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.
11:10 a.m.
Commr Michael Duheme
I would say, Mr. Chair, that with any investigation, when there's new information that arises, yes, we have a look at the investigation itself.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
To quell public concern, Justin Trudeau, despite his office, is subject to the full impact and consequences of the Criminal Code of Canada. He is not above the law. Is that correct?
11:15 a.m.
Commr Michael Duheme
I do believe I said that the last time I was in front of the committee. No one is above the law.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
In my experience, sir, homicides have been investigated and prosecuted in less time than your service has invested in investigating Justin Trudeau. Is there an overall general reluctance in charging a sitting Prime Minister, yes or no?
11:15 a.m.
Commr Michael Duheme
I would say to that, Mr. Chair, that we follow the evidence. If the evidence warrants charges, we charge.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
So there's no general reluctance in charging a sitting Prime Minister. Is that correct?
11:15 a.m.
Commr Michael Duheme
If the appropriate evidence is available....
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you.
You would agree that the purpose behind the offence of obstruction of justice is to maintain the integrity of the justice system and uphold the rule of law—all the principles that were articulated in Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony about warding off Justin Trudeau's relentless campaign of pressure and intimidation.
You'll agree with me, Commissioner, that the evidence is clear: This is not a one-off. Over the course of four months—
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to both of you for coming today.
Commissioner, I'll start by asking you this: Was the way in which you investigated these allegations any different from the way the RCMP would investigate other allegations? Were you holding yourselves to a different standard?
11:15 a.m.
Commr Michael Duheme
No. I'd invite Mr. Pincince to add to this, but we approach every investigation in the same manner.
11:15 a.m.
S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince
Exactly. I can confirm that we proceed by following where the evidence leads us.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
It's not for politicians to dictate to you how to do your jobs as the RCMP. You guys are the experts in terms of doing these investigations. That's correct, I would think.
11:15 a.m.
Commr Michael Duheme
I can assure you that we have never been dictated to by a politician on how to do our job.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
You received no pressure, in this case, to close the investigation from the Prime Minister, his office or anyone else in government.
11:15 a.m.
Commr Michael Duheme
Not at all.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you so much.
Let me ask another question. This was characterized by Mr. Brock as an investigation of Justin Trudeau. In my view, this wasn't an investigation particularly of Justin Trudeau. It was an investigation of all the circumstances. You would have taken yourselves in the direction that, if anyone you'd investigated had broken the law, you'd have recommended charges against them. Is that right?
11:15 a.m.
Commr Michael Duheme
That's correct.
I might add that when the first article appeared in The Globe and Mail, I was the commanding officer of the national division. I actually reached out to sensitive and international investigations and said, let's monitor what's going on here because it might end up in our wheelhouse.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
You yourselves, as I understand it, in 2019, initiated a review based on the article in The Globe and Mail, and then followed the justice committee, which I have all too many memories of, at the time. Is that correct?
11:15 a.m.
Commr Michael Duheme
That's correct.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
My understanding is that there was a look at this by the Ethics Commissioner. I want to make something clear, and perhaps you could also characterize it. When you breach the ethics code—and politicians have frequently breached this ethics code—it doesn't mean you're necessarily committing a criminal act. Is that correct?
11:15 a.m.
Commr Michael Duheme
That's correct.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Could you explain to us the difference between committing a criminal act versus a breach of the ethics code?
