How would you explain paragraph 65 from the RCMP criminal brief on the investigation of fraud against the government by Prime Minister Trudeau when they say:
While the RCMP are not bound by Commissioner Dawson's interpretation that Mr. Trudeau's actions were not criminal in nature, given Commissioner Dawson's legal background—and her long tenure as Ethics Commissioner—her opinion should be given some deference.
When she was interviewed by The Globe and Mail, she said, “Nothing alerted me at the time to the fact that there would be a potential criminal charge,” and “I wasn't aware of a specific provision in the criminal law that would apply to that.”
Is that a failure of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner for not giving a red flag that there was a potential fraud under the Criminal Code in paragraph 121(1)(c)?