Information & Ethics Committee on March 19th, 2024

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

In that time, did you see a trend towards more cabinet confidences or fewer cabinet confidences? Is this a government that was transparent by default, or did it tend to have more instances where it declared a greater volume of work to be in cabinet confidence?

[Michael Wernick]

I'm not a historian. However, I think the trend line was to be for more disclosure. There was a running discussion between the Auditor General of Canada and the executive about the disclosure of documents related to the budget. I reached an agreement with the Auditor General at the time, Michael Ferguson, and I increased the disclosure of analysis documents related to the budget to the Auditor General.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I believe that's my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That is, Mr. Green. Thank you.

That completes our first round of questioning.

We are now moving on to the second round.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you.

Hello, Mr. Wernick.

When did you find out that SNC‑Lavalin was being investigated for illegal lobbying?

[Michael Wernick]

I don’t remember.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

When was your interview with the RCMP on that matter?

[Michael Wernick]

During the summer, after my departure at Easter. I think the report was tabled during the month of August. The meeting probably occurred during the month of July, but I am not sure of the date.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

After your interview with investigators, who did you think was targeted by the RCMP investigation?

[Michael Wernick]

I don’t know. They asked me a series of questions about the timing of SNC‑Lavalin’s lobbying and political activities, as well as its representatives.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Did they ask questions about any ministers in particular?

[Michael Wernick]

No. During my interview with the RCMP, the issue was not ministers’ behaviour, but that of SNC‑Lavalin.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

It remains that, in an illegal lobbying case, people subject to the Conflict of Interest Act are the usual targets.

During your last appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in March 2019, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner had not yet completed the investigation. He later recognized that the Prime Minister was guilty of violating the Act, even though he was denied access to several Cabinet documents during his investigation. He concluded the following:

[351] […] The actions that sought to further these interests were improper since the actions were contrary to the constitutional principles of prosecutorial independence and the rule of law. [352] […] Therefore, I find that Mr. Trudeau contravened section 9 of the Act.

In March 2019, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, you said the following about Minister Wilson‑Raybould:So I repeat my contention that the Minister experienced lawful advocacy to consider doing something lawful in the public interest.

Do you stand by that statement, now that you know the Prime Minister was found guilty of violating the Act?

[Michael Wernick]

Excuse me, but I missed the question.

If I understood correctly, the Commissioner’s conclusion was that there had been a violation of a provision of the Act…

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

It was section 9, Mr. Wernick. During your testimony, you clearly stated that the minister experienced lawful advocacy. However, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner concluded the opposite.

The purpose of this study is to shed light on the RCMP’s decision to prematurely end its criminal investigation of the Prime Minister. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner question do. Regarding the SNC‑Lavalin investigation, you said earlier that the RCMP did not question you about the Prime Minister’s criminal involvement in the matter.

During your testimony, you said the following:As has the former minister, I have sought legal advice about what I can and cannot say today, and I’ve been advised not to opine on the minister’s reasoning or state of mind, because some of the issues are or will be before the courts.

Since the RCMP decided to end its investigation, I would like you to tell us which points you were unable to reveal at the time.

[Michael Wernick]

I have no idea. It was five years ago.

I would add, however, that during the month of August 2019, Ms. Wilson‑Raybould clearly stated before the committee and during an interview with the media that she did not think it was criminal activity.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Wernick, you have a choice to make. The public is getting impatient. You have the opportunity to shed light on the potentially criminal involvement of the Prime Minister or to keep that information to yourself. You can say that you do not remember the facts. That is entirely your choice. Your entire career will be judged based on the answers you give to people.

Why did you try to influence the attorney general to intervene so as to avoid criminal proceedings against SNC‑Lavalin?

[Michael Wernick]

I have nothing to add to what I already said to the Standing Committee on Justice five years ago and what I said to the Commissioner during the summer of 2019.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Do you think my question is threatening?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Is that a question for Mr. Wernick, Mr. Berthold?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Repeat the question, please.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Wernick, did you find the question I asked you threatening, when I said that your answers were going to determine how your entire career would be judged?

[Michael Wernick]

No, not at all. It's not up to me to judge it.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

When the Prime Minister sends the Clerk of the Privy Council, his most highly ranked official, to question a minister and have a conversation with her, she knows that the Prime Minister is the one who has the right of life and death over the future of her career. Do you think it was normal for Minister Jody Wilson‑Raybould to feel threatened by the way you alluded to the Prime Minister during your conversation with her? There was a lot of subtext.