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.
12:20 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
As I said in my letter, I felt I couldn't do the job anymore.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Green.
We're going to go to Mr. Barrett now, because that concluded our first round, so we are on five-minute rounds. Mr. Barrett, go ahead, please.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Do you own shares in SNC-Lavalin?
12:25 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't own shares in anything.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Have you ever owned shares in SNC-Lavalin?
12:25 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I've never owned shares in anything: I was covered by conflict of interest rules.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
As someone who specializes in governance, what do you think about cabinet confidence being used to hide wrongdoing and to shield members of the executive from effective investigation by police?
12:25 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
If that were the case, then that's not a very good idea, not a good thing.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
We had the RCMP before parliamentary committees tell us that they have not been able to productively pursue investigations because of the executive's refusal to waive cabinet confidence, so you would characterize that as what? You said, “Not very good.”
12:25 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It depends what the confidences in question were and what they would have led to.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
I think we know that in these cases they would have led to charges being laid against Justin Trudeau, and that's why—
12:25 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's your hypothesis. We don't know. I don't know what was redacted, withheld and produced.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Indeed we don't know because the executive has used its power, the Prime Minister has used his power to shield himself from effective investigation by police. It creates a real problem when we don't know what we don't know. We don't have anyone who watches the watchers, including our federal police.
On that, in a previous response, you said that when politicians start meddling in the justice system, it's not full democracy; it's authoritarianism. However, that's what we saw with SNC-Lavalin, isn't that right?
12:25 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Well, where was the interference with the justice system?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Well, sir, welcome back from 2019. I know you had a front-row seat at the time. The Prime Minister was found to have used his influence to pressure the Attorney General. That's a finding of an independent officer of Parliament. That's not my opinion. We know this to be a fact.
We know that you, sir, doing the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's bidding, in an extended phone call put tremendous pressure on then Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould to do exactly what the Prime Minister wanted, and that was to give a deferred prosecution agreement —or, for the uninitiated, effectively a get-out-of-jail-free card for a Liberal-friendly firm—to friends of the Prime Minister. That's pressure.
What happened when Ms. Wilson-Raybould didn't do what she was supposed to do in the Prime Minister's estimation? She was kicked out of cabinet. When someone spoke up on her behalf, they were kicked out of cabinet—Dr. Philpott. For their dissent, they were both ejected from caucus. It seems like that's a pretty heavy hammer the Prime Minister was able to carry, and what did he do? He put in a justice minister who would do what he wanted to have done, do his bidding. That is, as you described it, authoritarian, because that's exactly the kind of interference in the justice system that happens in tinpot dictatorships.
12:25 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's one narrative. Another narrative is that the maximum pressure put on the Attorney General was to provide reasoning and rationale for why she declined to use a tool—an entirely legal tool—that was provided by cabinet, a deferred prosecution agreement, which was made available for certain cases. Deferred prosecution agreements are not illegal acts. They're legal tools. It's how we got the two Michaels back from China.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
No one has said that a DPA is illegal. What we're saying is that the Prime Minister inappropriately interfered in the administration of justice in this country. Someone who would be willing to do that can't be trusted to, of course, protect themselves from prosecution by the RCMP for obstruction of justice by using powers of the executive. That's blatant interference.
Do you have any regrets about how Jody Wilson-Raybould was treated?
12:25 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Not every issue of ethics or behaviour rises to the level of a breach of criminal law. That is why Parliament created a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Do you have regrets about how Ms. Wilson-Raybould was treated?
March 19th, 2024 / 12:25 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I have no regrets about anything that happened. We all made our best decisions at the time with the information we had—everybody involved in the affair.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
Ms. Damoff, you have five minutes. Go ahead, please.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thanks, Chair.
Mr. Wernick, can you maybe...? Gosh, I don't even know where to start after that line of questioning.
We're here to talk about why the RCMP didn't lay charges. Maybe I'll start with this: Can you explain again the difference between what the Ethics Commissioner does and what the Royal Canadian Mounted Police do?
12:30 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Well, I'm not an expert on the RCMP. I've never worked for them and I've never worked at Public Safety, but they are the federal police force. They're also community police forces in many parts of the country, as you know. In terms of their acting as the federal police force, they are there to investigate and pursue violations of almost any federal crime, so largely it's criminal law, but there are other laws that they would act as the enforcement body on. They are often made aware of things, through complaints, referrals or whatever, and they would have preliminary fact-finding. They might pursue a more detailed investigation and they might decide to refer it to the prosecutor for the laying of charges. Those are decisions made within the police force.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Then the Ethics Commissioner is.... It doesn't follow that a finding by the Ethics Commissioner in turn results in charges being laid by the RCMP. Is that right?
