Thanks, Chair.
Mr. Jeglic, we finished off my first round discussing fraud. I want to talk now about forgery under section 366 of the code, which is defined as anyone who “commits forgery” by making a “false document, knowing it to be false, with intent”. Upon conviction, they could be looking at a prison sentence of 10 years.
Making a false document is defined in the code to include “altering a genuine document in any material part...making a material addition to a genuine document or adding to it a false date” or “making a material alteration in a genuine document by erasure, obliteration, removal or in any other way.”
In paragraph 110 of your report, you talk about a number of observations that are creating a strong perception of favouritism towards McKinsey. Subparagraph 110(d) talks about “The inappropriate re-evaluation of bids resulting in McKinsey deemed the only compliant bidder and awarding the contract.”
As a parliamentarian with some legal background, I view this as taking an original contract that has so many different qualities and manipulating the contract so that McKinsey, in essence, becomes the successful bidder.
In my opinion, sir, as a former Crown attorney, a case could be made out for an element of forgery in relation to that practice.
Would you agree, sir, that this could be the subject of an RCMP investigation?