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.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB
—for rudely interrupting the witness in the middle of his answer.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I get the gist of what you're saying, Mr. Chahal.
We'll proceed with Mr. Bains now for five minutes.
Go ahead. Thank you.
March 19th, 2024 / 11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Wernick, for joining us today.
Do you think cabinet confidentiality should be further waived in the context of investigations conducted by the RCMP?
11:55 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Generally, there should be a maximum of disclosure, but it would be a case-by-case determination.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Okay.
Would you agree that in this case, with waiving cabinet confidence in regard to the SNC-Lavalin situation, this represents one of the largest and most expansive waivers of cabinet confidences in Canada's history?
11:55 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't know which documents were divulged, which were redacted and which were retained, so I don't really have a way of judging that against other production of document issues.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
You said that you've had a career of 38 years. Do you know how many times cabinet confidence has been waived in the past in the context of a potential criminal investigation?
11:55 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't have a specific number on that. It usually would have been in the case of criminal investigations, commissions of inquiry, structured processes.
The one I'm most familiar with is the Admiral Norman trial. I authorized a very large disclosure of cabinet papers from the Harper and Trudeau governments to that trial.
11:55 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't remember. That was about eight years ago.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Okay.
During your testimony at the justice committee in 2019, you stated, “the independence of the investigative and prosecutorial function has never been compromised”. Do you still agree with that statement?
11:55 a.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Actually, that's a statement by the director of public prosecutions.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Okay.
The Ethics Commissioner interviewed a long list of staff officials. We heard from the RCMP commissioner that the Ethics Commissioner has more access than even the RCMP. If there is a criminal wrongdoing or a wrongdoing of any kind, then the commissioner must stop and hand over findings to the RCMP.
Is this your understanding of the rules around disclosure?
Noon
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't have anything to rely on right now except my memory, but, yes, that would be my understanding.
Noon
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Are you aware of the number of people who were interviewed?
Noon
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
No. I've never had a conversation with the RCMP about any investigation or any operation, ever.
Noon
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I was interviewed by the Ethics Commissioner in the summer of 2019.
Noon
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
In his appearance before the committee, the RCMP commissioner, Mike Duheme noted the following about cabinet confidences:
Cabinet confidence is there for a reason. I think the interpretation of cabinet confidence, which we had a discussion on earlier, sometimes differs from one person to another.
Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:
Beyond legislation, Cabinet confidentiality is protected as a matter of constitutional convention, or the rules of behavior established by government institutions that are not enforced by the courts, but are considered binding by those who operate the Constitution
What is your interpretation of cabinet confidentiality, and why is it important?
Noon
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
The Westminster system of cabinet government relies on the confidentiality of cabinet discussions, such that ministers can speak freely among their colleagues, and then they're bound by the decision that's called and bound by cabinet solidarity as a consequence of that. If you were operating in the open, like a city council, then people would behave like a city council and there would be far less candour within the cabinet room. That's the software on which Canada's federal and provincial governments run. It's been acknowledged as such by the Supreme Court.
That creates tensions between the different branches of government, and the courts will decide on that. The general framework has been set by the Supreme Court in more than one decision, and it's been set by the Federal Court in some specific cases in terms of arguments about specific documents and specific redactions.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Bains.
That concludes our first hour of questioning. We're now going to proceed to the second hour, which means we're going to reset the clock.
This is a reminder to members that if there is an intervention, it needs to be made through the chair. I don't want to have banter back and forth between members. I'm also going to remind members as well that relevance is subjective. I believe that members have their time to ask their questions. I also expect, as I said earlier, that members are going to come back to the point. If you're interrupting because you don't like something you're hearing, that's too bad.
Mr. Brock, you have six minutes. Go ahead.
Noon
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Wernick, the focus of my time with you will be on the concept of a two-tier level of justice. However, before I get to that, with today being March 19, when did you know that you were going to be invited to this committee?