PACP Committee Report

PUBLIC INQUIRY

Background

Shortly after it began this study, the Committee realized that it was not the best venue for a full investigation of the issues involved as the Committee does not have the organizational capacity, resources, or time necessary. Instead, the Committee believed that a public inquiry was necessary. On April 16, 2007, the Committee adopted the following motion: “That the Standing Committee on Public Accounts write to the Minister of Public Safety requesting that the RCMP Pension Plan Funds Investigation be made a full public commission of inquires under the Inquires Act.”

The government has taken a different approach. On March 29, the day after several RCMP members appeared before the Public Accounts Committee to discuss their allegations of abuse in the administration of the RCMP pension plan, the Public Safety Minister announced an independent investigation into these allegations. On April 13, the Minister named David Brown, the former Chairman and CEO of the Ontario Securities Commission, to lead this investigation.

Mr. Brown was to provide a report to the Minister, which he did on June 15. In this report, he concluded that a more formal inquiry was not necessary. He wrote, “I see no reason for a process with greater powers than were provided to me to be established to revisit the issues I have discussed in this report. More than that, I see no reason for any process of any type to be established for the purpose of revisiting the issues discussed here.”¹ However, Mr. Brown recommended the creation of a task force to study the appropriate governance structure and culture for the RCMP.

On July 16, the Minister for Public Safety, Stockwell Day, acted on Mr. Brown’s recommendation and announced the establishment of this task force, led by Mr. Brown, which is to report to the Minister by the end of the year. On 13 August, Minister Day responded to the Committee’s request for a public inquiry by reiterating the actions his government had taken: appointing Mr. Brown as an independent investigator and the creation of a task force on governance and cultural change in the RCMP. He also noted that Mr. Brown recommended that no formal inquiry was necessary.

Unresolved Concerns

The Committee heard conflicting evidence about a number of issues, but was unable to totally resolve them, namely:

• Who ordered the first criminal investigation and why was it shut down?
• Why did it take so long to start the second criminal investigation? Why wasn’t the internal audit immediately stopped and a criminal investigation started when wrongdoing became apparent?
• Why was extensive nepotism allowed to take place within the RCMP and why was no one disciplined for it?
• Why weren’t Jim Ewanovich and Dominic Crupi immediately dismissed?
• How was Dominic Crupi able to keep his security clearance and obtain another highly sensitive job?
• Why was Dominic Crupi able to contract through Consulting and Audit Canada, even after his contracting authority was removed?
• Was Staff Sergeant Mike Frizzell “removed” from the criminal investigation or was he sent back to his home unit because the investigation was over?
• To what extent was Assistant Commissioner David Gork involved in the conduct of the criminal investigation?
• As the insurance part of the criminal investigation was cut short, to what extent was the Ottawa Police Service investigation’s report a full examination of the insurance issues?
• Who asked Morneau Sobeco to undertake the administration of the RCMP’s insurance plans?
• Were the insurance committee meeting minutes that authorized the removal of money from the insurance fund to repay the pension fund altered?
• Why was Deputy Commissioner Paul Gauvin given a “heads up” on the access to information requests?
• Did access to information documents disappear from RCMP files? Why were some documents not entered into the RCMP’s access to information computer system?
• Who made the decision to declare Denise Revine surplus and why?
• Are there other RCMP whistleblowers who suffered reprisals?
• Are there other instances of wrongdoing within the RCMP that were suppressed?

Many members of the Committee continue to believe that a public inquiry would be necessary to properly investigate the allegations of wrongdoing in the administration of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s pension and insurance plans. While the Committee devoted considerable time and effort to studying this issue, it is limited in its capacity to conduct the kind of inquiry needed. The independent investigation conducted by Mr. Brown did not face this limitation, but most members of the committee are of the view that it was hampered by a narrow mandate and a lack authority and transparency. A public inquiry, on the other hand, would have greater powers of investigation, have access to additional resources, and be conducted in public.

However, the Committee recognizes that the government does not agree with this approach and has followed a different path. The Committee hopes that the government is committed to taking the kind of fundamental action required to address the numerous problems identified in this report in order to help restore the trust and confidence of Canadians and RCMP members in their national police force.