Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[Commr Michael Duheme]

If you look at the threshold for a criminal act, you need the right evidence to get the legal documents to allow you to do a production order or a search warrant to eventually lay the charges, if there are charges to be laid.

I must say that the Ethics Commissioner does have power with regard to his ethics review. If he does come across any criminal matters, he's to refer them to the RCMP. In this case, the Ethics Commissioner, who had access to more information than the RCMP, did not refer anything to us.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

That's correct. As I recall her testimony before the justice committee, Ms. Wilson-Raybould was asked this very question of whether a criminal act had been committed. It was her view that a criminal act had not been committed. Is that correct?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

She felt that it was inappropriate behaviour but not criminal.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

Paragraph 22 of this document, which I believe Mr. Pincince was one of the signatories to, states:

Notwithstanding the privilege barriers, it is believed that there is insufficient evidence to obtain production orders or search warrants for additional material based on the totality of the circumstances and the evidence gathered. When factoring the principles of a full, fair and frank disclosure of the matter, it is believed that the evidence at hand is insufficient to convince a trier of fact of the alleged offences.

This means not only that you believed the threshold had not been reached to criminally prosecute at this point, but you didn't even believe a threshold had been reached to ask for further production of materials. Could you explain that to me?

[S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince]

Mr. Chair, in relation to this, for us to obtain any form of judicial authorization, there are some preconditions within the Criminal Code that we have to follow, and that's exactly what we did in this case. These preconditions were not met. In this case, we had insufficient information to substantiate an offence, which was one of the preconditions. As such, this option, as allowed by the Criminal Code, was not available to us.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

That would be true of both charges that you were looking at. Is that correct?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

Yes, sir.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have one last question. My understanding, from reading the documents you provided, is that you did not feel that criminal intent, which is an important element of committing a criminal offence, was found in this case, or that you couldn't substantiate that it was found to a level that would allow for prosecution. Is that also correct?

[S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince]

That's correct, Mr. Chair.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I would also like to ask, is there anything else that you would like to clarify, based on the original questioning from Mr. Brock, that I have not allowed you at this point to clarify, in terms of when you were asked to answer yes or no?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

No, not at this time, Mr. Chair.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

As one last question, when the RCMP made a determination to interview or not to interview certain people in this case, including the Prime Minister, did you base that on your normal standard of policing, based on the way you would have handled other investigations as well?

[S/Sgt Frédéric Pincince]

That's correct, Mr. Chair.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

You did not accord him any undue deference because of the office he held.

[Commr Michael Duheme]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Mr. Villemure, you have six minutes.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I’d like to thank the witnesses for joining us again today.

Let me approach the question from another angle.

Over the years, the Prime Minister has been the focus of a number of allegations, in connection with his trip to the Aga Khan’s, the “Trudeau Report” and the “Trudeau II Report,” among other things.

It appears that these allegations are shaking the public’s confidence in the Prime Minister to some extent, and this is an important aspect. We certainly rely on an organization like the RCMP to help us better understand the situation.

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner did not feel it necessary to alert or, at least, to go any further in this matter. He decided not to refer the case to the RCMP. Whether that was a good or bad decision remains to be seen. We don’t know at this point.

Commissioner Duheme, you said two things earlier that struck me. You said that the warrants were limited in scope and that you didn’t have enough evidence to pursue it further.

In essence, was this a non-starter, or did this force the end of an investigation or, on the contrary, were there sufficient grounds to say that you didn’t need to go any further?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I thank the member for his question.

Much of the information that was available at the time was protected by attorney-client privilege. There were also confidential cabinet documents.

To apply for a search warrant, we need credible information, corroborated by other sources. That allows us to obtain a legal document for the purpose of conducting a search.

In this case, given the information we had, it was not possible to search for these documents.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

All right.

Was the information you had insufficient or did it not warrant going further?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I would say that the information we had didn’t warrant going any further, that is, obtaining the legal documents required in order to pursue an investigation.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

All right.

From your perspective, the right thing to do, given the impossibility of obtaining further information, for lack of supporting evidence to justify it, was to close the investigation.

Is that right?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

We will close an investigation unless additional information surfaces that would lead us to reopen that investigation.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

All right.

I’m concerned about the trust we should inspire in the public. Some actions may be legally acceptable, but they’re downright unethical. Such cases often leave the impression that no offence has been committed, whereas that may or may not be the case, ethically speaking. People still talk to us about it. Trust is broken. In a world that’s so polarized, as it is these days, trust is something we need to protect.

You’re at the helm of the RCMP as commissioner. I realize that public trust isn’t something that’s part of your job description, but what do you think?

What can you suggest to strengthen public trust?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

As RCMP commissioner, I consider it important to have the public’s trust when the RCMP conducts investigations.

In this case, I won’t comment on the ethical aspect of certain situations or the trust people may have in the government. However, I can state that our team used every means at its disposal to obtain all the necessary information that would have enabled it to pursue this investigation as far as possible. Unfortunately, we reached a point where we didn’t have the requisite information to proceed with an investigation.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Therein lies the rub. We’re told that it’s impossible to move forward, and that’s where this kind of breach of trust comes in.

The Prime Minister’s habit of being rather lax when it comes to ethics doesn’t necessarily mean he is guilty. That’s not the case at all. However, it does leave room for doubt. That doubt is compounded by others that arise in public and parliamentary life. That’s what I’m trying to understand.

What can the committee do to dispel the doubt, which, you know as well as I do, persists?

Can you give us any information or documents that would enable us to dispel this doubt?