Public Accounts Committee on June 11th, 2007

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay.

When you returned from your secondment to the Ivory Coast—Now, you'd sent correspondence to the commissioner; you just mentioned it—and I'll ask you to table that e-mail. You were very concerned, I guess, about the attempt to interfere with the ATIP process by someone with the rank of deputy commissioner. You'd investigated Mr. Gauvin, from what we've heard, previously. You wrote in a report that he had lied. You reported that he had received benefits from several companies: 3M—I can't remember the other ones you mentioned.

When you came back from your secondment from the Ivory Coast, I believe Assistant Commissioner Rogerson had a position open for you. Did you assume that position?

[Supt Christian Picard]

No, I did not. As a matter of fact, Mr. Rogerson told me that he had offered officer staffing at the RCMP to take me on board, but they had turned him down. They said that they had something else for me. When I came back, they didn't have a job for me. I stayed home.

My understanding is that obviously it's either officer staffing, Mr. McDonell, or Mrs. George who made the decision.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mrs. Barb George?

[Supt Christian Picard]

Yes, sir.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Lavoie, earlier when you testified before us you said that the ATIP request for the Ottawa police investigation, the second one, that Mr. McConnell, from Mr. Gauvin's office, showed up and was waving his finger at you. Can you just refresh us a little bit on what transpired there?

[Supt Pierre Lavoie]

It was on April 5. I had received a call from the Information Commissioner's office, Mr. Dan Dupuis, to be more exact. He wanted to know who he was going to subpoena before them for Friday. I told him that I would check and get back to him.

So right away I sent an e-mail to Mr. Corrigan, who was my boss. I sent a copy to Mr. Louis Alberti. I sent a copy to Mr. Gauvin, and I copied Mr. McConnell, because I knew he monitored Mr. Gauvin's e-mails, so if I didn't get one I would get the other.

It wasn't 10 minutes later when Mr. McConnell came up and asked me, “Well, what's this?” Well, I told him, “I have a memo here signed by Mr. Gauvin saying that the report is not to be released.” Further, I said, “If you have concerns, we will address your concerns, but just tell me what they are.” He responded to me that they had no concerns and that they would not participate in that, and their position was that the report should not be released. So things were...he got a little excited.

I told him, “Well, if it's my authority all alone, remember that for the future, and I'll do my work from now on.”

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

So we now hear about another attempt to interfere with the ATIP process, one with the expenses of the former commissioner and another one with the Ottawa police investigation.

Mr. McConnell, we just heard reference to a memo from Mr. Gauvin, instructing you. Is that in fact who you received your instructions from to interfere with the ATIP process?

[Insp Paul McConnell]

I did not interfere with the ATIP process, sir.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

It appears that it's a clear attempt to interfere with the release of ATIP documents.

[Insp Paul McConnell]

The purpose of my visit down to Mr. Lavoie's office was to make sure there was clarity of understanding between Mr. Lavoie and me as to our roles within the ATIP process.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

And what is your role in the ATIP process as a staffer to Mr. Gauvin?

[Insp Paul McConnell]

Mr. Gauvin was consulted. The process was that ATIP gathered the information, they did a consultation, they asked for Deputy Gauvin's opinion on the release, that opinion was provided, then it was back to ATIP as the final decision-maker to determine what was released and what was not released.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Just because of the time limitations, I'd like to move on.

Mr. Lavoie, we previously heard that you removed the Ottawa Police Service report from the computer system, and you said you removed it because it was your understanding it was secret. I have a copy of it here; we've all received copies of this.

Perhaps I'll put it to Mr. Picard: how would we know whether or not this document is secret? I would assume you get it stamped or—I've seen documents where every page gets stamped. What is the process? How do you know that something is secret?

[Supt Christian Picard]

Usually they're stamped with the classification on it, unless you're advised—I don't know, but usually there is a stamp on the document.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So normal procedure would be that it would be stamped that it's secret.

Mr. Lavoie, this document doesn't have any of that sort of notation on it. Mr. Estabrooks was surprised when you mentioned that it was secret. Who instructed you that it was secret, and consequently it got removed from the computer system?

[Supt Pierre Lavoie]

I was quite convinced that it was secret. I had seen that somewhere. I wouldn't have done something unless I was quite sure. In fact, the only reason that thing would have been removed was to keep it in hard copy instead of keeping it on a computerized system.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Thank you very much.

I have a point of clarification on this secret, with documents too. Maybe Mr. Picard could refresh us. Somebody in this bureaucracy has a stamp that can stamp a document secret and then it doesn't get out on access to information. Who would have this power?

[Supt Christian Picard]

Usually the author of the document classifies the documents. The person who writes the document usually gives it its classification until such time as somebody reviews it and questions it. Initially, it's the writer.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

That would be a pretty big loophole, wouldn't it, if the author could just classify his own document as secret, and then you couldn't release it?

[Supt Christian Picard]

The classification doesn't mean it won't be released. Even if it's classified secret, the classification doesn't necessarily have an impact on the fact that you're going to release a document. Even if it's secret, we have to analyze the information in it to see if we can release it, not the classification.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. Sweet. You're up for eight minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Alberti, Mr. Laforest asked you a pretty direct question earlier, and I don't think I heard an answer. How long did it take you to examine this 51-page document?

[Louis Alberti]

The consultations lasted just under five months, which would come down to a bit less than 20 weeks in terms of business days. But I was not only working on this file. I should also point out that the file was processed with due regard to the Department of Justice's processes and procedures. I held the necessary consultations. I also had to collect facts for other cases. I am somewhat limited as to what I can tell you at this time because of client-solicitor privilege. However, I should also tell you that, as far as process was concerned—

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

But you knew this was an access to information request. You had already testified here that you knew it had already been delayed, so time was of the essence.

[Louis Alberti]

No. I was not aware of the delay, sir.