C/Supt Macaulay knew about the wrongdoing. The more pertinent issue was how to investigate the problem further in order to hold those responsible to account. Also, S/Sgt Lewis told Commr Zaccardelli of allegations of wrongdoing — harassment and abuse of authority — by Mr. Ewanovich in late 2001, but Commr Zaccardelli took no action at that time. It seems odd to place responsibility on C/Supt Macaulay for something that should have been widely known by senior management (Mr. Crupi was chastised for his hiring practices and had his contracting privileges revoked long before Ms. Revine’s review).

The Committee strongly believes that the former Commissioner’s actions with respect to C/Supt Macaulay were highly inappropriate, if not suspect. Commr Zaccardelli may have developed his own rationalization that he was somehow benefiting C/Supt Macaulay, but the Committee is led to conclude that it was indeed a punishment transfer, and, as David Brown wrote in his report, “The unfairness of this transfer sent a message throughout the organization that one brings bad news to the Commissioner at one’s peril.” ⁷

 In February 2004, Denise Revine had the first inkling that her future with the RCMP might be in doubt when she attended a meeting on restructuring in the Human Resources Branch and her name was not on the new organization charts. In April, Rosalie Burton, the Director General of Human Resources Systems and Strategies told Ms. Revine that she no longer had a job in the RCMP; due to budget cuts, Ms. Revine’s position was eliminated and she was classified as a surplus employee. Ms. Burton told the Committee that the decision about Ms. Revine had been made prior to her arrival. She said:

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. ⁸

However, C/Supt Macaulay was the Director General prior to Ms. Burton, and he did not identify Ms. Revine as surplus. It is not at all clear how Ms. Revine came to be declared surplus. It is clear, though, that the stress of the turmoil took its toll on Ms. Revine’s health and she went on extended sick leave in August 2004 and has been working from home since June 2005. She is currently in mediation with the RCMP in order to resolve her employment situation.

The Committee believes that Ms. Revine was quite clearly punished for tenaciously working to reveal wrongdoing in the administration of the pension plan. This view is shared by David Brown, who wrote, “In my view, the desire by certain members of senior management to move Ms. Revine out of the RCMP was satisfied by using the restructuring process in the Human Resources Branch to try to force her out of the organization.” ⁹ However, neither the Committee nor Mr. Brown were able to determine precisely how Ms. Revine came to be declared surplus or who made the decision.

In addition to C/Supt Macaulay and Ms. Revine, the Committee heard from Assistant Commissioner Bruce Rogerson, who said that his career suffered when he tried to prevent wrongdoing by other senior members of the RCMP. According to A/Commr Rogerson, in 2001 he questioned the acceptance of gifts, such as hockey tickets and rounds of golf, by members of the RCMP, including senior officials. He consulted with the Ethics Advisor, who agreed that such behaviour should not be accepted. A/Commr Rogerson took it upon himself to issue an e-mail to senior managers to not participate in this type of activity. He also told them he would initiate a Code of Conduct investigation, but he was overruled by his then supervisor, Paul Gauvin, who saw nothing wrong with such behaviour. The Ontario Provincial Police was subsequently brought in to investigate both this matter and several sole-source contracts. Shortly thereafter, A/Commr Rogerson was told that he was being held accountable for the investigation, and he was eliminated from the senior management team of the RCMP. He was then offered a position which was a staff sergeant’s duty call.

While undoubtedly there were others who revealed information in a confidential manner, it is likely that most employees quietly kept their head down and tried to ignore the inappropriate actions of others around them because it was clear that those who attempted to expose wrongdoing were dealt with harshly. (The one person who did not face reprisals was S/Sgt Ron Lewis, but presumably this was because he was Staff Relations Representative, and he retired from the RCMP in 2004.) C/Supt Macaulay told the Committee why more people were not coming forward. He said:

The bottom line is that it was a very clear message to the employees that you don't put your hand up. Did we have the conversation about why other people weren’t coming forward? Yes, we did. And it was made very clear to him [Commr Zaccardelli] that nobody was happy and that they didn’t trust that anyone was going to do anything. ¹⁰

The fact that C/Supt Macaulay, Ms. Revine, A/Commr Rogerson decided to step forward despite a prevailing culture in the RCMP that emphasized loyalty and discipline rather than integrity and honesty, makes their actions that much more commendable. In such circumstances disclosing wrongdoing takes a considerable amount of courage and tenacity. Each of them suffered for speaking out. Within the RCMP their reputation and careers were put at risk, but they also endured adverse effects on their health and personal relationships. The Committee strongly believes that these individuals exemplified the true values of the RCMP: honesty, integrity, professionalism, compassion, respect, and accountability. However, those who subjected these individuals to reprisals expressed the opposite values: a lack of integrity, unprofessional behaviour, and disrespect.

The Committee is pleased to note that former Commr Beverly Busson gave the RCMP’s top honour, a Commissioner’s Commendation, to S/Sgt Mike Frizzell, S/Sgt Ron Lewis, C/Supt Fraser Macaulay, Ms. Denise Revine, and S/Sgt Steve Walker. ¹¹ On November 21, 2007, the Public Accounts Committee made a report to the House of Commons commending the actions of the same five individuals, but the Committee also commended A/Commr Bruce Rogerson. ¹² The Committee is disappointed that the RCMP has not seen fit to restore the reputation and honour of A/Commr Rogerson, even though his integrity and courageous actions led to an Ontario Provincial Police investigation and disciplinary action against numerous senior officials at the RCMP. Consequently, the Committee recommends that:

Recommendation 3

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police commend Assistant Commissioner Bruce Rogerson for his efforts to put an end to the acceptance of gifts and hospitality by senior members of the RCMP; that the RCMP restore all people who were demoted or removed to their original positions as promptly as possible, if those who were demoted or removed so wish.

Improving Procedures for Disclosing Wrongdoing

During the time-period in question, there was a Treasury Board Policy in place called Internal Disclosure of Information Concerning Wrongdoing in the Workplace. C/Supt Macaulay, Ms. Revine, and A/Commr Rogerson did what they were supposed to do under this policy, which was pursue all internal avenues before contacting the Public Service Integrity Officer. Ms. Revine took her concerns to her superior. C/Supt Macaulay could not do likewise because his superior was implicated; so, he instead took his concerns to the Ethics Advisor. A/Commr Rogerson spoke to his supervisor, who was not supportive, and also contacted the Ethics Advisor. The former Ethics Advisor, A/Commr Spice, told the Committee that there was also the option of going outside the organization. He said:

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. ¹³

Additionally, the previous Treasury Board policy included a prohibition against reprisal. However, A/Commr Spice retired in November 2003 and his replacement, Mike Séguin, had been Dominic Crupi’s supervisor. C/Supt Macaulay and Ms. Revine lost the support they would have needed to pursue remedies outside the RCMP, as the paramilitary culture of the RCMP did not, and arguably still does not, encourage exposing internal problems to outsiders.

Unfortunately, the RCMP let these people down. While there was an administrative policy in place for the disclosure of wrongdoing, the RCMP did not adhere to the policy. Not only was there a reluctance to properly investigate the wrongdoing, those who disclosed the wrongdoing suffered reprisals. It was the responsibility of the deputy head, in this case the Commissioner of the RCMP, to enforce the policy. However, Commr Zaccardelli seemed to be more concerned with demonstrating his authority and control over the organization than focusing on discipline for those who engaged in wrongdoing and encouraging others to come forward. He failed to act when S/Sgt Lewis first brought concerns about Mr. Ewanovich to him in 2001 — he shut the first criminal investigation down after only two days — and he seemed reluctant to start another criminal investigation in the face of documented evidence of wrongdoing by the internal audit. In addition, Commr Zaccardelli was personally responsible for temporarily transferring C/Supt Macaulay out of the organization.

The Committee is deeply disappointed in the behaviour of Commr Zaccardelli. As Commissioner, he had a position of trust and leadership, and he failed to live up to the high expectations of such a position of importance. Much of the blame for the RCMP’s loss of reputation and morale as a result of this scandal can be placed on the shoulders of Commr Zaccardelli. While the Committee did not receive any evidence that he participated in the wrongdoing, Commr Zaccardelli failed to ensure that all of those involved were held to account by swiftly calling for a detailed investigation and disciplinary action against all wrongdoers. Instead, he looked the other way when allegations of abuse of authority were brought to him in 2001, and he moved those who reported wrongdoing out of their positions so they would not be able to shed further light on the wrongdoing. The Commissioner of the RCMP must lead by example and his or her behaviour must beyond reproach. Unfortunately, Commr Zaccardelli’s behaviour did not meet this standard. The evidence suggests that he was not always guided by the RCMP’s values of integrity, honesty, professionalism, compassion, respect and accountability. Consequently, the Committee recommends that:

Recommendation 4

The House of Commons denounce the lack of leadership shown by former Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli during the investigation into malfeasance in the administration of the RCMP’s pension and insurance plans.

When people see reprisals meted out against those who disclose wrongdoing, they are less inclined to disclose problems themselves. This contributes to an unhealthy culture of fear and mistrust, gives strength to wrongdoers, and encourages others to emulate their inappropriate behaviour. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the leadership style of Commr Zaccardelli contributed to a culture that allowed the wrongdoing to occur. In order to prevent this type of problem from happening again, the RCMP must change its internal culture and practices with respect to the disclosure of wrongdoing.

Former Commr Busson told the Committee how she was trying to encourage more people to come forward. She said:

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 Advisor. Internal communication was disseminated to all employees to reinforce the mechanisms and rights available to RCMP employees concerning whistle-blowing and protection. ¹⁴

The current Ethics Advisor, Assistant Commissioner Sandra Conlin, told the Committee that 32 people had brought issues to her office since April 25, when Commr Busson announced the outreach initiative. A/Commr Conlin spoke generally about the role of her office and the support she has received from the new Commissioner, William Elliott:

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. 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. ¹⁵

In addition to these internal changes, the system for disclosing wrongdoing within the federal government has been changed with the passage of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which came into effect on April 15, 2007. This act requires organizations to name a chief executive who is responsible for establishing an internal mechanism to manage the disclosure of wrongdoing. They also must name a senior officer to receive and review disclosures. The Act specifically prohibits reprisals. It also creates an independent Public Service Integrity Commissioner who can receive disclosures, as well as complaints about reprisals.

The difficulty for the RCMP with the new Act is there are now two regimes for reporting wrongdoing — the first under the RCMP Regulations for reporting breaches of the RCMP Code of Conduct, and the second under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act for disclosing wrongdoing in the public service.

First, RCMP members are required to report breaches of the RCMP Code of Conduct in accordance with procedures established by the RCMP Commissioner. A member who breaches the Code is subject to disciplinary proceedings under Part IV of the RCMP Act. The obligation to report a contravention of the Code by another member is in itself part of the Code of Conduct; a member who fails to do so is therefore also subject to disciplinary proceedings under Part IV of the Act. In response to a request, the RCMP told the Committee that it did not have an internal policy for reporting breaches of the Code of Conduct.

Second, RCMP members may report “wrongdoing” in accordance with the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. The Act allows RCMP members to disclose wrongdoing to (1) a designated senior officer (in this case the Ethics Advisor) or a supervisor, in accordance with procedures established by the RCMP Commissioner; or (2) to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. A/Commr Conlin told the Committee that as a result of the new Act her office was currently reviewing the RCMP’s policy:

We are working with the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner’s office as well as the SRR [Staff Relations Representatives] 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. ¹⁶

Until that policy has been finalized, it is not possible to outline the steps that an RCMP member would follow in disclosing wrongdoing under the new Act.

Nonetheless, the existence of multiple disclosure regimes may create certain difficulties. If the RCMP’s internal procedures for reporting breaches of the Code of Conduct (established under the RCMP Regulations) and for disclosing wrongdoing (established under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act) are significantly different, there may be some confusion as to how to go about reporting problems in the RCMP.

Moreover, RCMP members may feel reluctant to report a wrongdoing directly to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner if they are uncertain as to whether the wrongdoing is also a breach of the Code of Conduct. This is because they are required to follow special internal procedures established by the RCMP Commissioner in order to report a breach of the Code of Conduct; failure to report in accordance with those procedures is in itself a breach of the Code, subjecting them to disciplinary action under Part IV of the RCMP Act. This is particularly problematic as virtually all of the actions that are considered “wrongdoings” under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, if committed by a member of the RCMP, could conceivably be treated as a breach of the RCMP Code of Conduct. For example, an RCMP member’s misuse of public funds is a wrongdoing under the Act but also “disgraceful conduct” that “could bring discredit on the Force,” a violation of the RCMP Code. In any event, if RCMP members are reluctant to disclose wrongdoing to a person outside the Force, specifically the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, then the purpose of covering them under the Act is defeated.

Also, RCMP members may have a legitimate concern that they will be disciplined under Part IV of the RCMP Act for not following RCMP internal procedures for disclosing breaches of the Code of Conduct if they choose instead to disclose the matter to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. If they are disciplined under Part IV of the Act for not following the internal procedures for reporting breaches of the Code, they may have to wait a long time before they may file a complaint of reprisal with the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. This is because the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act does not permit an RCMP member to file a complaint with respect to a reprisal where the subject matter of the complaint is already being addressed under Part IV of the RCMP Act.

These concerns are not merely speculative. David Brown found that employees “did not know where to go” when problems began to surface, in part because of the confusion created by two different sets of reporting policies (the first, which was never effectively implemented, for disclosing wrongdoings; and the second for reporting breaches of the Code of Conduct, which was an entrenched policy). ¹⁷

A/Commr Conlin told the Committee that her office is looking at the two disclosure regimes and trying to reconcile their differences. She said:

[W]hat 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. ¹⁸

However, as Mr. Brown noted, the previous situation of two different sets of systems did not work very well. He said, “As I pointed out in my report, merely superimposing a whistle-blower protection system on a system that has a code of conduct violation — that is part of a militaristic or paramilitary organization — doesn’t quite work. That interface needs to be worked out.” ¹⁹ He noted in his report how the chain of command structure and the Code of Conduct procedures do not contain the nuances of a workplace disclosure policy. They can even be used as a weapon in a war of personalities.

The Committee has a number of concerns about the clarity and the interaction of these two systems that it believes should be addressed in any new RCMP framework for the disclosure of wrongdoing, specifically:

1. As any RCMP policy on the disclosure of wrongdoing cannot require RCMP members to exhaust internal procedures for reporting wrongdoing before having recourse to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, RCMP members should be advised that they have the right to report a wrongdoing directly to the Integrity Commissioner if they prefer to do so.
2. RCMP members should not be disciplined for failing to follow the RCMP Commissioner’s internal procedures for disclosing breaches of the Code of Conduct if they choose instead to report the incident as a “wrongdoing” to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.
3. The RCMP and the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner should work together to develop a policy that allows the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to refer to senior officials at the RCMP a disclosure of wrongdoing made to her, if she is of the opinion that the matter should be more appropriately dealt with under Part IV of the RCMP Act as a breach of the Code of Conduct.
4. The RCMP should clarify the procedure for imposing disciplinary action against a member who is found to have committed a wrongdoing under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, ²⁰ as it is not clear how this provision interacts with the RCMP Code of Conduct.
5. RCMP members should be advised that they are now protected from acts of reprisal not only for reporting a wrongdoing under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act ²¹ but also for reporting breaches of the RCMP Code of Conduct.

With these concerns in mind, the Committee recommends that:

Recommendation 5

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police clarify the procedures for reporting breaches of the Code of Conduct pursuant to the RCMP Regulations and Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the procedures for disclosing wrongdoings pursuant to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.

The Committee has an additional concern, which requires a legislative change. As has already been mentioned, an RCMP member is not allowed to file a complaint in relation to any matter that is already the subject of an investigation or proceeding under either: (1) Part IV or Part V of the RCMP Act (dealing with discipline, discharge, and demotion); or (2) the provisions of the RCMP Regulations concerning administrative discharge, unless he or she has exhausted every procedure available under the RCMP Act and Regulations for dealing with the matter. While these provisions are intended to prevent the duplication of proceedings, they may cause significant delays for RCMP members who wish to obtain a remedy when their employer has taken a reprisal against them.

This could be resolved by amending the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to allow RCMP members to file a complaint about a perceived reprisal in the same way as any other public servant who is covered by the Act. When a complaint is filed, existing proceedings under the RCMP Act could be suspended until the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner has dealt with it. This addresses the problem of duplicate proceedings and would give the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner a right of oversight to ensure that RCMP members are not unfairly disciplined under the RCMP Act because they made a disclosure. Consequently, the Committee recommends that:

Recommendation 6

The Government of Canada should amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to allow a Royal Canadian Mounted Police member to file a complaint of reprisal with the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, regardless of whether there are ongoing proceedings under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. Furthermore, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal should be provided with the full authority to deal with such complaints.

Recommendation 7

Any Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act proceedings against the member should be suspended until the complaint of reprisal has been dealt with under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. Moreover, where the complaint is found to have merit, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal should have the authority to dismiss or discontinue the RCMP Act proceedings.

Recommendation 8

Consequential amendments should be made to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to ensure that the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act prevails where an RCMP member files a complaint of reprisal with the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

One of the procedures available for RCMP members to appeal disciplinary decisions is to go to the RCMP External Review Committee, which is an independent body with specialized expertise in disciplinary and grievance issues within the RCMP and is established under Part II of the RCMP Act. It reviews certain grievances as well as cases of discipline, demotion or discharge of members of the RCMP. In grievance matters, only certain specific questions may be referred to the Review Committee. As far as formal disciplinary measures are concerned, members always have the right to ask that their file be reviewed by the Review Committee if they are not in agreement with a decision resulting from the disciplinary process. However, its powers are limited. Catherine Ebbs, the Chair of the RCMP External Review Committee described these limitations:

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. … 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. ²²

In other words, before the Commissioner considers an appeal, he must refer it to the RCMP External Review Committee. However, while the Commissioner is required to take into account the findings and recommendations of the Review Committee in issuing his decision on the appeal; he is not bound by them.

Public servants, on the other hand, may, after exhausting internal grievance procedures, refer to adjudication a grievance related to a disciplinary action resulting in termination, demotion, suspension or final penalty. ²³ Generally, this adjudicative body is composed of one or more members from the Public Service Labour Relations Board. If a grievance is heard by adjudication and the parties can not resolve their difference through mediation, then any decisions of the adjudicator are binding and final.

If the RCMP External Review Committee only has the power to make recommendations to the Commissioner, who is the final decision-maker, the Committee wonders what the point of this Committee is. Presumably, it provides labour relations advice to the Commissioner, but this does not provide much of an independent appeal process for RCMP members. Unlike public servants, RCMP members do not have a right of recourse to an independent adjudicative body when appealing disciplinary action that is taken against them. In the interests of fairness and equity, the government needs to strengthen the powers of the External Review Committee. The Public Accounts Committee therefore recommends that:

Recommendation 9

The Government of Canada amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to provide the Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee with adjudication powers whose decisions are binding and final.

Notwithstanding any procedures that are in place or will be in place, it is important that the individuals involved are committed to hearing disclosures of wrongdoing and protecting those who wish to disclose. As the former Ethics Advisor A/Commr Spice told the Committee, the integrity of the individuals involved does matter:

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. ²⁴

In the RCMP, the integrity and support of the Commissioner is essential. A/Commr Spice put it this way, “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.” ²⁵ While the current Ethics Advisor A/Commr Conlin said she has the full support of the current Commissioner, this is contingent upon the will of that particular person. If the Commissioner should change his mind or if a future Commissioner is not as supportive, then the effectiveness of the disclosure regime could fall apart, as it did under former Commr Zaccardelli. As the Committee would like to have more assurances than just relying upon the goodwill of the Commissioner of the RCMP, the Committee believes that stronger of independent, external review or oversight is required, which will be discussed in later section.