Public Accounts Committee on June 11th, 2007

[Michel Joyal]

At the opening, I introduced myself to Mr. Gauvin, and Mr. Gauvin introduced himself to me. I was the first one in the room. We sat down, and he handed over a synopsis. He basically...those are the documents that will be going out. I said of course, and I put them on top of the pile. I said they would be going out with the thousand pages.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Just for the sake of clarity, you're saying that Mr. Gauvin provided an alternate report or synopsis that was to go out, instead of the one that had been prepared in ATIP?

[Michel Joyal]

That's correct. When I put it on the file, basically he said that the decision had been made, that it was the synopsis that was going to go out.

I asked him who had made the decision, and he told me that SEC had made the decision. I inquired as to who in SEC. I wanted to have the names, because I wanted to see if one of these individuals was on the delegation order from the minister. None were on the delegation order, so I said of course the decision has been made, and it's been made by Superintendent Picard; the letter is signed and it's all set to go.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Just for clarity, SEC is the senior executive committee—the commissioner, deputy commissioners, and assistant commissioners.

[Michel Joyal]

I believe so.

At the time, he did not mention Commissioner Zaccardelli, as he was out of town. I believe he was in Regina at the time.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Joyal.

Mr. Picard, you signed off on this ATIP request of about a thousand pages. We've heard this referenced before in committee, the $80 expense for a shot of cognac, for instance. Were there expenses of that sort there that would have raised the average Canadian's eyebrows?

[Supt Christian Picard]

Well, I had reviewed all of the document. It had been sent to the commissioner's office as well. I went through the document, and only one issue could have had some concern: that shot of cognac for $80. But at the time, the commissioner's office seemed comfortable with it. Maybe he had an explanation for it. Obviously I was prepared to release that information to the public.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So what we're being told is that there was an ATIP request for the commissioner's expenses. It was processed. A fulsome document was put together. And then, Mr. Gauvin, you instructed someone who wasn't under your chain of command that it was going to be the synopsis that was going to go out as opposed to the report that had been provided.

As comptroller of the RCMP, isn't it your job to make sure there are no inappropriate expenses and not to cover them up afterwards?

[D/Commr Paul Gauvin]

Thank you.

Well, first of all, I'm sure we had that meeting, but I don't remember it. And I have a pretty good memory. But anyway—

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Just one second. You don't remember? We've just heard a date, that it was in the commissioner's office, that there were other people present.

And Mr. Joyal, you said there were e-mails that referenced a couple of other people who were present as well.

[Michel Joyal]

Yes, sir. The e-mail was from Gisèle Presland. It was sent to Claude Caron, Tim Cogan, Paul Gauvin, Michel Joyal, and Mike MacDonald. It basically arranged a meeting time change from 10:15 to 1:30 at the request of Deputy Commissioner Gauvin.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So we've established that it actually took place. There's a document. Even though you don't remember it, there is a document there. I'd like to request that the synopsis document be tabled for the committee.

Has hearing that e-mail brought your memory back, Mr. Gauvin?

[D/Commr Paul Gauvin]

Well, if it came from my office—Mrs. Presland is my secretary, so I'm sure it came from my office. There had to be a meeting, but I go to a lot of meetings. I usually remember the people, but I don't remember this meeting. But anyway—

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

That's pretty fascinating. Well in that case, we're not getting an answer from you. Your memory is blank on that particular meeting. These are pretty serious allegations.

Mr. Joyal, did one of Mr. Gauvin's executives call you soon after that meeting and suggest that, where he worked previously in DFAIT, a good ATIP office will do what the boss wants?

[Michel Joyal]

You have to recall that at the end of the meeting I told Mr. Gauvin that I was the ATIP coordinator, that if there were sensitive information in the document, I was ready to take a second look. However, he would have to put all of his recommendations in writing or otherwise they'd be ignored. I guess I gave them two days to make these submissions in writing; otherwise the package would be mailed as is.

Then I received a call from his assistant, and I met with Mr. Claude Caron. The individual said he was brand new to the RCMP. He made reference to a good ATIP shop, that he had a good ATIP shop where he was from, which meant that the people did exactly what they were told to do.

I said, “Welcome to the RCMP. This is not how it goes here.” I said, “ I have full delegation, and that's it. So unless you have documents that are very sensitive and you're ready to prove that to me and demonstrate it in writing, they're going to go out.”

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Thank you very much.

We'll turn it over to Mr. Laforest for eight minutes, and not a second over.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may take 10 minutes.

Good afternoon.

Mr. Estabrooks, you already appeared before the Public Accounts Committee. We also have a copy of an e-mail you sent on April 13, 2006 to Mr. Lavoie concerning the RCMP pension file. In that e-mail, you said that following a meeting you had, everything had been done to delay giving the Ottawa Police Services report to Mr. Girard.

Were you referring to Mr. André Girard, who was a divisional representative?

[Keith Estabrooks]

Yes. He was the division representative for C Division in Montreal.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Girard is one of the people who asked for two pieces of information concerning access to information delays. The RCMP had been asked to supply information on two files in particular. So Mr. Girard, who was a divisional representative, was one of the two applicants. At that time, you believed that there was a deliberate intent to delay handing over the information Mr. Girard had requested. Mr. Girard has appeared before the committee in his capacity as a former divisional representative.

Do you feel that the delay in handing over the information he had requested was due to the fact that he was a divisional representative and that he was working on eventually unionizing RCMP members? In your opinion, are these two facts connected?

[Keith Estabrooks]

I don't think the connection with the association or unionizing would have anything to do with the delay, if that's what you're asking. If you're asking if in particular they would keep it away from Monsieur Girard because he was a proponent of having a union, I don't think that would have had anything to do with it.

We had an unwritten rule in the ATIP shop for members of the RCMP; we tried to move their files forward before other people's, usually. I know that this one seemed to take extensive time to process. I think it just piqued my curiosity because he was a division representative. It never crossed my mind that he was unionizing or had anything to do with a union. I just looked at it as more that he was the equivalent of Mr. Lewis in Ottawa.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

In your opinion, did divisional representatives, who represent various members across the country, often make access to information requests to the RCMP with regard to investigations because they could not obtain the information internally?

[Keith Estabrooks]

Over the number of years that I was with the access to information shop, we did receive requests from DSRRs in the field. They could not receive the information through the other process, so they came through that way.

It wasn't unusual for Monsieur Girard to come in, the same as Mr. Lewis.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Alberti, you were asked to provide a legal opinion on the access to information requests that were made. I believe that it took five months for the information to be released the first time. Does it normally take five months to analyze an access to information request? I believe the normal time frame is 60 days.

How do you explain the five-month delay?

[Louis Alberti]

Sir, before addressing the issue as to whether that was a normal time frame, I have to say that Mr. Girard's application—I can name him, since his identity has now been revealed —was made on July 20. When we started working on the file on July 13, it was already late and there was already a presumption of refusal. I had not been informed of that. The Access to Information Office did not process the file until October 8, I believe, when it was informed by the Office of the Information Commissioner that Mr. Girard had filed a complaint.

On October 8, Mr. Girard's access to information request still had not been processed by the Access to Information Office. That's when the office quickly numbered it, and gave it to the two reviewers. Mr. Estabrooks was one of them. I know this for a fact since I asked to see the activity page. On October 13, when I was consulted, I was not told that there was already a delay and a notice of prorogation had not been sent, as it should have been under the process and under the act, since an institution was involved.

I know that allegations were made on this committee that legal services had engaged in stalling tactics, to use Mr. Estabrooks' expression. I can categorically state that legal services did not engage in stalling tactics or that they tried to obstruct the file.

Don't forget that legal services did not know the identity of the applicant or the applicant's motives. It is not unusual, in the course of our work, to process several files. The Access to Information Office is not my only client; I am responsible for managing RCMP litigation, which involves nearly 1,100 cases and nearly $1 billion. I am responsible for risk management and legal opinions for all of our cases. This file was not inappropriately delayed.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

How much time did it take you, once you received—