Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wish to take this moment to address the supreme efforts that have been made and continue to be made during these committee meetings that can only be perceived as attempts to discredit me and put into question my integrity by way of misleading testimony, allegations, and assertions that are seemingly being accepted without any efforts to ensure their veracity.
In the interest of fairness to me, I wish to address certain comments and allegations that have been made during the course of the recent committee meetings, namely, April 16, 18, and 30.
At the committee meeting on April 16, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj questioned Commissioner Zaccardelli whether a former chief financial officer for the RCMP, Mr. Gordon Clark, had advised him I had a book with the record of all requests he had made to me that were improper and illegal. This second-hand allegation by Mr. Clark is unfounded and completely without merit. I have been privileged to serve deputy ministers in some of the largest and most complex departments of our government, such as Employment and Immigration Canada and Transport Canada. As well, I've equally had the privilege of serving three RCMP commissioners: Mr. Murray, Mr. Zaccardelli, and Ms. Busson. All these individuals exemplified dedication and professionalism and at all times our working relationship was based on mutual respect and trust.
I wish to state without any ambiguity that at no time did I keep a book or any type of record containing requests I considered to be improper or illegal. Further, I want to make it equally clear that at no time did I receive either illegal or improper requests from any of these persons. I should add that Mr. Clark retired from the RCMP in the mid-1990s. I was appointed chief financial officer in November 1999. I have only met Mr. Clark at RCMP functions on a very limited basis over the past seven years. Since Mr. Clark and I never worked together, it is unclear how he would be sufficiently informed to allege anything about my conduct and why this allegation should be given any weight.
Suppression of ATIP request: At the committee meeting on April 18, a motion was passed to the effect that retired RCMP Sergeant Keith Estabrooks was to appear before the public accounts committee and that he should bring along all relevant documents and files that indicate the suppression of access to information requests by Mr. Gauvin. The committee member who proposed the motion, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, referenced seven numbers that purported to involve the pension fund investigation. As chief financial officer, I have no line authority for access to information and privacy. That branch reports directly to the assistant commissioner, public affairs and communications, not to the chief financial officer.
Further, RCMP policy states that only the access to information and privacy branch has the authority to exempt information in RCMP records and that exemptions are applied on a case-by-case basis by the OIC access to information branch.
I should also add that although I did request of the committee's chair that I be allowed to view the documents that are said to support this allegation, no access was granted. Regardless, I am confident that whatever records might exist contain no evidence to support this allegation, since it is without foundation.
On file number 3951-3-02914/05: I confirm that a request for that file was sent to my office from the access to information and privacy branch on March 14, 2006. I also confirm a response to that request on March 21, 2006. I should emphasize that the initiative to send this file originated within the ATIP branch and not me, as implied by Mr. Estabrooks. In my March 21, 2006 response, I provided my opinion for the consideration of the ATIP officials regarding the potential impact of releasing specific personal information relating to the OPS investigation. My opinion was, and it remains today, that the release of information that I perceived to be personal information pursuant to the Privacy Act could result in a breach of the act.
It was equally my concern that such a breach could result in civil litigation against the RCMP. As the process as to whether internal discipline should be applied to the individuals concerned was ongoing, disclosure of personal information could have highly prejudiced these individuals. To be clear, I was not one of the persons who was subject to discipline.
Legal opinions from RCMP legal services pertaining to the release of personal information: As it turned out, the RCMP legal services had conducted a preliminary review of this particular file as well as a more detailed review resulting in their opinion, and there would be privacy concerns regarding the release of the information that was being requested.
Although I did provide my opinion when asked for it, it was the OIC ATIP branch who ultimately determined what information should or should not be vetted. I have no additional knowledge of the decision-making process within the ATIP branch associated with this file.
I'll skip the next part in the interest of time, and I would like to go to page 7 of 18. The only information that I sought were the titles for seven individual file numbers in order to determine what, if anything, I could recall about these files, including whether my opinion had been sought on them.
I was advised by Inspector Cowan that when he arrived at the access to information and privacy branch, he was escorted into the office by Corporal Kent Swim, who introduced him to Corporal Lee Duchesne. Inspector Cowan spoke to Corporal Duchesne in person, then to Sergeant Jeff Hurry by phone. However, neither of them was able to provide the information that Inspector Cowan was seeking on my behalf.
These officers did, however, offer to try to reach an authorized official who might be able to respond to Inspector Cowan's request, and he returned to my office to report on these developments.
In total, he was in the ATIP branch for approximately ten minutes. All I was looking for from the ATIP branch was the titles of the files. All I had at the time were numbers, which had been provided to me late in the day.
I will not talk about Inspector Cowan's presence in the ATIP branch unless you have questions on it, and I'll be pleased to reply.
In terms of missing documents, Mr. Estabrooks stated:
When I went back to work part-time, as a casual employee, I was asked to look at the pension file again by Corporal Luc Poulin, and he suggested that I take a look because I was familiar with all these files. When I was going through the files, I noticed there were documents missing that I had written, with no rhyme or reason as to why they would be missing. The typed memos I had put on were there, but there was a particular one I had handwritten, which I have brought with me. It's not in the file that we can find. I kept a copy of it when I left. When I retired I kept my notes. I've gone through them. I have a photocopy of the A5, which has been translated for the House.
It appears that a conspiracy theory is being promoted and fuelled by rumour and innuendo, and that Mr. Estabrooks has been feeding the member from Etobicoke false information regarding my alleged suppression of access to information requests.
Any such allegation is totally false, as is any allegation of inappropriate behaviour by Inspector Cowan.
It is unclear whose interest Mr. Estabrooks is serving in addition to his own. His unwarranted and vindictive attacks on my character and integrity appear to be accepted by the committee without any attempt to require him to adequately prove or substantiate what he is saying.
