Public Accounts Committee on June 18th, 2024

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Should Canadians have trust that Canada's rule of law is being upheld?

[D/Commr Mark Flynn]

I have significant confidence in Canada's rule of law.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

That being said, do you feel that public officials are held to a higher standard than the regular public, or is it the same threshold of accountability?

[D/Commr Mark Flynn]

There are specific offences that deal with public officials, anywhere from security clearances, depending on their role, to breach of trust-type charges, depending on which role the people are in. There are specific offences that apply to public officials, again in the broad sense of it.

I wouldn't call that a higher account. The law applies equally to everybody, and there are specific elements of specific offences that would only apply if an individual is in certain positions of trust.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

If it's not higher, then what would you say? Is it just part of the job?

[D/Commr Mark Flynn]

I wouldn't say it's part of the job. It is a fact that the Criminal Code applies equally to everyone, as do other acts. If you're in a position where there are certain actions you undertake, or don't undertake through an omission, you could be subject to penalties based on those unique offences.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

In your opening statement you said the RCMP faces a delicate balance in all of your investigative efforts.

What steps does the RCMP take to mitigate any future harm that may occur throughout the investigation?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

When I mentioned a delicate balance, it's really a delicate balance between the right to know and the need to know. When you are investigating a file of this nature, there is a strong appetite from Canadians to understand and know what took place. Again, that's a balance where, as I said earlier, we want to make sure we protect the integrity of the investigation.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

If Canadians have information, where would they go to provide this information to the RCMP?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

There are different ways that information can be provided to the RCMP. There are some 1-800 tip lines when it comes to the national security side. It can be reported online in certain areas as well. There are other ways to report with regard to remaining anonymous.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

In the opening statement, it was mentioned that the RCMP is investigating and using all available information, including the Auditor General's performance audit report and the procurement ombudsman's procurement practice review of ArriveCAN.

What information are you looking for within the procurement ombudsman's procurement practice review?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

We're looking for any information that would help us. As previously mentioned regarding the Criminal Code offence, there are certain elements to a Criminal Code offence. Once we start getting a picture of what the offence could be, we look for any information that can assist us and support us in the elements of a criminal offence so that we can lay the appropriate charges.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Is there anything that you would like to mention that you haven't answered in other questions?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

Not really. I'll just reinforce the fact that I have full confidence in the professionals we have in this organization who are leading this investigation. As I committed earlier, at the end of the investigation, if multiple files are not interconnected, we will release the information and inform the Canadian public of the work we've done.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have two and a half minutes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Duheme, in the context of an investigation, is it considered obstruction when thousands of emails are deleted from an inbox?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I don't have all of the necessary information to answer that question. What I can say is that it could indeed be considered obstruction.

I don't know all of the details of this case or about what was deleted. I also don't know the intention behind that, so it is hard for me to take a position.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Of course.

In the ArriveCAN app case, it was brought to our attention that several thousand emails were deleted by a public servant before they left on sick leave.

I think that Mr. Flynn mentioned earlier in response to a question that he was not informed of a possible case of obstruction. In that case, is it because the RCMP was not aware of the fact that thousands of emails were deleted that could compromise some public servants?

[Commr Michael Duheme]

I will let Mr. Flynn elaborate on that.

[D/Commr Mark Flynn]

My answer was not in the context in which you're asking it at this time. My answer was with respect to any obstruction from any government entity with respect to what we were doing. In the context of this investigation, my answer has been consistent. I'm not going to speak to anything with respect to the ongoing investigation into ArriveCAN.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Your answer had to do with the fact that you never saw a lack of co‑operation or any obstruction from the various government entities. When we talk about a public servant from the agency, we are talking about the agency. However, you are saying that you did not see any obstruction. That is somewhat contradictory. Deleting thousands of emails while a specific investigation is being conducted is obstruction. We agree on that.

We know what happened in the case of the ArriveCAN app investigation. However, you still answered that you did not witness any obstruction and no instances of obstruction were brought to your attention.

I'm really trying to understand where this contradiction is coming from. Could you provide some clarification on that?

[D/Commr Mark Flynn]

I do not believe at all that it is contradictory. The question in the context of the question that I was asked said that there was no obstruction. I don't recall the exact details, and I don't have a transcript of it to read, but if you go back to it, it was with respect to a broad definition whether such and such an organization obstructed.

The question you're asking me now is related to a very discrete act of an individual in the context. I believe that you're asking it in the context of an individual within the ArriveCAN app—

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I know that you can't answer that question, but I just want to clarify one thing.

If I understand correctly, obstruction may have occurred, but you cannot confirm or deny it. In any event, it is possible that obstruction occurred in the ArriveCAN app case. You just can't confirm it, but that may still be the case.

Is that right?

[D/Commr Mark Flynn]

It's theoretically possible, absolutely, on an individual basis, but I maintain my answer in the other context, which is that there are not organizations obstructing us in our investigation.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

It is therefore possible that individuals engaged in obstruction, but not organizations.