Mr. Chair, I have two documents in front of me that I had already tabled the last time I appeared, which I believe was earlier this month.
One is a document dated June 5, 2003, signed by me, directed to the commanding officer of A Division. That was seven days after I met Mr. Zaccardelli for the second time, and it is a very complicated matter. I understand why he would not understand it fully the first time, but it was clearly stated the second time.
In this memo, which I delivered to the commanding officer, the fifth paragraph says:
The Commissioner instructed me to contact you to investigate the matter.
In the first paragraph I explained:
I met with the Commissioner on 28 MAY 2003. We discussed the complaints I was receiving from multiple senior officers within the HR Directorate. Many of these complaints related to incidents of harassment, nepotism, abuse of authority and misappropriation of funds.
In addition to this matter, he split it in two parts. He said to go see Gessie--now, that was Gessie Clément, who was the commanding officer of A Division--and start a criminal investigation. I did that through this memo.
Three days short of a month later, after talking to the officers who were conducting the investigation, it struck me that he hadn't called me back yet, because on the same date, May 28, he said, “On the other issues, I'll get back to you within one week”, because they were internal matters such as nepotism, abuse of authority, and harassment that were allegations against Mr. Ewanovich.
On June 25, 2003, at 10:20 p.m., after talking to the investigator several hours earlier, I wrote another e-mail to Mr. Zaccardelli, and it says:
On 28 MAY 03, you also indicated that you would contact me regarding your decision relating to the other allegations such as abuse of authority and harassment. I have been AOD [which means absent on duty] much of the period since our meeting and I understand you are as well. I will be taking annual leave soon and would appreciate an update on your intended course of action. This will enable me to provide further details to the appropriate parties.
Earlier I mentioned in the e-mail that as a result of our meeting on May 28 he had directed that I bring the issue of pension outsourcing to the attention of the CO of A Division, and I go on to say that I forwarded it to her on June 5 and in subsequent meetings with the criminal operations officer and Inspector Burnside, who was conducting the investigation.
He called me the next morning, June 26, and he said, “Oh yes, those other allegations, I'm going to give them to our ethics officer and Assistant Commissioner John Spice.” I said, “That's great, because he'll get to the bottom of it.” He at no time ever indicated that I shouldn't have gone to the commanding officer of A Division. In fact, I put in an official document, put in another official document directly to him, spoke to him on the phone. He never said, “I never told you to do that.”
I have another report that was also tabled on January 5, 2004, after the investigation was stopped. It covers that as well. It can be reviewed. That's January 5, 2004.
And if he has the notes he says, I'd like to see those notes, because I have mine with me and they're already tabled. I can table them again if you wish.