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.
11:05 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I have no documents.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Why did Justin Trudeau go to such great lengths to pursue a deferred prosecution agreement for his friends at SNC-Lavalin?
11:05 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I have nothing to add to my testimony at the justice committee five years ago.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
You have nothing to add. There was no rationale.
If I were to say it was to help out a Liberal-friendly firm, you have nothing to add to that?
11:10 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I gave my testimony at two meetings of the justice committee two Parliaments ago and that's my account of events.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
The history is quite clear that there was not a case made. We've, of course, heard the now-famous recording of you and the then-attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould when you claimed, without any evidence and without any substantiation—it's yet to be provided—that it was about jobs.
We know that it was never about jobs. It was, in fact, about politics.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Barrett. That concludes your six-minute round.
Ms. Damoff, you have six minutes. Please go ahead.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Wernick, thank you for being here today on something that I really question, which is, given that you left government five years ago, what you can add to a police investigation, quite frankly.
I served as parliamentary secretary at public safety for a few years. I also served on the public safety committee for eight years. One thing that always struck me was the importance of the separation of the political arm from police investigations. We look at countries around the world where politicians dictate what police do. We don't want to emulate those countries, yet we are constantly hearing from the opposition and also on social media that somehow we as politicians should be telling police what they should and should not investigate, and who they should talk to.
Would you feel comfortable talking in general terms about the importance of that separation—that police investigations are independent of the political arm of the government?
11:10 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Certainly. That is my wheelhouse these days—governance and public administration. I've written a book on the tradecraft of politics.
To the premise of your question, in a free, democratic society, it's very important that the justice system operate independently. That includes the police, the prosecutorial service and the courts. Parliament—you—create the framework of laws within which they operate, but in terms of their actual practice of investigations, arrests and prosecutions, those should be conducted fully independently.
11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
What happens if politicians stick their fingers in and start directing the police?
11:10 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Then you're not in a full democracy. You're in a sort of quasi-authoritarian society, like you see around the world.
You can see pressure being put on politicians. This is common practice in the United States Congress, where you're seeing hearings where prosecutors, police officials and law enforcement officials are being hauled before congressional committees in the United States. I think that's a form of pressure and intimidation on the law enforcement system.
March 19th, 2024 / 11:10 a.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you.
I remember your testimony back in 2019 at justice committee. At the time, we had been doing Bill C-71 at the public safety committee. As someone who's advocated quite vocally for gun control, I became the target, and have been for a number of years, of the gun lobby, which has included threats, memes and all kinds of things on what I think you called “the vomitorium of social media”.
I still remember that testimony, and thinking how accurate it was. Since that time it's only gotten worse—quite a bit worse, actually. Recently Mr. Barrett posted a video on social media with all of our email addresses, inviting people to contact us about trying to shut down an investigation of the RCMP. As a result, my staff had to open a subfolder in my inbox and labelled it "misogyny", because of the horrific emails and messages I was getting on social media.
Do you have any thoughts on the direction in which our country has gone in the last few years? I've been called a traitor; I've been told that the government is corrupt. I often say to people to take a look at Afghanistan, take a look at what's going on in the Middle East right now if you actually want to see countries where there are terrorists running a country, as in Gaza. You have Afghanistan, where women and girls have no rights at all. It really troubles me when people are making comparisons with other countries around the world like Russia—comparing Canada with that.
Your comments then have been proven correct, Mr. Wernick. Unfortunately, I've been a target of all of those kinds of comments. Do you have any comment as to how we can try to get back to a more civilized discussion on issues?
11:15 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think the chair will rein us in as being off topic at today's hearing. I would say that I've given plenty of interviews and have podcasts about this topic, and you can find all of my output as a professor on my LinkedIn feed.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Okay. Thank you.
Maybe we'll get back to the RCMP, which you're right is the topic of why you're here.
I have only about 45 seconds left. Is there anything that you wanted to add on the importance of the separation of the police, or have we covered it all?
11:15 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think I've said that. What I would point out to you parliamentarians is that there are issues of ethics and behaviour and conduct that do not rise to the law of criminal penalties.
That is why you—Parliament—created other laws and other independent bodies to deal with them. That is why you—Parliament—created the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the Commissioner of Lobbying, and allocated about $25 million to those three bodies. Sometimes those bodies complete a case and refer an issue to the police; most of the time they do not.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms, Damoff.
Just before we go to Mr. Villemure, I just want to clarify something. At the opening of your comments, you mentioned something to the effect that you didn't know why Mr. Wernick was here.
I just want to remind committee members that on October 30, a motion was passed by unanimous consent to have the RCMP commissioner, Mr. Pincince, the Ethics Commissioner, the former ethics commissioner, and Mr. Wernick appear before committee. That is why he is here today.
I thank you, Mr. Wernick, for coming before committee.
Mr. Villemure, you have the floor for six minutes.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Wernick, good morning. Earlier, you explained to us all the aspects of this matter in which you were not involved, and I just want to know what your role was. In which aspects of this matter did you take part?
11:15 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
So, as I said, I appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights five years ago. There are four hours of testimony on the matter. I testified before the Commissioner, as well. I explained everything to the Commissioner and to another parliamentary committee.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Forgive me, but I was not there four years ago. So, could you refresh my memory, please?
11:15 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I was the Clerk of the Privy Council, meaning the deputy minister to the Prime Minister, until Easter weekend, five years ago.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
In the story about Ms. Wilson‑Raybould, SNC-Lavalin and the Prime Minister, what was your role at the time? I am not asking about your function, because I understand that. Rather, I am asking you about your participation in that situation.
11:15 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It’s very thoroughly outlined in the report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
11:15 a.m.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Very well.
The Commissioner concluded that there was a breach of the Conflict of Interest Act. For its part, The Royal Canadian Mounted Police decided not to conduct an investigation because it considered that no offence was committed under the Criminal Code. Is that correct?
11:15 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That is what I understood.