I would like to thank committee members for inviting me to appear. Allow me to introduce myself. I was with the RCMP for over 28 years. I worked mostly in various operational and administrative areas. In 2001, I was promoted to the rank of inspector and transferred to Ottawa. After volunteering for the position in May 2005, I was appointed as the coordinator for access to information and privacy. I remained in that position until I left in February 2007.
As indicated in the backgrounder I gave the clerk, during my time as coordinator, I was faced with a very difficult task because there was far too much work and too few resources. Because of a severe shortage of staff, we simply could not keep up. Every month the backlog of access to information and privacy requests increased. This was due solely to the lack of human resources. It caused me enormous frustration because I could not fulfil my mandate under the two acts.
Since I was the only one who had the authority and delegated powers to carry out my mandate, I was the only person responsible for deciding what information would be released in response to information requests, including the one for the Ottawa Police Service's report, which is of interest to your committee. I would emphasize that as coordinator I was always did my work with conviction, in accordance with the law, and with a strong sense of ethics which I acquired and exercised throughout my long career with the RCMP.
I am aware of the fact that Mr. Estabrooks, who worked for me while I was coordinator, made certain statements when he appeared before your committee on April 30. I strongly object to several things my former colleague insinuated, including two in particular.
First, I do not agree with Mr. Estabrooks when he says that he was removed from the file. As described in my backgrounder, when I took over the file on March 21, 2007, I was only doing my duty as coordinator, which was to do personally what was necessary to ensure that the report would be released, especially after I made a commitment to the Director General of Investigations and Reviews at the Office of the Information Commissioner who had been asking for regular updates for some time.
Since I was the only officer working for the Access to Information and Privacy Directorate, and the person with delegated authority, it was my duty, and mine alone, to work with RCMP managers to deal with the file, to document every decision in case I would have to justify any actions taken, to respond to the pressing questions of Mr. Dupuis, the Director General of Investigations and Revisions at the Office of the Information Commissioner, to make the necessary commitments on behalf of the RCMP and then to finally release the report. That is exactly what I did.
Second, I also object to the fact that Mr. Estabrooks said that Deputy Commissioner Gauvin's involvement in the process represented a breach of ethics. In my opinion, even though it does not happen often, there is nothing to prevent a manager from taking part in the processing of an access to information request involving the RCMP and making recommendations.
RCMP managers have the right, if not the legitimate duty, to speak out in defence of the interest of the public and of the organization when any final decision is being taken by the coordinator to deny access or to release information in full or in part. So there is nothing illegal or unethical about this type of consultation.
However, it is up to the coordinator to take all these considerations into account before deciding to release or withhold information. That is what I did.
Thus I found the insinuations about my professional integrity and sense of ethics to be hurtful and malicious.
Having clarified these points, I would now be pleased to answer any questions you may have.