Public Accounts Committee on June 11th, 2007

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Gauvin, in July 2002 Shawn Duford worked in your department. He submitted a report describing the contracting irregularities in the NCPC. Do you remember that?

[D/Commr Paul Gauvin]

He didn't submit a report. He wrote a memo for his own information. What happened is that when I was interviewed by Mr. Frizzell, he misled me by telling me that I had received this memo. I went back to my office and checked, and there was no such memo that had been received. So I checked it out. It was a memo that had been written for himself. It hadn't been filed. It was not dated.

So it was never sent. I wrote back to Sergeant Frizzell and I told him that he had inadvertently misled me. And he wrote—

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Are you in possession of that memo now?

[D/Commr Paul Gauvin]

I'll find it and send it, yes.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Could you give me roughly the nature of the memo? Did you take any action on this memo around these contracting irregularities?

[D/Commr Paul Gauvin]

No. I sent him the memo after he interviewed me during the investigations, so this was long after. He misled me by telling me I had received his memo. This was not a memo that had been sent.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

You mentioned that, but did you take any action on that memo?

[D/Commr Paul Gauvin]

It was too late. The work had been done. This was during the OPS investigation.

I also want to say then he came before the committee and misled the committee the same way he misled me by inferring that I had received that memo, when I had never received it.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Regardless of Mr. Frizzell's testimony, we just had Mr. Picard testify regarding incidents with the OPP report and we need to have that tabled as well.

But now we get back to your knowledge of Mr. Crupi. You said to my colleague that you did not warn Public Works and Government Services about his behaviour, which I find extraordinary, that you knew these practices were going on and you didn't. You also knew CAC was an organization Mr. Crupi could go to in order to be able to accomplish this. I would just like to know why you did not give any kind of advance notice that there were some concerns around Mr. Crupi.

[D/Commr Paul Gauvin]

First of all, we didn't know that CAC was doing what they were doing. CAC is an organization that had been there for a long time and they were operating within the rules. I also said a number of times that when you go to Public Works you expect them to do their due diligence and do the contracts accordingly, and they usually do.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Dave, what's your point of order?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I just want to make sure we get this document. Up until now, it hasn't been referenced.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Have we got your undertaking, Mr. Gauvin, to produce that document to this committee as soon as possible?

[D/Commr Paul Gauvin]

Yes, I will produce that document.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

The memo as well, Mr. Chairman, the OPP investigation that was referred to by Mr. Picard. Perhaps we could have that tabled as well.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Would you be in possession of that document as well, Mr. Gauvin? Is there anybody here who would be in possession of it?

[D/Commr Paul Gauvin]

We had a number of memos going back and forth.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

We'll have to put in a request to the commissioner to produce that document. I'm not sure anybody here has it. I see Mr. Alberti has been very anxious to try to intervene here and I'm sure it's germane to something that cropped up in the testimony here.

[Louis Alberti]

I would like to come back to the issue of the delays. First, I think it is rather unfair to ask me questions about the delays, since I have to respect the client-solicitor rule. Some of the information on the discussions I had with my client is protected by solicitor-client privilege.

However, when I look at the activity page which was written up by access to information staff, I realize that what was on it did not reflect any facts or actions I would have been consulted on before they wrote "package hand-delivered to Louis Alberti" on it. That's fine. But if it had said "sit in Legal Services", Mr. Estabrooks would not have come to see me; he would have written that on the file without consulting me.

Second, I did not necessarily have to negotiate deadlines with Mr. Estabrooks, he was not my client.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Before we leave that point you mentioned, you're in a solicitor-client matter on that. Who was the client?

[Louis Alberti]

The client is the institution in this case.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Which institution?

[Louis Alberti]

It's the RCMP. The client would have been the person who had been delegated authority by the minister—the minister being

the Minister of Public Safety, who delegated authority to the commissioner, who in turn sub-delegated it. Therefore, in this case, Mr. Pierre Lavoie had the power to delegate.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

So Mr. Lavoie delegated that to you?

[Louis Alberti]

No. Mr. Lavoie—