Ateliers d'équitation de la GRC - Formulaire de demande

Si vous souhaitez participer à l'un des ateliers d'équitation du Carrousel, veuillez écrire à mps_apm@rcmp-grc.gc.ca

Ce qui se passe là-bas, importe ici : La confiance du public à l'ère de la mondialisation

La GRC et ses partenaires s'efforcent d'observer et de comprendre les développements à l'étranger afin d'éclairer la prise de décision au pays. Durant une conférence tenue par l'Association canadienne des chefs de police les 26 et 27 septembre, un large éventail d'experts (application de la loi, politiques, secteur privé, universités et communauté) seront invités à discuter des répercussions de la mondialisation sur les services policiers et la sécurité communautaire. Les participants incluront des représentants de l'application de la loi, des décideurs, des partenaires du secteur privé, des représentants du monde universitaire et des organisations communautaires. Ils auront comme but de créer une réponse nationale solide et coordonnée afin de rendre nos rues et nos communautés plus sécuritaires. Pour en savoir plus, visitez le site Web de l'Association canadienne des chefs de police.

What Happens There Matters Here: Public Trust and Confidence in an Increasingly Globalized World

The RCMP and its partners work to observe and understand developments abroad in order to inform our decision-making at home. During a conference on September 26 and 27, hosted by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, a broad spectrum of experts will discuss the impacts of globalization on policing and community safety. Attendees will include law enforcement, policy makers, private sector partners, academia, and community organizations. Their goal will be to create a solid and coordinated national strategy for making communities safer and for building trust in policing in a changing Canadian society. For more information visit The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police website.

Plan national d'approvisionnement de la GRC pour l'exercice 2016-2017

Introduction

La GRC est un organisme unique, puisqu'elle constitue un service de police fédéral, provincial et municipal. Elle offre des services complets de police fédérale à la population canadienne et des services de police à contrat à trois territoires, huit provinces (à l'exception de l'Ontario et du Québec), plus de 150 municipalités, 600 communautés autochtones et trois aéroports internationaux.

L'exécution de ces services de police diversifiés et complexes exige l'approvisionnement continu et fiable d'un large éventail de biens et de services pour répondre aux besoins opérationnels. La GRC traite des milliers de transactions d'approvisionnement chaque année, allant de contrats de faible valeur à des projets d'achat complexe de grande valeur.

L'objectif du Plan national d'approvisionnement de la GRC est de fournir aux fournisseurs et au public des renseignements au sujet des activités de passation de marchés prévues par la GRC pour l'exercice 2016-2017, notamment en présentant une liste des principales exigences prévues en matière d'approvisionnement et un aperçu des besoins au cours des deux prochains exercices (2018 et 2019).

Fonction d'approvisionnement de la GRC

La GRC a une solide fonction d'approvisionnement qui lui permet de répondre en temps opportun et de manière efficace aux exigences particulières d'un projet en ce qui concerne les besoins tactiques, courants, à risque élevé et de grande valeur.

La Sous-direction des acquisitions et des marchés de la Direction générale, située à Ottawa, est responsable des exigences en matière d'approvisionnement dans la région de la capitale nationale et la Division nationale, ainsi que des initiatives nationales, comme les contrats, les offres à commandes et les événements majeurs touchant l'ensemble de la Gendarmerie. Elle est également responsable de fonctions d'assurance de la qualité des politiques, des rapports et des contrats. La plupart des activités d'approvisionnement et de passation de marchés sont gérées par des spécialistes de l'approvisionnement attitrés. Chaque division compte une section responsable de l'approvisionnement; des bureaux sont situés à Halifax, Montréal, London, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina et Vancouver.

Activités d'approvisionnement de la GRC

La liste suivante présente les principaux secteurs de biens où la GRC conclut des marchés :

• Parc automobile – comprend des véhicules, des embarcations et des aéronefs aux fins de fonctions de patrouille, de transport et de surveillance;
• Gestion des biens immobiliers – pour les centaines de détachements et d'autres immeubles à l'échelle du Canada;
• Services professionnels – y compris les services de santé, les services de juricomptabilité, les services de conseillers en gestion, les instructeurs et la publicité;
• Équipement et services de TI – appuie les nombreux systèmes de la GRC, y compris le réseau des Services nationaux de police et le Centre d'information de la police canadienne;
• Équipement et services de communication – pour fournir des radios et d'autres infrastructures de communications policières;
• Équipement de police – y compris des armes, des munitions, des radars et de l'équipement de protection, etc.;
• Services de protection – y compris les commissionnaires, les gardes et les surveillants pour diverses fonctions de soutien;
• Uniformes – tissus, chemises, pantalons, vestes, bottes et gilets pare-balles;
• Équipement de laboratoire – pour les opérations judiciaires et de laboratoire qui appuient les enquêtes de police;
• Construction – nouveaux détachements, nouvelles rénovations et mises à niveau;
• Services d'architecture et de génie.

Stratégie d'approvisionnement générale

Dans la réalisation de ses activités d'achat, la GRC est guidée par les principes de préparation, d'équité, d'ouverture, d'accessibilité et de transparence opérationnelles. La GRC intègre les objectifs plus généraux du gouvernement, tels que la promotion du développement des entreprises autochtones et l'approvisionnement écologique. La GRC est assujettie au Règlement sur les marchés de l'État, à la Politique sur les marchés du Conseil du Trésor et aux accords commerciaux canadiens et internationaux. La GRC est munie d'un solide cadre d'approvisionnement qui comprend un programme d'assurance de la qualité des contrats pour veiller à ce que ses obligations en vertu des divers règlements et politiques sont satisfaites et pour instaurer un environnement d'amélioration continue. La GRC montre également une participation importante aux initiatives du gouvernement qui sont liées à l'avancement et à l'amélioration de l'approvisionnement.

Par ailleurs, dans le but d'optimiser le rendement du processus d'approvisionnement, la GRC tire largement profit des méthodes existantes d'approvisionnement et des outils précis des Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada (SPAC), des Services partagés Canada (SPC) et de la GRC.

Pour des projets d'envergure complexes et coûteux, des stratégies d'acquisition individuelles sont créées pour englober toutes les exigences connexes.

Approvisionnement prévu pour la GRC pour 2016-2017

Les activités de passation de marchés de la GRC, en termes de valeur monétaire et de transactions, devraient ressembler étroitement aux activités réalisées en 2015-2016. On constate que les activités de constructions de détachements, surtout dans l'Ouest canadien, continuent à augmenter.

Le tableau 1 énumère les principales acquisitions prévues par groupe de produits. Celles-ci ont été obtenues du Plan d'investissement de la GRC et recueillies auprès d'intervenants internes. Ce plan fournit des renseignements généraux sur des activités d'approvisionnement qui pourrait entraîner des dépenses sur plusieurs exercices financiers. La liste est fournie à titre indicatif seulement. Certains des approvisionnements prévus ont été reportés de l'exercice précédent. Toutes les valeurs représentent des estimations générales. Les activités d'approvisionnement seront affichées sur le Service électronique d'appels d'offres du gouvernement (site Achatsetventes) au besoin, et les fournisseurs seront entièrement informés à l'avenir. Des priorités importantes et non prévues peuvent avoir une incidence sur les approvisionnements prévus pour l'année et les années qui suivent.

Renseignements supplémentaires

Pour obtenir des renseignements sur la façon de faire affaire avec le gouvernement du Canada, consultez le site web d'Achats et ventes.

Pour connaître les appels d'offres actuels ouverts et concurrentiels de la GRC, veuillez consulter le Service électronique d'appels d'offres du gouvernement : Achats et ventes.

Pour obtenir des renseignements supplémentaires sur les offres à commandes et les arrangements en matière d'approvisionnement de SPAC, veuillez consulter le site Web.

Pour toute demande de renseignements sur le présent plan d'approvisionnement, veuillez vous adresser à Stephanie Lane :

Plan d'approvisionnement de la GRC
Sous-direction des acquisitions et des marchés de la DG
Gendarmerie royale du Canada
73, prom. Leikin, arrêt postal 15
Ottawa (Ontario)
K1A 0R2

Addenda n^o1 au Plan national d'approvisionnement de la GRC pour l'exercice 2016-2017 pour les exercices 2017-2018 et 2018-2019

Dans le cadre de la stratégie continue de la GRC visant à promouvoir les principes de préparation, d'équité, d'accessibilité et de transparence opérationnelles et à intégrer les objectifs plus généraux du gouvernement, tels que la promotion du développement des entreprises autochtones et l'approvisionnement écologique, le tableau suivant énonce les besoins prévus de la GRC qui commenceront au cours des deux prochains exercices. La liste est fournie à titre indicatif seulement.

Les besoins énoncés dans le tableau 2 correspondent aux stratégies de gestion opérationnelles à long terme pour la GI-TI, la gestion de l'actif (biens immobiliers) et les communications radio.

RCMP National Procurement Plan Fiscal Year 2016-2017

Introduction

The RCMP is unique in that it is a federal, provincial and municipal policing body. It provides a total federal policing service to all Canadians and policing services under contract to the three territories, eight provinces (except Ontario and Quebec), more than 150 municipalities, 600 Aboriginal communities and three international airports.

The delivery of these diverse and complex policing programs requires a continuous and reliable supply of a large variety of goods and services to meet operational needs. The RCMP processes thousands of procurement transactions each year, ranging from low dollar value contracts to high value, complex procurement projects.

The objective of the RCMP National Procurement Plan is to provide industry and the public information regarding the anticipated RCMP contracting activities for fiscal year 2016-2017, including a list of planned major procurement requirements, and a glimpse into requirements for the next two fiscal years (2018 and 2019).

RCMP Procurement Function

The RCMP has a strong procurement function capable of meeting tactical, routine and high risk, high-value project-oriented requirements in a timely and efficient manner.

The Headquarters Procurement and Contracting Branch, located in Ottawa, is responsible for procurement requirements in the National Capital Region and National Division as well as national initiatives such as force-wide contracts and/or standing offers and major events. It is also responsible for policy, reporting and contract quality assurance functions. Most procurement and contracting activities are managed by dedicated procurement specialists. Each Division has supporting procurement unit(s), with offices located in Halifax, Montreal, London, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina and Vancouver.

RCMP Procurement Activity

The following list represents the major commodity areas for RCMP contracting:

• Fleet – comprising of vehicles, boats and aircraft for patrol, transportation and surveillance functions;
• Real Property Management – for the hundreds of existing detachments and other buildings located across Canada;
• Professional Services – including health services, forensic accounting, management consulting, instructors and advertising;
• IT Equipment and Services – which support the RCMP's many systems including the National Police Services Network and the Canadian Police Information Centre;
• Communication Equipment and Services – to provide radios and other police communication infrastructure;
• Policing Equipment – including weapons, ammunition, radars, and protective equipment, etc;
• Protection Services – including commissionaires, guards and matrons for various support functions;
• Uniforms – including fabrics, shirts, pants, jackets, boots and body armour;
• Lab Equipment – for the forensic and laboratory operations that support police investigations;
• Construction – new detachments, renovations and upgrades; and,
• Architectural and Engineering services.

General Procurement Strategy

In conducting its purchasing activities, the RCMP is guided by the principles of operational readiness, fairness, openness, accessibility and transparency. The RCMP incorporates broader government objectives such as encouraging aboriginal business development and green procurement into its procurement strategies. The RCMP is subject to the Government Contract Regulations, the Treasury Board Contracting Policy and Canada's national and international trade agreements. The RCMP has a strong procurement framework that includes a contract quality assurance program to ensure that its obligations under the various policies and regulations are met and to instill an environment of continuous improvement. The RCMP also demonstrates significant participation on government initiatives related to the advancement and improvement of procurement.

Furthermore, in order to maximize efficiency within the procurement process, the RCMP makes great use of existing methods of supply and specific tools from Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), Shared Services Canada (SSC) and the RCMP.

RCMP Procurement Forecast for Fiscal Year 2016-2017

RCMP contracting activity, both in terms of dollar value and transactions, is expected to closely resemble activity in the 2015/2016 fiscal year. There continues to be increased activity in the construction of detachments, particularly in western Canada.

Table 1 provides a list of major planned procurement activities by commodity group and was derived from the RCMP Investment Plan and input from internal stakeholders. The plan provides high level information on procurement activities which could result in expenditures over multiple fiscal years. This list is for information purposes only. Some planned procurements listed have been carried over from the previous fiscal year. All values are high level estimates. Procurement activities will be posted on the Government Electronic Tendering System (Buy and Sell site) as required and industry will be fully informed going forward. Unforeseen and challenging priorities may affect some acquisitions planned for the year and for future years.

Further Information

For information on doing business with the Government of Canada, please visit the Buy and Sell Website.

For current RCMP issued open competitive solicitations, please refer to the Government Electronic Tendering System (GETS) at the PSPC Buy and Sell site.

Information on PSPC standing offers and supply arrangements can be obtained through their website.

All requests for information related to this Procurement Plan are to be addressed to:

RCMP Procurement Plan
HQ Procurement and Contracting Branch
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
73 Leikin Drive, Mail Stop 15
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0R2

Addendum 1 to RCMP National Procurement Plan Fiscal Year 2016-2017 for Fiscal Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019

As part of the RCMP's ongoing strategy to promote the principles of operational readiness, accessibility, fairness and transparency and to incorporate broader government objectives such as encouraging aboriginal business development and green procurement, the following table identifies anticipated RCMP requirements to begin within the next two fiscal years. These lists are for information purposes only.

The requirements contained in Table 2, are in keeping with the RCMP's long term corporate management strategies for IM/IT, Asset Management (Real Property) and Radio communications.

Conduite des membres

La GRC a besoin de la confiance de la population pour pouvoir la servir et la protéger efficacement. Pour cette raison, les employés de la GRC doivent se comporter de façon non seulement à satisfaire, mais à dépasser les attentes élevées et justifiées des Canadiens.

En plus d'être assujettis aux mêmes lois que les autres citoyens du Canada, les membres de la GRC sont tenus, qu'ils soient ou non de service, au pays comme à l'étranger, d'obéir au code de déontologie de la Gendarmerie royale du Canada (code de déontologie). La GRC prend très au sérieux les contraventions au code de déontologie, et elle s'emploie résolument à gérer les affaires disciplinaires avec diligence, efficacité et équité.

Un nouveau code de déontologie et un nouveau processus disciplinaire ont été élaborés pour permettre la mise en œuvre des modifications apportées à la Loi sur la GRC entrée en vigueur le 28 novembre 2014. Dans le cadre du nouveau processus disciplinaire, les cas d'inconduite sont traités de manière plus souple, plus rapide, plus efficace et au plus bas échelon hiérarchique possible. Au lieu de prévoir uniquement des peines à caractère punitif, le nouveau régime favorise l'imposition de mesures simples, correctives et éducatives.

Audiences disciplinaires

Une audience disciplinaire est convoquée lorsque l'autorité compétente, considérant l'ensemble des circonstances entourant les allégations, réclame le congédiement du membre mis en cause. L'audience disciplinaire est une procédure quasi judiciaire présidée par un comité pouvant compter un ou plusieurs membres. Les comités de déontologie ont le pouvoir légal d'admettre des éléments de preuve, par exemple des témoignages faits sous serment, afin de trancher les questions en litige et, si une contravention est établie, d'imposer diverses mesures disciplinaires, y compris le congédiement, le cas échéant.

Les audiences disciplinaires sont ouvertes au public. Le lieu, la date et l'heure des audiences sont affichés sur la page calendrier des audiences.

Décisions écrites des comités de déontologie

Certaines décisions écrites des comités de déontologie rendues après la révision de la Loi sur la GRC (2014) peuvent être consultées en ligne.

Pour obtenir une copie d'une décision écrite qui n'est pas accessible en ligne, envoyez un courriel à l'adresse RCMP.AdjudicationRegistrar-GreffierArbitrage.GRC@rcmp-grc.gc.ca.

Member conduct

Public trust is essential for the RCMP to effectively serve and protect Canadians. As a result, RCMP employees must conduct themselves in a manner that not only meets, but exceeds, the rightfully high expectations of Canadians.

RCMP members are subject to the same laws as all Canadian citizens. In addition, member conduct is guided by the Code of Conduct of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Code of Conduct). RCMP members are subject to this Code of Conduct both on and off-duty, in Canada and abroad. Contraventions of the Code of Conduct are taken seriously and the RCMP is committed to handling conduct issues in a timely, efficient and fair manner.

A new Code of Conduct and conduct process were developed in support of the amended RCMP Act which came into force on November 28, 2014. The new conduct process allows misconduct to be addressed in a more responsive, timely and effective manner, and at the lowest appropriate level. Emphasis is placed on identifying remedial, corrective and educative solutions, rather than being limited to applying punitive sanctions.

Conduct hearings

Conduct hearings are initiated in cases where the member's dismissal is being sought based on the overall circumstances of the allegations. Conduct hearings are formal, court-like processes that are held before a board of one or more persons. Boards have the legal authority to hear evidence, such as sworn testimony, to make determinations as required and, if the contravention(s) is established, to administer various conduct measures including dismissal.

Conduct hearings are open to the public. Hearing dates, times, and locations, are available on the hearing schedule site.

Written board decisions

Some written board decisions issued after the revised RCMP Act (2014) are available online.

If you want a copy of a written board decision that is not available, send an email to: RCMP.AdjudicationRegistrar-GreffierArbitrage.GRC@rcmp-grc.gc.ca.

La Loi sur la Gendarmerie royale du Canada modifiée

En juin 2013, la Loi visant à accroître la responsabilité de la GRC (Loi sur la responsabilité) a reçu la sanction royale, lançant par le fait même la réforme de la Loi sur la Gendarmerie royale du Canada (Loi sur la GRC). Le 28 novembre 2014, la Loi sur la responsabilité et la Loi sur la GRC modifiée sont entrées en vigueur.

La modernisation de la Loi sur la GRC a entraîné des changements dans les processus suivants :

Déontologie

Le nouveau processus disciplinaire permet de s'occuper des inconduites de manière plus souple, plus rapide et plus efficace, en préservant un souci d'équité.

• La plupart des questions de déontologie peuvent être réglées au niveau le plus bas possible, souvent localement;
• La majorité des affaires de déontologie se règleront dans des rencontres pour donner au membre l'occasion d'être entendu, tout en procurant davantage de souplesse aux gestionnaires et aux employés pour s'occuper des questions de déontologie;
• Une audience disciplinaire n'est convoquée que lorsqu'on envisage le congédiement, et le comité disciplinaire a des pouvoirs accrus pour gérer la procédure;On a recours à des mesures simples, correctives et éducatives plutôt qu'à des mesures punitives pour régler les inconduites;
• On a davantage recours à des mesures simples, correctives et éducatives plutôt qu'à des mesures punitives pour régler les inconduites;
• Les peines disciplinaires simples et graves ont fait place à de nouvelles mesures simples, correctives et graves;
• Les motifs de suspension demeurent la compromission sérieuse de l'intégrité ou des opérations de la Gendarmerie à laquelle s'ajoute la notion d'intérêt public;
• Les motifs pour une cessation de la solde et des indemnités exigent des circonstances exceptionnelles où le membre visé a clairement contrevenu à la loi ou à une disposition du code de déontologie et où la conduite a une incidence très préjudiciable sur l'intégrité ou les opérations de la GRC, ou la capacité du membre visé à exécuter ses fonctions;
• La décision de l'autorité ou du comité disciplinaire entre en vigueur dès qu'elle a été signifiée au membre visé et elle n'est pas suspendue si un appel est interjeté.

Enquête et règlement des plaintes de harcèlement

Le nouveau processus applicable aux plaintes de harcèlement raccorde les exigences du code de déontologie et celles du Conseil du Trésor en un processus unique, rapide et efficace.

• Le harcèlement est dorénavant mentionné de façon précise comme une infraction au code de déontologie de la GRC;
• En remplacement de deux processus parallèles relevant de la politique du Conseil du Trésor et de la partie IV de la Loi sur la GRC, il y a dorénavant un processus unique propre à la GRC inscrit dans les consignes du commissaire pour régler les plaintes de harcèlement mettant en cause des membres;
• En cas de plainte de harcèlement contre un membre, le nouveau processus prévoit que ce soit la même personne qui détermine s'il y a eu harcèlement et qui, le cas échéant, impose des mesures disciplinaires;
• Un nouveau Bureau de la coordination des plaintes de harcèlement (BCPH) national a été créé pour assurer la réception et la surveillance de toutes les plaintes de harcèlement;
• Les parties peuvent se prévaloir du processus de règlement informel tant et aussi longtemps qu'une décision définitive n'a pas été rendue. Le processus de règlement informel est appuyé par un programme professionnel de gestion informelle des conflits;
• Le processus applicable aux plaintes de harcèlement est plus transparent, et la communication avec les plaignants et les défendeurs est améliorée : mises à jour transmises tous les 30 jours; possibilité de répondre au rapport préliminaire et de s'opposer à la désignation de l'enquêteur ou du décideur choisi en cas de crainte raisonnable de partialité;
• Les enquêteurs en matière de harcèlement doivent avoir suivi une formation spécialisée;
• Le processus d'appel est simplifié pour les plaignants et comprend un examen par le Comité externe d'examen et l'accès au commissaire en vue d'obtenir une décision définitive et exécutoire.

Exigences d'emploi

Un nouveau processus d'exigences d'emploi a été élaboré pour prendre des mesures administratives et des décisions relativement à la cessation de la solde et des indemnités en cas d'absence non autorisée ou de perte d'une condition de base, à la révocation d'une nomination, à un renvoi par mesure administrative et à une rétrogradation, au pouvoir d'ordonner à un membre de subir un examen ou une évaluation médical pour déterminer s'il est apte au travail, et au licenciement d'un membre en période de probation.

Ce processus sera appliqué de manière équitable, rapide et appropriée aux circonstances, tout en préservant l'impartialité procédurale.

Généralités

• Les membres doivent répondre à quatre critères essentiels pour exercer leurs fonctions :
  • Être autorisés par la loi à posséder une arme à feu;
  • Être titulaires d'un permis de conduire délivré au Canada;
  • Posséder la cote de fiabilité ou l'autorisation de sécurité nécessaire (nouveau);
  • Ne pas faire l'objet d'aucune ordonnance rendue par un tribunal ou un juge de paix leur interdisant de pénétrer dans un endroit quelconque situé sur le territoire qu'ils servent et dont ils sont responsables, ou les restreignant à cet égard.

Cessation du versement de la solde et des indemnités

• On peut cesser de verser sa solde et ses indemnités à un membre lorsqu'il a subi la perte d'une compétence de base, qu'il est absent du travail sans y être autorisé ou qu'il quitte sans autorisation une fonction qui lui avait été confiée.

Renvoi par mesure administrative et rétrogradation

• Un membre peut faire l'objet d'un renvoi par mesure administrative ou d'une rétrogradation pour les motifs suivants : rendement insatisfaisant, handicap qui le rend inapte à servir, perte d'une compétence de base, absence non autorisée, conflit d'intérêts ou condamnation pour une infraction punissable sur déclaration de culpabilité;
• Le licenciement pour rendement insatisfaisant ou pour une raison autre qu'une infraction au code de déontologie doit être motivé;
• La GRC vise à conserver ses membres autant que possible. Elle consacrera de l'expertise, du temps et des ressources pour travailler avec le membre, afin de cerner toutes les possibilités de maintien en poste. Ce n'est qu'après avoir en vain déployé tous ces efforts que le processus de licenciement sera enclenché.

Stage

• La période de stage pour les nouveaux membres de la GRC dure toujours deux ans, mais elle peut être interrompue par ce qui suit :
  • congé sans solde;
  • heures de congé payées en trop pour un total de 360 h;
  • formation linguistique à plein temps;
  • suspension pour contravention à une disposition du code de déontologie en vertu de l'art. 12 de la Loi sur la GRC;
  • période pendant laquelle le membre est au travail, mais est incapable de remplir les tâches attendues d'un membre stagiaire;
  • période durant laquelle le membre est relevé de ses fonctions dans le cadre d'un processus administratif.
• Un membre stagiaire peut être licencié moyennant un préavis de deux semaines ou une indemnité tenant lieu de préavis s'il est jugé qu'il ne possède pas les qualités nécessaires pour être membre de la GRC au-delà de la période de stage.

Griefs et appels

Par souci d'efficacité et de rapidité dans la gestion des griefs et des appels, les processus ont été simplifiés et réduits de 18 processus et sous-processus à deux.

• Les griefs et les appels seront traités par un bureau central, le Bureau de coordination des griefs et des appels;
• Les pouvoirs de l'arbitre ont été élargis : par exemple, il peut maintenant à sa discrétion rencontrer les parties officiellement ou informellement, jumeler des griefs ou des appels très semblables, rejeter des griefs ou des appels qui sont frivoles ou vexatoires ou qui constituent un abus de procédure et il peut admettre ou rejeter un grief ou un appel lorsqu'une des parties n'a pas suivi ses instructions;
• Le Comité externe d'examen de la GRC pourra examiner seulement les affaires les plus graves et formuler ses recommandations à l'arbitre de l'appel si l'affaire en cause concerne une inconduite, du harcèlement, un licenciement par mesure administrative ou une rétrogradation, ou la cessation du versement de la solde et des indemnités après une suspension.

Plaintes du public

La Loi visant à accroître la responsabilité de la GRC crée la Commission civile d'examen et de traitement des plaintes (CCETP) pour remplacer la Commission des plaintes du public contre la GRC. Elle confie à la CCETP des pouvoirs renforcés, simplifiés et à jour, qui sont harmonisés avec d'autres régimes modernes instaurés à l'échelle fédérale ou provinciale, de même que dans le reste du monde.

• Le CCETP a le pouvoir d'effectuer l'examen d'activités précises, de convoquer et de contraindre un témoin à participer à l'enquête ou à l'audience pour produire un témoignage ou une preuve documentaire et d'accéder à l'information détenue par la GRC.
• Le fait de mettre davantage l'accent sur le règlement à l'amiable signifie que les rares ressources d'enquête n'auront pas à être affectées à la tenue d'une enquête structurée sur une plainte du public et nourrit la confiance du public dans l'appareil et son ouverture à aider la GRC à prévenir la criminalité et à enquêter sur des crimes.

Amended RCMP Act

In June 2013, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act (Accountability Act) received Royal Assent, setting in motion the reform of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (RCMP Act). On November 28, 2014, both the Accountability Act and the amended RCMP Act came into force.

The modernization of the RCMP Act has resulted in changes to the following processes:

Conduct

The new conduct process allows misconduct to be addressed in a more responsive, timely and effective manner, while balancing fairness:

• Most conduct issues can be resolved at the lowest appropriate level, often locally;
• The majority of conduct matters will be dealt with through a meeting process to provide the member with an opportunity to be heard while also giving managers and employees greater flexibility when dealing with conduct issues;
• Conduct hearings are only initiated in cases where dismissal is being sought and a conduct board has broader authority to manage proceedings;
• There is a greater focus on remedial, corrective and educative solutions to conduct issues rather than punishment;
• Informal and formal discipline sanctions have been replaced by remedial, corrective and serious measures
• Grounds for suspension are based on whether the integrity or operations of the Force would be seriously jeopardized and consideration of the public interest;
• Grounds for a stoppage of a subject member's pay and allowances require exceptional circumstances where the subject member is clearly involved in the contravention of the law or any provision of the Code of Conduct and the conduct has a highly detrimental impact on the integrity or operations of the RCMP, or the subject member's ability to perform his/her duties;
• The decision of a conduct authority or a conduct board takes effect as soon as it is served on the subject member and is not stayed by the making of an appeal.

Harassment Investigation and Resolution

The new harassment process brings requirements of the Code of Conduct and Treasury Board approaches into one timely and efficient harassment process:

• Harassment is now specifically identified as a contravention of the RCMP Code of Conduct;
• Rather than dual processes dictated by Treasury Board policy and Part IV of the RCMP Act, there is now a single RCMP-specific process created under the Commissioner's Standing Orders to deal with harassment complaints involving members;
• A complaint alleging harassing behavior of a member will benefit from having the same decision maker holding the authority to decide on whether harassment has occurred, and, if appropriate, to impose conduct measures;
• A new national Office for the Coordination of Harassment Complaints (OCHC) has been established to intake and monitor all harassment complaints;
• Parties have the opportunity to pursue informal resolution of a complaint up until the making of the final decision. The informal resolution process is supported by a professionalized informal conflict management program;
• Greater transparency in the harassment complaint process and improved communication with the complainants and respondents, including being provided with updates every 30 days; opportunity to respond to the preliminary report and to object to investigators and /or decision makers where there is a reasonable apprehension of bias;
• Harassment investigators must have completed specialized training in order to conduct investigations;
• A simplified appeal process for complainants that will include a review by the External Review Committee and access to the Commissioner for a final and binding decision.

Employment Requirements

A new employment requirements process has been developed for taking administrative actions and decisions in respect of the stoppage of pay and allowances for unauthorized absence or the loss of a basic requirement, the revocation of an appointment, an administrative discharge and demotion, the authority to direct a member to undergo a medical examination or assessment to determine fitness for duty, and the discharge of a probationary member.

Employment requirements processes will be applied in an equitable and timely manner that is appropriate to the circumstances and preserves procedural fairness.

General:

• The four basic requirements that a member must possess for the carrying out of their duties are:
  • legally authorized to possess a firearm;
  • hold a license issued in Canada to operate a motor vehicle;
  • have the required reliability status or security clearance (new); and
  • not being subject to an order issued by a court or justice of the peace prohibiting or restricting entry into any place within the policing jurisdiction for which the member is responsible.

Stoppage of Pay and Allowances:

• A member's pay and allowances may be stopped if the member has lost a basic requirement, is absent from duty without authorization or leaves any assigned duty without authorization.

Administrative Discharge and Demotion:

• A member may be subject to an administrative discharge or demotion for reasons such as unsatisfactory performance, being unable to continue to serve due to a disability, the loss of a basic requirement, unauthorized absence, conflict of interest or being convicted of an indictable offence.
• Discharges for unsatisfactory performance or reasons other than a contravention of the Code of Conduct must be for "cause".
• The goal of the RCMP is to retain members whenever appropriate. The RCMP will commit expertise, time and resources to work with the member to identify opportunities for retention. It is only after these efforts have been proven unsuccessful that a discharge process may be initiated.

Probation:

• The probation period for new RCMP members remains two years, however the probationary period may be interrupted by any of the following:
  • a period of leave without pay;
  • any hours of leave with pay in excess of a total of 360 hours;
  • a period of full-time language training;
  • a period of suspension for contravening any provision of the Code of Conduct under section 12 of the RCMP Act;
  • a period during which the member is at work but is unable to perform the duties required of a member on probation;
  • a period during which the member is relieved from duty as part of an administrative process.
• A probationary member may be discharged with two weeks' notice or pay in lieu of notice if it is determined that he/she does not possess the suitability to continue to serve as a member beyond the probationary period.

Grievances and Appeals

To process and manage grievances and appeals more efficiently and quickly, these processes have been streamlined, reducing approximately 18 processes or sub-processes down to two:

• Grievances and appeals will be handled by one central office, the Office for the Coordination of Grievances and Appeals;
• The adjudicators' authorities have been enhanced giving them the discretion to, for example, meet formally and informally with the parties, join grievances or appeals that are very similar, dismiss grievances or appeals that are frivolous, vexatious or where there has been an abuse of the process, and to allow or deny grievances or appeals when a party does not comply with an adjudicator's direction; and
• The RCMP External Review Committee will review and provide recommendations for only the more serious matters in dispute such as appeals related to: conduct, harassment, administrative discharges and demotions, and stoppages of pay and allowances following a suspension.

Public Complaints

The Enhancing RCMP Act includes the creation of the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (CRCC) to replace the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP and provides the CRCC with enhanced, streamlined and updated authorities to conduct reviews and investigations, bringing it in line with other modern international, federal and provincial systems:

• The CRCC authorities now include the ability to conduct specific activity reviews, to summon and compel witnesses during investigations or hearings to provide oral and documentary evidence, and to have greater access to RCMP information; and
• An increased emphasis on informal resolution means scarce investigative resources don't have to be used to conduct a formal public complaint investigation and fosters both the public's confidence in the system and a willingness to assist the RCMP both prevent and investigate crime.

Investigation of Nigel Wright gifting $90k to Senator Duffy

Referral of Matter of Senator Duffy

The investigation of Senator Duffy commenced in March of 2013 after media reports stated that Deloitte had been hired to review expenses. The Senate later referred the matter to the RCMP in late May. The letter of referral was signed by Speaker Noel Kinsella on behalf of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets, and Administration. On or about the same time, National Division initiated investigations on Senators Mac Harb and Patrick Brazeau, and in late August the matter of Senator Pamela Wallin was also referred, which is part of a separate investigation. Senators Harb and Brazeau are now before the courts on fraud and breach of trust charges, while the investigation of Senator Wallin is on-going. The evidence gathered against Senator Duffy has been given to the assigned Crowns for review.

Primary Focus of Project Amble - Senator Duffy

The fact that four Parliamentarians are subject of criminal investigations is relevant to the matter of Senator Duffy. This revealed that the use of Senate resources other than for the public good was not limited to Senator Duffy's actions, but that the problem may have been more widespread. The integrity of the institution of Parliament was put at risk by these allegations. For this very reason, the primary focus of Project Amble was to determine the veracity of the allegations of criminal wrongdoing by Senators Duffy, Harb, and Brazeau, and if true, to gather all evidence in order to assess the scope and extent of these crimes.

The referral regarding Senator Duffy's alleged use of Senate resources coincided with the public revelation that Nigel Wright, then Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister's Office, gifted $90k to Senator Duffy. According to the evidence gathered, this was done so that the senator could reimburse the Senate for inappropriate expense claims related to a secondary residence in the NCR. This also drew the attention of National Division investigators and was also deemed the focus of this investigation. Although Mr. Wright held a very influential and important position within the PMO, Senator Duffy was the appointed official who held one of highest offices within our democratic system.

The investigation revealed that Senator Duffy used Senate resources for personal gain in connection with his duties as a public official. As the investigation evolved and expanded, the evidence gathered led investigators to identify four separate avenues of investigation:

1. Fraudulent residency claims;
2. Fraudulent travel claims;
3. Fraudulent contracts that were paid from the public purse to Gerald Donohue, and
4. Demands made by Senator Duffy of the PMO, including the $90k from Nigel Wright.

Determinations to be made

As the investigation was nearing completion, investigators conducted a thorough second review of all evidence/information within the investigative file. This review was specifically with regard to the matter of the gifting of $90k by Nigel Wright to Senator Duffy, as well as all other involvement of Mr. Wright and the PMO respecting the Deloitte audit. It was conducted in view of determining whether there is a need to interview Prime Minister Harper, and whether Nigel Wright ought to be charged criminally. The review included the relevance of evidence obtained from Mr. Wright, including a copy of Senator Duffy's printed electronic calendar which was provided to Nigel Wright by Senator Duffy in February, 2013.

Relating to Avenue 1 - Residency

The initial focus of the investigation was to make a determination where Senator Duffy's primary residence was. He has claimed that his primary residence is in PEI, and thus collected a living allowance relating to a secondary residence in Ottawa. Documentary and witness evidence, aided by Senator Duffy's calendar^{Footnote 1} provided to investigators by Mr. Wright assists in clearly demonstrating that Senator Duffy's primary residence was in fact in Ottawa. The details within the calendar have allowed investigators to determine when Senator Duffy was in PEI, and when he was in Ottawa or elsewhere. Based on the contents, PEI is clearly not his primary residence, but rather a vacation or summer home. The calendar given to investigators by Mr. Wright, along with other evidence, will provide valuable evidence to support charges of breach of trust and fraud regarding residency.

Relating to Avenue 2 - Inappropriate Expenses

Early on in the investigation it was revealed that Senator Duffy filed certain NCR per diem expense claims for days when he was actually in Florida on vacation. Senator Duffy has stated publicly that he filed those claims in error. A further in-depth review of his expenses by investigators has revealed that there are a number of occasions when Senator Duffy filed expense claims for which he was not entitled. Some are as simple as claiming NCR per diem for days when he was not in the NCR, however others relate to claiming travel for matters of "Senate Business" which investigators have determined were travel for personal reasons. The investigation has revealed that the actual purposes of some of the claimed travel was to attend a paid speaking engagement as part of his business Mike Duffy Media Services (MDMS), to visit his children, to attend a medical appointment, to attend funerals, and to buy a dog. While his Senate expense claims often just cite "Senate Business" as the reason for the travel, Senator Duffy's private calendar provided by Mr. Wright reveals the true purpose of those trips. Witness statements further corroborate the evidence gathered as a result of the calendar. The total amounts claimed relating to these frauds is in excess of $50,000. Charges of breach of trust and fraud are proposed based on that evidence.

Relating to Avenue 3 - Gerald Donohue

The investigation of Senator Duffy's office expenses revealed irregularities in contracts awarded to companies controlled by Gerald Donohue. Further investigation and an interview of Mr. Donohue revealed that he and Senator Duffy were long-time friends, and that Senator Duffy's Senate office awarded Mr. Donohue approximately $65,000 in consulting contracts. According to his own statement, Mr. Donohue did little or no work for Senator Duffy's office. Mr. Donahue's banking records have shown that while the Senate paid Mr. Donohue pursuant to these contracts, Senator Duffy would in turn have Mr. Donohue pay for some of his personal and Senate expenses. This included more than $10,000 for a personal trainer. Senator Duffy referenced the appointments with his personal trainer in his calendar, as well as contact he had with Mr. Donohue and references to his Senate contracts. On another occasion Senator Duffy had Mr. Donohue pay expenses relating to having his makeup applied prior to a TV appearance. This is also referenced in his calendar. There are also several instances where Mr. Donohue pays for services related to the Senate, such as photographs, research, and speech writing. These were all done without Senate oversight or approval. Some are referenced in Senator Duffy's calendar. While not as vital as it is to investigative avenues 1 and 2, the calendar does provide supporting evidence relating to this aspect of the investigation. To date, investigators can account for approximately $26,000 of the $65,000 paid to Mr. Donohue which was kicked back to Senator Duffy via services, examples which are referred to above.

The granting of contracts to Mr. Donohue totaling approximately $65,000 comprises the total value of the fraud and breach of trust to be alleged against Senator Duffy as part of this investigative avenue. Witness evidence, in addition to evidence obtained from Senator Duffy's calendar, and banking information, will show that Senator Duffy breached the standard of a public officeholder. These offences are the most egregious and flagrant and demonstrate how Senator Duffy went to great lengths to circumvent Senate expense policy so that he could benefit personally from a fraud on the public purse.

Avenue 4 - Nigel Wright and PMO

In July of 2013 a cautioned statement was obtained from Nigel Wright in the presence of his counsel. Mr. Wright was cooperative and forthright with investigators then and throughout this investigation.^{Footnote 2} He provided tangible evidence that the investigative team may not have otherwise had the legal grounds to gather. This cooperation has allowed investigators to further advance the investigation of Senator Duffy. Specifically, that evidence he provided consists of:

• Two binders of e-mails relating to the PMO dealings with the matter of Senator Duffy (some of which contained solicitor-client communications);
• A binder containing detailed day-by-day calendar of events of Senator Duffy since his appointment to the Senate.

The e-mails contained in the two binders are exchanges which took place internally within the PMO, between the PMO and certain Senators, between the PMO and Senator Duffy, and between the PMO and Senator Duffy's lawyer. They provide a breakdown and timeline of events relating to how the PMO dealt with the matter of the review of Senator Duffy's expenses, as well as actions taken by those involved. Evidence gathered from these also show that it was Senator Duffy who initiated demands of the PMO, including that he be reimbursed $90,000 plus legal fees, and not to the contrary as Senator Duffy has stated publicly. These e-mails have allowed investigators to advance the investigation and to make factual determinations which otherwise would have likely remained unanswered. The proposed charges against Senator Duffy relating to this avenue are breach of trust, fraud on the government, and bribery.

The binder containing Senator Duffy's calendar also contains valuable evidence for investigative avenues 1, 2 and 3. It is a printout of an electronic calendar which was prepared by Senator Duffy in February 2013, and sent by courier to Nigel Wright. Senator Duffy referenced the binder in a February 20 e-mail, stating that he sent it to Mr. Wright. The purpose at the time appears to have been to show Mr. Wright the extent of the work he was conducting on behalf of the Conservative Party. The value of Mr. Wright as a witness to introduce those e-mails in court cannot be overstated.^{Footnote 3}

Review of E-Mail Evidence

The evidence gathered shows that it was Senator Duffy who made five demands of Mr. Wright and the PMO before he agreed to reimburse the Senate. Nigel Wright wanted Senator Duffy to stop making statements to the media regarding the legality of his entitlements, as this was becoming an embarrassment and distraction to the government. As early as February 21st, 2013, Janice Payne, on behalf of Senator Duffy made the following demands:

1. Internal Economy will remove Senator Duffy from the Deloitte audit, confirm that his expenses are in order and that Senator Duffy not be subject to any further review by any other party;
2. A written acknowledgement that Senator Duffy meets and has always met all requirements necessary to sit as a Senator from PEI;
3. As Senator Duffy's ineligibility to claim housing allowances is due to his time on the road for the Conservative Party, he will be kept whole. Also, his legal fees will be paid;
4. If Senate rules are changed in the future, which would allow Senator Duffy to claim the allowance, he will do so;
5. PMO will ensure that Conservative caucus members will use consistent media lines when discussing the Senator Duffy matter.

In an email dated February 21, Nigel Wright agrees with some of the demands made by Senator Duffy, but disagrees with others.

On March 25th, Janice Payne sent an email to Benjamin Perrin, counsel for the PMO, requesting certain further assurances. The email reads as follows:

"... the Government Leader in the Senate will urge her caucus to vote against such a motion as well as any motion to refer the matter of his housing and expense claims related to the designation of PEI as his primary residence for further investigation or action by Deloitte, the RCMP, or any other party".

In an email to PMO counsel Benjamin Perrin, Mr. Wright categorically disagrees:

"how can we do that? If someone thinks that a crime has occurred, can we have an internal agreement not to refer it to the RCMP? I think it would be a scandal, no? Unless you guys disagree, I think we tell her we cannot mention the RCMP".

Again on May 12, Mr. Wright responds to an email chain from Ray Novak and Senator Linda Frum regarding Senator Duffy:

" .. I don't know if the RCMP really are investigating. I personally don't think that Mike committed crime at all- if I did we would have pursued a different course".

The evidence shows that Mr. Wright was not aware early on that Senator Duffy had committed any criminal acts relating to filing of living and expense claims. He believed that the senator was constitutionally entitled to sit as a senator from PEI. Senator Duffy on the other hand, as the police investigation has now been able to show, knew that he had committed fraud and breached the standard of a public office holder while a sitting senator. He knew this while he was making demands of Mr. Wright and the PMO. The investigation has not gathered any evidence showing that Mr. Wright knew or ought to have known about the offences outlined in avenues 1, 2, and 3. The demands made by Senator Duffy provide sufficient evidence to pursue a charge under the bribery and breach of trust provisions of the Criminal Code. It could be inferred that Senator Duffy knew that if an audit by Deloitte was to continue, or an investigation was to be initiated by the RCMP, that his crimes would be exposed.

Through his lawyer and in an address to the Senate in October of 2013, Senator Duffy made public statements to the effect that it was in fact the PMO who had come up with this "monstrous fraud". Senator Duffy also claimed that there were threats and intimidation made by the PMO and that he agreed to go along with "this scheme". On November 1st, a letter was sent to Senator Duffy's lawyer requesting that Senator Duffy tum over any evidence that may provide the bases for the claims he made in the Senate. To date no such evidence was ever turned over. It is worthy to note that Senator Duffy made these claims while addressing the Senate, where he enjoys Parliamentary privilege.

In addition to the hundreds of e-mails provided by Mr. Wright, investigators obtained the e-mails of PMO staffers, as well as e-mails of Senator Duffy and other Senators. A review of evidence in our holdings shows that in February and March of 2013, when Mr. Wright and Senator Duffy were negotiating the terms in which Senator Duffy was to reimburse the Senate, Mr. Wright did not believe or know that Senator Duffy had committed any crime, but rather was of the belief that he had claimed the expenses as part of an administrative misunderstanding or error. Mr. Wright stated that his decision to assist Senator Duffy with the $90k repayment as personal, and that he did it because he believed in being a good person. Though he did believe that on moral and ethical grounds Senator Duffy ought to reimburse the Senate, he did not believe or know that that any fraud relating to his housing expense claims. During the month of February while Mr. Wright and Senator Duffy were dealing with this matter, Senator Tkachuk cited the "Sgro precedent" to Mr. Wright. By this he was referring to the matter of MP Judy Sgro, who had filed inappropriate living expenses. MP Sgro repaid the monies and the matter was rendered moot. Senator Tkachuk suggested that if Senator Duffy admitted the error and reimbursed, the Deloitte audit would be rendered moot. In his statement, Mr. Wright stated that because of his personal beliefs and ability to pay, he did not himself claim any expenses while working at the PMO. After Senator Gerstein was' informed that Mr. Wright was going to use personal resources to gift $90k to Senator Duffy, he suggested to Mr. Wright that he claim $60k from the Conservative Fund as part of past legal fees that Mr. Wright had personally paid which were related to his employment with the PMO. Senator Gerstein suggested this as a means for Mr. Wright to recover part of his $90k. Mr. Wright refused. These facts are material to our investigation as they reveal his motivation and state of mind when dealing with Senator Duffy regarding reimbursement.

Nigel Wright, by his own admission, wanted the matter of Senator Duffy's expenses to go away as it caused embarrassment to the government. His exact wording in a February 15 email when referring to this embarrassment was "Chinese water torture of new facts in the public domain, that the PM does not want ..." He believed that if the Senate would be reimbursed, the Deloitte audit would be rendered moot. He did ask Senator Gerstein to call on his contacts at Deloitte to determine what would occur if Senator Duffy reimbursed. The investigation revealed that Senator Gerstein did ask the question to Mike Runia, a managing partner at Deloitte, but that the review continued and that auditors were never told to stop their work. Statements taken from Nigel Wright, Senator Gerstein, Senator Tkachuk, Senator Lebreton, Senator Furey, Senator Stewart Olsen, David Hilton, Arthur Hamilton, Chris Woodcock, Patrick Rogers, David Van Hemmen, Ray Novak, Mike Runia and Deloitte auditors did not provide the evidence to pursue charges with respect to alleged interference with the Deloitte review. Nigel Wright found out on March 21st that Deloitte would continue its review, but nonetheless obtained a bank draft several days later which he gave to Senator Duffy's lawyer, to cover the costs of the senator's reimbursement to the Senate.

Decision on Whether to Interview Prime Minister Harper

In his statement to investigators, Nigel Wright stated that the gifting of $90k to Senator Duffy was his own decision. He had the resources to cover the cost, and believed that the tax payer should not have to pay. He admitted to making a mistake, but that the mistake was his own doing and was not directed from the Prime Minister. He was specifically asked whether Prime Minister Harper was aware, to which he answered that he was not. Statements obtained from a number of Senators involved in this matter, as well as PMO staffers and PMO in-house counsel Benjamin Perrin did not reveal any evidence that Prime Minister Harper had directed, influenced, or otherwise knew of the $90k payment to Senator Duffy.

Evidence was gathered that Prime Minister Harper was aware in general terms only that Mr. Wright and PMO staffers were dealing with the matter of Senator Duffy, but no information or evidence was gathered that he knew specifically about the $90k. This is substantiated by the email review conducted as part of this investigation and through a statement obtained from Ray Novak who replaced Nigel Wright as Chief of Staff. Based on this, there is no reason to believe that interviewing the Prime Minister would provide any additional evidence.

In view of the evidence in our investigative holdings, there is no basis upon which to conduct an interview of Prime Minister Harper.

Offences Considered Against Nigel Wright

There were sufficient reasonable grounds to pursue an investigation on Mr. Wright with regard to the criminal offences listed below. However, in order to charge and secure a conviction on any of these, the test will be much higher. The charges considered against Mr. Wright related to his gifting of $90,000 to Senator Duffy and for exerting pressure on the Senate sub-committee to change or modify the Senate report relating to Senator Duffy's audit are as follows:

• Receiving Prohibited Compensation - Section 16 of Parliament of Canada Act
• Breach of Trust - Section 122 of the Criminal Code
• Frauds on the Government - Section 121 of the Criminal Code;
• Bribery of a Judicial Officer - Section 119 of the Criminal Code.

This investigation commenced as an examination of the housing expenses claimed by Senator Duffy as set out in avenue 1. It has since evolved to include avenues 2, 3 and 4.

The decision on whether or not to seek charges against Mr. Wright must be an assessment on the weight or value of the evidence he can provide in the matter of Senator Duffy, versus the prospects of a conviction on any charges that may be brought against him. Investigators conducted an in-depth assessment of the probative value of any testimony Mr. Wright would provide as a witness. This must be assessed with the overarching goal of attaining the objectives of the investigation.

As stated earlier, the primary focus of this ·investigation was on members the Senate of Canada. The evidence against Senator Duffy clearly shows that criminal charges are warranted. Any decision to charge Nigel Wright must necessarily take into consideration the evidence available to prosecute the case in court, which must include a review of facts with a view of determining whether he had any criminal intent. Senator Duffy and his lawyer Janice Payne refused to cooperate with the investigation. Senator Duffy invoked his constitutional right to silence, and Janice Payne was bound by solicitor-client privilege imposed by Senator Duffy. While Senator Duffy and Ms. Payne could be subject to subpoena, as joint participants and instigators of any wrongdoing, it is difficult to anticipate the nature and quality of the testimony they might provide in court. These factors were considered when weighing whether there exists a reasonable prospect of a conviction against Mr. Wright.

Receiving Prohibited Compensation

The evidence gathered against Mr. Wright may not provide sufficient evidence to secure a charge under Section 16 of the Parliament of Canada Act. The section reads as follows:

"No member of the Senate shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered or to be rendered to any person, either by the member or another person"

There is no evidence to show that Senator Duffy was to render a "service". Therefore this was not an offence for which Mr. Wright could be charged. The agreement that Senator Duffy would reimburse and follow the PMO proposal does not fall within the definition of "service".

Breach of Trust

Under the breach of trust provisions of the Criminal Code, one of the elements to be proved would be that Nigel Wright or someone else would have had to receive a benefit in order to secure a conviction. The deal between Senator Duffy, and Nigel Wright and the PMO, may have provided a benefit to the Conservative Party. The matter of Senator Duffy's expenses was an embarrassment arid distraction to the government, and it was on this basis presumably that Mr. Wright wanted the matter to de dealt with. In practical terms, it has been the practice to require a "tangible benefit" or "personal benefit" in order to prove all the elements of the offence. In addition, the prosecution would have to prove mens rea, that Mr. Wright's actions were for reasons other than for the benefit of the public or "public good". The evidence in fact shows that Mr. Wright thought it in the public interest to repay the $90k. He did not want the tax payer to have to pay for Senator Duffy's expenses, which he believed the Senator ought not have claimed on moral and ethical grounds. As stated earlier, Mr. Wright at the time of his gifting of the $90k did not believe or know that Senator Duffy had committed any criminal acts relating to the his expense claims. Mr. Wright was not aware that Senator Duffy had committed any crime, and was thus not trying to conceal any criminal offence.

Frauds on the Government

With respect to an offence under the Frauds on the Government provisions of the Criminal Code, there may be sufficient evidence to charge Nigel Wright. It could be argued that Mr. Wright was trying to "pay off' Senator Duffy so that the matter would no longer be in the public domain and be an embarrassment to the government; or that the matter may have shown that Senator Duffy was not qualified under the Constitution to sit as a senator from PEI. Investigators believe that proving all the elements of the offence may be difficult when considering available evidence, and taking into consideration that two key collaborators in the repayment scheme – Senator Duffy and Ms. Payne - have not provided any evidence. Ms. Payne could be compelled to testify, but it is unlikely that Senator Duffy would waive his solicitor-client privilege. Senator Duffy could also be compelled, but the nature and quality of his testimony cannot be assessed at this time.

One element that must be proved under this section is that any "advantage" or "benefit" must relate to "the transaction of business relating with or any matter of business relating to the government"... This section has been traditionally used for matters where an advantage is given to an official in exchange for an "advantage" or perceived advantage with regard to contracting. It is not clear whether the $90k given to Senator Duffy applies within the confines of this section. As elaborated on earlier with regard to the breach of trust evidence, proving a benefit to Nigel Wright or someone else, as well as criminal intent, may be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bribery of a Judicial Officer

The evidence gathered shows that it was Senator Duffy who had devised or proposed the scheme to be reimbursed for his ineligible expenses. He also made a number of other demands of the PMO and Nigel Wright in an attempt to protect himself from further scrutiny. There is evidence that puts the propriety of these claims into question, but there is no evidence to show that Nigel Wright was aware that Senator Duffy had committed fraud, and was taken aback when Senator Duffy's lawyer requested that there would be no future referral to the RCMP. The prosecution of any charge under this section would have to prove that any person providing the bribe "corruptly gives" for the benefit of an official any money or other valuable consideration for the official to do or not do something. The evidence has shown that Nigel Wright was consistent in telling Senator Duffy to reimburse the Senate. Had Senator Duffy done so without later making demands of the PMO and Nigel Wright, Mr. Wright would not have been placed in position of gifting any monies. Mr. Wright's actions would have to be proven to be for a corrupt purpose.

Some of the evidence in our holdings reveals that Mr. Wright provided the $90k so that tax payers would not have to foot the bill, believing that it was the ethical and moral thing to do. There has been suggestions that there was an effort by Mr. Wright and others to have Deloitte halt their audit, and that this was part of the deal between Mr. Wright and Senator Duffy. No criminality has been found in that regard, and in fact the evidence shows that Mr. Wright found out on March 21 that the Deloitte review of Senator Duffy would continue, and he proceeded to gift the $90K to Senator Duffy through his lawyer four days later. This latter piece of evidence reinforces that fact that Mr. Wright gifted the monies on moral and ethical grounds, rather than to have the Deloitte review stopped.

The evidence gathered supports the investigational theory that there was an effort by the PMO to influence the Senate Report into Senator Duffy. While Senators Tkachuk, LeBreton, and Stewart Olsen have denied such influence, the e-mails and other witness interviews support this theory.

Conclusion

While sufficient evidence does exist to support charges against Mr. Wright, the prospect of obtaining convictions relating to those offences could be limited due to the statutory requirements. The decision by the investigative team is that it is in the public interest to secure convictions on the charges against Senator Duffy. The investigation showed that Mr. Wright cooperated at first instance. By his own admission he was a party in respect to the scheme to gift the $90k. He provided tangible evidence to investigators at his first opportunity, believing that he did nothing wrong. He did not ask for favorable consideration, nor was it offered. He presented it because he believed it would be relevant to the investigation. As set out previously, the importance of the evidence that can be obtained from Nigel Wright as a witness cannot be overstated. In order for the materials (evidence) which Mr. Wright provided to be admitted into court, including e-mails and Senator Duffy's calendar, a witness will be needed to provide testimony of the participants, provide interpretation, context, meaning, and intent behind the various statements made in the e-mails. Without Mr. Wright, there may be evidentiary gaps which would weaken any court case against Senator Duffy. With regard to the calendar received by Mr. Wright after it was sent to him by Senator Duffy, a witness will be needed to testify to explain its existence, relevance, and how it was obtained by PMO and turned over to police. The calendar provides important evidence relating to investigative avenues 1, 2, and 3. Based on these requirements, Mr. Wright is in the best position to provide that evidence and testimony. While Mr. Wright could face some charges for his role in gifting the $90K to Senator Duffy, it is the opinion and decision of the investigating team that it would best serve the public interest for Mr. Wright to remain a witness, compelled to provide testimony relating to the 9 proposed charges against Senator Duffy. In short, Mr. Wright's testimony would greatly assist in attaining the primary objective of this investigation with a view to showing the full scope and extent of Senator Duffy's criminal acts while a sitting senator. The $90k payment from Mr. Wright to Senator Duffy should be seen in the context of one part of a much larger investigation focussed on Senate wrongdoing.

B. Carrese, Supt.
Sensitive & International Investigations
2014-04-14

Return to Commissioner's Op-Ed on Senate Investigation

Date modified:

1969-12-31