Evidence of meeting #108 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I didn't participate in the decision because these decisions must be viewed as independent and must be free from partisan political considerations. At the time, I was immersed in the case. That's why I couldn't really be seen as independent.
As I said in response to another question, if the decision is made to hold a commission of inquiry or a court trial, or to conduct a police investigation, the aim should be to maximize the release and submission of documents.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
As clerk, you weren't involved in the decision. However, you were clerk for a long time. In your opinion, the release of cabinet confidences should be assessed based on whether the matter involves a commission of inquiry, a trial, an appearance before a committee, a disclosure to a journalist or any number of other possibilities. Is that right?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think that it depends on the use of these documents and protection in terms of the process and natural justice.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Do you think that parliamentarians should have access to these documents?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't think that the issue is black and white. In my opinion, in some cases, redaction is necessary. For example, I'm thinking of cases involving national security information or personal information. Parliamentary privilege does exist. However, you can't ask for access to my medical records or tax returns, for example. I think that relevance still matters.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Let me explain where my question is coming from.
We recently gained access to about 400 pages of completely redacted documents concerning the Winnipeg laboratory. They were released to the public, with the exception of information regarding privacy and investigative methods used by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. In the activity that I took part in, we saw a form of preventive redaction. There was a bit of over‑redaction.
In some cases, would it be better not to release information at all, in order to limit exposure? Are documents usually redacted too much? In the case of the Winnipeg laboratory, I was struck by the shift from a totally redacted document to a document with very little redaction.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think that the situation should always be looked at on a case‑by‑case basis. The information provided by intelligence and security services is highly sensitive. We're discussing foreign interference in our society and in politics. In these types of cases, I think that we must strike a balance between transparency and the risk of compromising our ability to gather this information.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
The SNC‑Lavalin case isn't a matter of national security. How can the need for cabinet confidence be balanced with the parliamentarians' need to know? That's the issue here. The RCMP commissioner said that he didn't have access to all the information. Since he didn't have access to the information, he didn't lay charges.
As parliamentarians, we wonder who decides what weight to give to transparency and the need for confidence. Both sides matter. Could you shed some light on this? Your extensive experience in the government strikes me as valuable.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think that it's a matter of judgment. It's case by case. There must be a balance between the public interest in maintaining confidentiality and the public interest in the case in question.
I don't know whether I can explain five very simple principles. I have always encouraged the submission of as many documents as possible for the process in question. This process may be an inquiry, a police investigation or a commission, for example.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you for your enlightening response.
When I think about the Winnipeg laboratory, one question comes to mind. You weren't involved in the case, of course. However, the shift from 400 redacted pages to approximately zero worries me. The over‑redaction or lack of information doesn't give parliamentarians or the public the chance to fully understand the situation.
I'll get back to the case at hand. If you had to do things over again, would you make the same decisions regarding advice or conversations with Ms. Wilson‑Raybould, or would you do things differently?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's a completely hypothetical question. There's no point in looking back. I'm always looking ahead.
Bloc
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
Mr. Wernick, picking up from our last exchange, when you suggested that Commissioner Dion didn't come to the conclusion there was a threat or an act of intimidation between you, as an emissary of the Prime Minister, and Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould, I refer to the “Wernick Report”, page 3, paragraph 14, where it is stated:
On the basis of the evidence gathered, [he] concluded at paragraph 285 of the Trudeau II Report that “the individuals who acted under the direction or authority of the Prime Minister in this matter [....] could not have influenced the Attorney General simply by virtue of their position.”
My reading of that says that, not necessarily, it didn't happen, but that by basis of your position the commissioner didn't believe you were in a position to provide that influence on the Attorney General because you were not the Prime Minister, so that's a bit of a different reading. What's your response to that?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Well, Parliament created the commissioner to make these judgments of interpretation, and that's his interpretation.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It's based on the evidence gathered, and we're here today because there's a thought that perhaps not all the information was present. Is it your understanding that the commissioner would have had access to all the information necessary to make that decision?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't know. I mean, my conversation with the Attorney General was a matter of public record before he completed his report.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
On multiple occasions, almost as a warning, you referred to how a scenario in which the government directs the police leads to an authoritarian culture. Is that an appropriate summary of your remarks?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think it is very important, in a free and democratic society, that the police make decisions about operations and investigations independently.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
When they don't, I believe you characterize that as being authoritarian. Is that correct?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It's what we see in partial democracies and authoritarian countries. You can look at the headlines in a number of countries—Poland, Turkey, Russia and others—where directing or intimidating the police in regard to whom they should investigate, whom they should arrest and what charges should be laid.... That is not full-blown democracy.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
What would your opinion be for the same scenarios in which pressure is applied to the prosecution but not the police?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It's the same thing. I mean, that is why the Harper government created an independent director of public prosecutions. That only dates from 20 years ago, and that was created specifically to ensure the independence of the prosecutorial service.
