Evidence of meeting #105 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince
That's correct, Mr. Chair.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I'll just clarify or emphasize that: The RCMP did not have access to all material evidence on the strongest theory surrounding the Prime Minister's potential criminality involving obstruction of justice. Is that correct?
12:10 p.m.
S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince
That's correct, Mr. Chair.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
The RCMP did not have access to that material evidence on what was central to determining whether the Prime Minister broke the law, because of the parameters of the scope of the order in council with respect to the waiver of cabinet confidentiality. Is that correct?
12:10 p.m.
S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince
That's correct, Mr. Chair. The parameters did not allow us to fully look into this one. However, I should just add—
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you for that. You answered that the parameters did not allow you to get that evidence.
Now, there is one person who had the authority to expand the parameters of that order in council, and that was the Prime Minister himself. Is that correct?
12:10 p.m.
S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince
I would have to say, Mr. Chair, that I'm not exactly sure of the exact process of where the Prime Minister would be involved in such a decision. However, I do believe that the decision has to be made somewhere within the government.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I would submit that the decision would have to be made by the Prime Minister.
The RCMP requested an expansion of the scope to obtain that evidence, to follow that evidence. Is that correct?
12:10 p.m.
S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince
Before we proceeded with the assessment, yes, we did make a request for an expansion of the parameters.
February 27th, 2024 / 12:10 p.m.
Commr Michael Duheme
I would add, Mr. Chair, that it was not to follow the evidence. It was to glean additional information that could be evidence.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
That's correct.
That request was turned down on August 30, 2019.
12:15 p.m.
S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince
I would have to say, Mr. Chair, that the request for the expansion was not allowed.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
It was turned down, and it was turned down by the PCO, the Prime Minister's department. Is that correct?
12:15 p.m.
S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince
Mr. Chair, we did receive a letter from the Department of Justice. I cannot remember exactly if this specifically came from the—
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Well, it was from the PCO. That's in the RCMP's investigation report.
Would it be fair to say that the refusal by the Prime Minister's personal department, the PCO, to expand the scope of the order in council significantly impeded the full investigation into the Prime Minister's potential obstruction of justice?
12:15 p.m.
Commr Michael Duheme
It limited our capability to pursue a full investigation.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
It would have limited it in a fairly significant way because, after all, we're talking about going to the heart of the matter of obstruction.
12:15 p.m.
Commr Michael Duheme
Again, not knowing what additional information is out there, it's hard for me to speculate that there's a Pandora's box out there full of information. It's hard for us without speculating.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Well, let the record show that the Prime Minister's department, the PCO, obstructed the RCMP investigation into the Prime Minister's potential obstruction of justice.
Are you aware of any other Canadian who can single-handedly block the RCMP from investigating his own criminality in such an effective way as the Prime Minister can?
12:15 p.m.
Commr Michael Duheme
I wouldn't use the term “block”, Mr. Chair. When the RCMP runs an investigation, it operates within the parameters and the regulations that it's allowed to. We see in a national security investigation, as well, that there's some information that we don't have access to and that we can't use in an investigation. It's the parameters that we are—
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I need the answer. I think the answer to that question is that there is no one who has such powers.
Was any explanation provided by the Prime Minister's personal department for why there was this refusal to expand the scope of the order in council?
12:15 p.m.
S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince
Again, Mr. Chair, as for a response on this one, what was indicated was the importance of these privileges that do exist. They are there for a reason. Again, as the commissioner mentioned—
12:15 p.m.
S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince
—we do have to operate within these parameters.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
It would seem, to me, to be part of a pattern of cover-up. That's what it would seem, to me, to be.
How can the Prime Minister be subject to the rule of law, like every other Canadian, if his personal department can shield him from an RCMP criminal investigation?