Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I would have to ask Mr. Pincince.

I wasn't getting ready for the Aga Khan file. I'm not as familiar with the Aga Khan file as I am with the Jody Wilson-Raybould file.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Sure.

Staff Sergeant.

[S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince]

Mr. Chair, all I should have to point to in relation to this specific decision tree is of course that this is one part of a multi-page document. Of course, this is only an excised part of this.

Now, to answer the question about whether we contacted the Prime Minister in relation to this one, the answer is no.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

He wasn't asked, and it was left in the document as “unknown”. It's the only open question on whether or not it met the standard of fraud on government.

I want to refer to that same ATIP. A Sergeant Arbour, who was the team lead for SII Team 3, said, “If further information of evidentiary value was to be received, SII will review and determine the appropriate course of action.”

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

In terms of MP Barrett's commentary right now, is this pertaining to the actual subject matter we're studying today or not? I'm just looking for relevance.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I know you've been on this committee a couple of times. I've been on this committee for 17 months as chair, and in every circumstance, I allow members to utilize their time in the manner in which they want. I expect that Mr. Barrett is going to bring it back, as I expect every other member will do the same thing.

On the issue of relevance, I've dealt with this many times. I don't want to hear another issue of relevance, if we can. If we can avoid that, to save time, I would appreciate that.

Mr. Barrett, go ahead. You have a minute and 21 seconds.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

It's part of a pattern, Chair, from the Liberals—Ms. Khalid, Mr. Sorbara—to interrupt the line of questioning to try to cover up for the Prime Minister, and she's going to do it again right now.

On the key question of whether Justin Trudeau had consent to engage in the activity, the only question was on whether Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed fraud on government. The RCMP didn't pick up the phone, but Conservatives asked him the question and we got the answer. That answer is publicly available. It was not protected—it's like transcripts from a committee—so it could be used and has evidentiary value.

Knowing that, and based on that decision tree, wouldn't that affect the decision of the RCMP to lay a charge of fraud on government against the Prime Minister, if all the criteria set out in the decision tree from Watt's Manual of Criminal Jury Instructions were satisfied? Wouldn't that new evidence satisfy your investigation?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

Again, Mr. Chair, I'm not in a position to speak to all the evidence we had or didn't have. It would warrant a follow-up on that file and coming back to this committee to explain what we had in the file and the reasons we didn't lay any charges. However, I'm not in a position right now to say what evidence we had that came to the point that we didn't lay any charges.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

With due respect, Commissioner, the only outstanding question on the decision tree provided in the ATIP was whether or not the Prime Minister had consent. The RCMP said it was unknown. We satisfied an answer to that question in that he did not. Based on this document, it says that the final verdict is guilty of fraud on government.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

That concludes your 14-minute round.

Ms. Khalid, you have five minutes. Go ahead.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming in.

I'm just going to bring this to your attention, Commissioner. As my colleague across the way was asking questions, he tweeted out his opinions of how the questions went. He says, “Breaking News. The RCMP admits they never attempted to interview Justin Trudeau, the primary person of interest in the SNC-Lavalin Affair, concerning potential criminal wrongdoing. The RCMP has the power to reopen the SNC-Lavalin file and interview Trudeau at any time.”

Is that the message you were trying to convey during the questioning by Mr. Brock?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I didn't catch the last part of the tweet.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

It says, “The RCMP has the power to reopen the SNC-Lavalin file and interview Trudeau at any time.” There are two photos as well: one of yourself and one of Mr. Brock.

I'm just looking for your opinion as to whether that is an accurate portrayal of what you are trying to convey here today.

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I mentioned earlier that, as with any criminal investigations we have, we sometimes close files and if there's information that comes up a year, two years or three years down the road and we're still within that limitation period, then yes, we reopen the file and look at the evidence or the information that's given to us.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

How do you feel partisan politics impacts the work you do and your independence?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I would say that notwithstanding the parties, we're independent in what we do.

As I said, since I've been in senior positions, I think I have briefed the Minister of Public Safety maybe three or four times throughout the last five years, and the PM maybe once or twice, so I don't update them on a regular basis on any of our criminal files, even less if it's a file that involves the Prime Minister or even the minister.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

When politicians direct you or tell you that you should be investigating one thing or another, how do you handle that?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

Again, for every investigation, we follow the evidence. If there's evidence that is given to us, or leads, we'll follow up on those, but everything that's given to us, we have to be able to use it in a court of law.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you.

With that, then, Sergeant Pincince, I'll ask you this. Can you please tell the committee about the process undertaken by the RCMP in terms of how many interviews were conducted and the extensive nature of this whole investigation?

[S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince]

Of course, Mr. Chair.

The first step that we took was to review the information that was publicly available. Again, this was part of the testimony before the justice committee. We also reviewed the information that was publicly in the media.

Following this, of course, because of the limitation that the order in council did not apply to the RCMP, we made a request to obtain a waiver that would allow us to continue further investigative steps, which is what we did later on, once we obtained a waiver and authorization back in August 2019.

We then proceeded to interview key witnesses who could provide further information as to the nature of the political pressure that took place at that time.

These were the steps that we took from there.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you.

Can you share with the committee what piece of evidence, if any, led the RCMP to decide that no criminal investigation was required in the SNC-Lavalin affair?

[S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince]

Mr. Chair, when we looked at this, we followed the elements of the offence. We looked at each of the two offences that were before us. We looked at these, and then we tried to determine if each of these elements was met. As we proceeded through this, one of the critical elements in the offence of obstruction of justice is, of course, intent to obstruct the course of justice. Of course, we conducted interviews in order to really assess the information in that regard.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

You found that there was no intention of obstruction. Is that correct?