Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Good morning, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 105 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, October 30, 2023, the committee is commencing its study of the decision of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to not pursue a criminal investigation in relation to the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to remind everyone, as I always do, that the earpieces could cause feedback and potential injury to our interpreters, so please make sure they are away from the microphone.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses for today. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we have Michael Duheme, who is the commissioner. Sir, welcome to committee. We also have Frédéric Pincince, who is a staff sergeant, sensitive and international investigations, federal policing, Ontario division.

Before we start with your opening statement, Mr. Duheme, I just want to say that we have two hours of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police being here today. As is customary practice, I'm going to seek unanimous consent to reset the clock on the top of the hour to give the Bloc and the NDP the opportunity for another six minutes.

Do I have unanimous consent on the part of the committee to do that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Mr. Duheme, you have up to five minutes to address the committee. Please start, sir.

[Commissioner Michael Duheme, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, honourable members of the committee. It's nice to be back. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

I'm joined here by acting officer in charge, Staff Sergeant Frédéric Pincince, from the RCMP federal policing, sensitive and international investigations.

First, I would like to take a moment to speak about the RCMP’s Federal Policing role. Federal Policing has a multi-faceted mandate with authorities under more than 250 federal statutes and Acts of Parliament. We enforce federal laws, investigate criminal activity related to national security, transnational and serious organized crime, financial crime and corruption. Also, we secure Canada's borders, and ensure the safety of critical infrastructure, internationally protected persons, other designated persons, and democratic institutions.

Federal Policing’s Sensitive and International Investigations Section (SII) has the mandate to investigate sensitive, high-risk matters that cause significant threats to Canada's political, economic and social integrity both across Canada and internationally. This includes allegations of fraud, financial crimes, corruption and breach of trust made against elected officials, senators or executives of the federal government.

Following media reporting of the allegations of political interference in February 2019, the RCMP began monitoring the matter to determine if a criminal investigation was warranted. As the committee is aware, the former attorney general made public statements about the alleged political interference before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and was authorized to do so by an order in council.

As part of its assessment, the RCMP spoke with and collected information from a variety of sources and has examined the matter in a thorough, objective and professional manner. Furthermore, in its assessment, the RCMP reviewed and assessed the relevant testimonies before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and reviewed publicly available documents providing additional context on the matter. This included the report from the Honourable Anne McLellan, entitled “Review of the Roles of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada” and the “Trudeau II Report” released by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

This review was followed by interviews with key witnesses, some of which were from the Office of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, including the former Attorney General, and a review of disclosed documents.

In order to conduct these interviews, the RCMP was subject to the same parameters that had applied to the former attorney general's testimony before the House of Commons—an order in council that waived solicitor-client privilege and any other relevant duty of confidentiality to the Government of Canada, relating to the exercise of the authority of the Attorney General respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

Based on all of the information gathered and reviewed by the RCMP, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a criminal offence, and insufficient evidence to support taking further investigative steps. An additional consideration in the RCMP's decision was the impact of the continuing privileges and the limited scope of the waiver of these privileges. These would have a significant impact on the ability to gather evidence and prosecute charges. That said, notwithstanding the privilege barriers, the RCMP assessed there was insufficient evidence to proceed.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I welcome any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Duheme.

We’ll now begin the first round of questions.

Mr. Brock, you have six minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Commissioner. Good morning, Sergeant.

Thank you for your attendance. I hope that your attendance today is fulsome and that we get through the full committee without receiving a notice of motion to adjourn.

At the heart of the SNC-Lavalin scandal, there were a number of players within the PMO, the PCO and the Ministry of Finance. However, the principal person of interest in the SNC scandal was, at all material times, the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau.

Commissioner, the scandal is now over five years old. When did the RCMP interview Justin Trudeau?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I'll let Mr. Pincince discuss the interviews.

It is five years old. The matter was brought to our attention in 2019 and officially concluded in January 2023. We notified Ms. Wilson-Raybould as well as Mr. Scheer, who had written a letter to Commissioner Lucki at the time.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Commissioner.

The question was very specific. How many times in the last five years did you interview Justin Trudeau?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

He was not interviewed, Mr. Chair.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Why not?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I'll ask Mr. Pincince, who was leading the investigation, to add a bit.

[Staff Sergeant Frédéric Pincince, Staff Sergeant, Sensitive and International Investigations, Federal Policing, Ontario Division, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, in relation to this, what the RCMP conducted, as far as the objective for the review of the matter.... We proceeded with a phased approach. Initially, we looked at the potential witnesses who could provide some information, as far as precision on the elements of the offence was concerned. We proceeded in this phased approach. As we proceeded, we determined whether there were any further investigative steps warranted, given the circumstances of the case.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Sergeant, my time is very limited.

Why did you not interview the primary person of interest?

At the heart of this investigation was Justin Trudeau's political interference for his own personal gain and the gain of SNC-Lavalin. I can inform both of you gentlemen that, in my over 30 years of experience as a defence counsel and Crown attorney, I never heard of any investigation where there wasn't any attempt—whether they agreed to the interview or not—to interview the person of interest.

Was there at least an attempt to interview Justin Trudeau? Give me a yes or no.

[Commr Michael Duheme]

No.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Did the RCMP obtain all relevant documents to further the investigation, including access to confidential cabinet information?

I'm simply seeking a yes-or-no response.

[Commr Michael Duheme]

We were limited by the information we had access to.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Was that a yes or a no, sir?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

We still don't know, to this day, all the information that's out there, because some was protected.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you. I'll take that as a no.

Despite collecting reams of evidence, including evidence from the Ethics Commissioner and testimony by Jody Wilson-Raybould at committee, why didn't the RCMP exercise its absolute statutory right under the Criminal Code of Canada to obtain a production order or search warrant from a justice in order to obtain those cabinet documents?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

We weren't able to obtain enough information or evidence that would warrant us obtaining a production order.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

RCMP spokesperson Christy Veenstra is on record stating that, “to obtain production orders or search warrants, there must be reasonable grounds to believe that a criminal offence has been committed” and “the evidence at hand is insufficient to convince a trier of fact of the alleged offences.” Clearly, she is conflating the legal threshold of policing with the Crown prosecution service.

Both of you will agree that your sole responsibility is to determine whether there are reasonable and probable grounds to lay a charge. It is not your mandate to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, which is for the independent prosecution service.

Would you agree with that?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I agree with that, Mr. Chair.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

Was obstruction of justice involving Justin Trudeau the only offence you were contemplating in this regard?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

No. There was also intimidation of a justice participant.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

You would agree that the charge of obstruction is a straight indictable offence—meaning there is no limitation period—and punishable by 10 years in prison. It's a very serious offence. You would agree, sirs, that there is nothing precluding your service from reopening the investigation against Justin Trudeau should new evidence become available, including a release of confidential cabinet information.