Public Accounts Committee on June 11th, 2007

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Mr. Picard is here in RCMP uniform. He made that statement presumably in his position as an RCMP officer. I think he should be given the right to respond. Those were his words, and therefore, if he said he felt that Mr. Gauvin lied, then let him give us some justification.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

You're getting more time, but we'll let Mr. Picard respond to that.

[Supt Christian Picard]

The answer is, basically, I asked Mr. Gauvin if one of the reasons he didn't act on the report that he received from Surintendent Lincourt at the time was that he was new to the RCMP and that he was too busy to act on the report. He said no, under no consideration, that it had nothing to do with that. And he didn't act.

I went and asked him twice the same question on two different occasions. He didn't want to take any responsibility for what had happened, what had brought the criminal investigation onto the RCMP. The reason was basically that he didn't act. What he should have done at that point was to call for an internal investigation, call for a criminal investigation. He didn't act on it until such time as Mr. Rogerson came into a meeting and confronted him with this issue.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Thank you, sir. I'm sure that members will have an opportunity to pursue these areas further, if they wish.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all for your attendance here today.

There was a memorandum written by Mr. Estabrooks to Mr. Lavoie that reads, and I'm quoting:

It is my opinion that Mr. Gauvin is in a direct conflict of interest by having anything to do with the release of our proposed package as he is a key player in the pension matter. Just the fact that he has access to the documents is a conflict and unethical. Therefore, I leave it in your hands to report this to the Ethics Commissioner ASAP.

My intent is to come back to that, Chair. I wanted to make sure it hit the floor so I could reference it later.

I want to start by going to Mr. Estabrooks and reviewing the day in question again, when Mr. Gauvin's assistant came down—We've been through it once or twice, but I'd like you to quickly go through what happened when they came down and you looked in the file and the file was missing.

Could you review that again for us, please?

[Keith Estabrooks]

Just to make things clear, I think you're saying things were missing that day. Nothing went missing that day, that I know of.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay.

[Keith Estabrooks]

But what I was told... I was off that day. I was back on contract. I was told by the senior NCO who had replaced me that Inspector Cowan had arrived at approximately five o'clock—before five o'clock, I think. I have it written down; I'm sure it's in the notes from before. Apparently he had a piece of paper in his hand--this is what I was told—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Who told you this?

[Keith Estabrooks]

Acting Sergeant Duchesne.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, who?

[Keith Estabrooks]

Lee Duchesne, who is an acting sergeant in my position.

He was asking for information for Mr. Gauvin. Mr. Gauvin needed information for his lawyer, I believe. I'd have to go back to my notes and make sure that it's correct, but I believe there was reference that they were looking for file numbers, and they were also looking for anything that I had written about it—any allegations.

I wasn't there at the time, so this is—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, and I'm going to go to someone who was, but help me here. When, then, did you come to believe that something was missing in these files--the report that you had written?

[Keith Estabrooks]

That was before that.

Corporal Luc Poulin had asked me to take a look at the documents. It was when I came back, in—I'm trying to think. I can look them up and give you the exact dates, but it was prior to this. The documents were missing prior to that.

I should clarify while we're all here that through the Information Commissioner's investigation the other documents that were supposedly missing, that we couldn't locate, have now been located and are on another file. So there is only one document missing now, and that's the hand-written A5s. I think that should be clarified.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On the documents that have been found, are they the ones we've already seen, or are they new to us?

[Keith Estabrooks]

This is the information they were looking for. There was an A5 that was the same date but a different month. The day was the 13th. This was looked at by the ATI commissioner.

You wouldn't have those here. I don't have a copy either. I'm aware from being at a hearing with the ATI commissioner that they did find that document. It was misfiled. There were numerous requests, as we know, on this.

So there's only one missing. This is not like a truckload of files that have gone—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Maybe we can get our analyst to see exactly what has been found and whether it is something we've already seen, and if not, whether it is pertinent to matters we've been discussing here.

[Keith Estabrooks]

I think you should be aware that the investigator's name is Robert Plante. I think there has been a change in management there, so if you go to ATI, ask for that investigator. He would have a copy.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Inspector Cowan, you were the staff person who went down that day, on the Friday?

[Insp Ian Cowan]

Yes, I was.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Can you just tell me what happened that day?

[Insp Ian Cowan]

At 4:30 I was asked by Mr. Gauvin to go down to try to find a series of captions, ATIP request captions, for seven files that he was alleged to have suppressed, according to a motion in this public accounts committee. The motion by Borys Wrzesnewskyj, agreed to, was as follows:

That retired RCMP Sergeant Keith Estabrooks appear before the Public accounts Committee and that he should bring along all relevant documents and files which indicate the suppression of access to information requested by Mr. Gauvin, and that retired Sergeant Keith Estabrooks bring along with him the files with the following ATIP number involving pension fund investigation:

About those same seven files, I first called the Inspector OIC, now the Superintendent OIC, of the access to information branch. I got an answering machine. Having never been to ATIP, since I was new to headquarters, I walked over to the location and I started dialing the wall phone list. Five minutes later, a member, who I knew, was there, from another committee. I explained to him what I was looking for. He said that shouldn't be a problem. He introduced me to Corporal Lee Duchesne. I walked in. She was aware that the matter, that exact same request, had been processed that day for our strategic branch and for others. She put me on the phone with Sergeant Hurry, who was her supervisor, I guess. I spoke to him. He said he had actually processed that exact same request and that he did not have the authority to release it to me.

So I left. I was there for ten minutes. I had no other intentions at that location. It was very cordial at the time.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Any particular reason why you wouldn't just wait until the Monday?

[Insp Ian Cowan]

Mr. Gauvin was appearing that same Monday before public accounts to potentially answer to those same allegations of suppression. To me, it was the proper thing to do to expedite that request.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Picard, I realize you're not an ethics officer, but you deal with a lot of the issues of ethics around access to information. In your opinion, is there any problem with Mr. Gauvin—and I don't have an answer, I am actually seeking an answer—trying to access those documents direct, prior to a hearing on Monday, or does that make perfect sense to you, from where you sit?