Evidence of meeting #57 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Supt Pierre Lavoie
I'm getting to that.
On March 21, when this was happening, at that point I thought that this was going to be something that down the road I was going to have to be able to explain, in terms of what happened. From that point on, I made copious notes as to what transpired.
I cannot say that I have not seen the memo you're talking about, of April 13. I don't recall seeing it. April 13 was the day the report was finally released, and at that point I was moving on to the next crisis, so I don't--
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you.
Well, it's interesting you don't recall that particular memo. I would assume you would, but I guess it's also quite coincidental that the particular memo went missing out of the file, which leads me to the next question.
On March 21, 2006, why did you order Keith Estabrooks to have the scanned Ottawa Police Service report deleted from the system?
Supt Pierre Lavoie
It wasn't April 21; it was around April 13, after the package was mailed out. It was simply because it was a secret document and we had been told some months before that we could not have secret documents on that particular system.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Estabrooks, would this have been a regular procedure, to delete scanned documents from the system?
As an Individual
If it was actually a secret document, yes, I think it would be deleted. But I didn't think this one was a secret document. Former superintendent Lavoie is correct, if it's a secret document, but I didn't think this one was classed as a secret document. It's probably protected B or protected A.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
So was it classed as a secret document or as a protected...?
Supt Pierre Lavoie
It was a secret document and it was kept.... We had many hard copies, and it was removed for that purpose only.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Lavoie, you've also stated that you had very little experience prior to coming into ATIP. You were running it. You had two experienced employees working there, and I understand you rejected the advice of both of them. And notwithstanding all your comments about how back-logged, how hard the work was, you decided to personally process this particular ATIP response.
So on the one hand you're saying you weren't dealing with things and saying there were some serious allegations here in talking with your superiors, and on the other hand you were taking files away from your experienced officers. You had just arrived recently, with not a lot of experience, and you took those files over personally.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Estabrooks, I understand from what we've heard here previously that Mr. Lavoie took over this file personally.
As an Individual
That's what I understood.
We didn't work on it after that, after it was taken.
As an Individual
Now, probably a lot of this.... Superintendent Lavoie is quite correct about the number of people. He came into a shop that was really understaffed, but it's probably not his direct fault that any of this happened in terms of being understaffed.
It's the delay that we're concerned about here as well, I believe, the time that it took for a legal opinion. That would not be the OIC. That's not Superintendent Lavoie. That would be, why did it sit? He sent it forward for a legal opinion, and that's where it seemed to sit forever, not with Superintendent Lavoie. It did move, but I don't know where it went. It sat upstairs for months.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Lavoie, who instructed you to get a legal opinion on the proposed release of the Ottawa Police report?
Supt Pierre Lavoie
Sir, you're asking me to answer questions, and basically with the questions you're asking me you're taking things here and there to try to get the answers that you probably want to hear.
What I'm going to tell you is that on March 21, when the report came back from Mr. Gauvin's office.... And I have not in any way intimated that Sergeant Estabrooks' or Sergeant Black's work was in question at all. In fact, I didn't even have a chance to look at it. It came back on the 21st with the recommendation that it be released. I told Mr. McConnell right away that with this report we'll vet whatever needs to be vetted, but there's no way it's not going out. So as I stated before, I got a phone call saying that, no, we're not going to participate in that exercise.
I immediately typed a memo, which I took to Mr. McConnell personally, telling him, “Here's the conversation we've had, here's the choice you're making, and there's no way this report is not going out. I have to do my job.” The following day, I approached my assistant commissioner, Mr. Corrigan, to tell him what had happened. I told him there was no way this report was not going out, that I was going to do my work and that was that.
On the 22nd, at some time later during the day, I was advised that Assistant Commissioner Corrigan had come to get the reports and send them back to legal services. But we had made a commitment. I had made a commitment to the Information Commissioner's office on March 24 that this report was going out. Now this report was being taken away and sent back to legal services for a second time. So I asked legal services when the report was coming back. I was told on the 29th. The 24th was a Friday, and the 29th was the following Wednesday. I thought, well, a few more days is not going to do much.
On the 29th of March until April 4, we moved the entire section, unplugged computers, unplugged phones, etc., so basically for five days or better, there was really no follow-up on my part. There basically was no work done by anybody in the section.
On April 5, which was the following Wednesday, I got a call from Mr. Dan Dupuis from the Information Commissioner's office, basically not very pleased that this report was not being released and asking me who he had to subpoena to come to his office to testify as to what was happening with the report. I told Mr. Dupuis that I would find out who he should send the subpoenas to, their availability, and I would get back to him. Mr. Dupuis was quite adamant that he wanted somebody to appear before him downtown by the following day, which was Thursday.
So this went back and forth. Mr. Dupuis followed up with an e-mail basically giving me a piece of his mind, so to speak. I turned around and sent an e-mail to Mr. Corrigan, to the lawyer who was handling the file in legal services, to Mr. Gauvin, and I copied also Mr. McConnell to be sure that Mr. Gauvin was receiving the message telling them that they were being asked to come downtown to explain what was happening with the report.
It wasn't ten minutes later that Mr. Gauvin's assistant was at my door and waving his finger at me, saying what's this, that Mr. Gauvin had nothing to do with this decision and it was my decision all along to make. I told Mr. McConnell about the memo of the 21st and said that it certainly was not the impression I was under. And secondly, I noted that I had asked them to participate in the vetting of the report to indicate any concerns they may have had, and they had refused to do that. So now he was telling me that it was my decision to make all along. I said, “Fine, but just keep that in mind in the future, it's my decision”, and that was that.
I called Mr. Dupuis back, and Mr. Dupuis agreed that if I could provide the report to him or to the requester by Monday, he would forgo calling us to the Office of the Information Commissioner.
As a result, I called the lawyer from legal services who was handling the file and I basically told him what was happening and that the report had to go out on Monday or else. I advised my assistant commissioner what was happening. He was entirely behind me. He said, “Whatever you need to do, you go ahead and so it.” As a result, on Friday afternoon I sat down with the lawyer from legal services and we went through the report and compared what we had done on each other. By that time, I had been at ATIP quite a few months. I had a very good idea of what I was doing. I had seen dozens of reports go across my desk, so I was not....
This was a 51-page report, nothing too complex. We sat together and we went through the report. On Monday we finalized the final release of the report. I was supposed to give it to Mr. Dupuis on Tuesday morning. On the 11th, he cancelled the appointment we had and he asked me to show up on the 12th, which I did. I gave him the report. On the 13th I came back to the office. I met with Mr. Estabrooks and the analyst who was working for him. I said, “Here's the release package. Can you ensure that it's mailed out to the requester?” That's exactly what I did.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have to say, I'm confused. Here we have a report by the Ottawa city police, assisted by the RCMP, into the pension plan, which is the money belonging to all the members. This thing has gone from legal opinion to legal opinion up to the commissioner or assistant commissioner. It has gone to the Information Commissioner. It has gone everywhere. It has been classified as secret. It has been removed from the files. It has been wiped off the computer. And this is just the report about the pension plan of the RCMP. Now, this boggles my mind. I just can't even follow how this thing is moving around.
Anyway, the thing I wanted to clear up, Mr. Chairman, is that Mr. Gauvin, in his opening statement, said: “As Chief Financial Officer, I have no line authority for the RCMP's Access to Information and Privacy Branch.” Then he goes on a couple of paragraphs later and says that he confirms that a request to review the file was sent to his office, and so on, and he started to review these files.
Mr. Gauvin, first of all, are you clear that you had no line authority on access to information?
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
You're going to be brief. I just asked if you had line authority for access to information.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Thank you.
But you did get a copy of this report before it was released?
D/Commr Paul Gauvin
A copy was sent to my office for an opinion. I gave an opinion the same day, and that's all I had to do with this report.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Why were you asked for an opinion if you had no line authority on this?
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Okay.
Now, I understand that you were mentioned in the report.
