Evidence of meeting #63 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:50 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Two different approaches can indeed be pursued concurrently. The next election is only two years away. The real challenge is to protect the upcoming election.
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
As it happens, you mentioned in an interview the possible appointment of a special rapporteur, whose identity was not yet known.
Given everything that is expected from the person who was appointed and the possibility that this person had ties to the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, are we not unduly delaying a public inquiry whose purpose would be to regain the people's trust in their democratic institutions and to do some housecleaning before the coming election? This particular person would not necessarily be able to do that.
6:50 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's a question you should be asking the government rather than me.
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I'd like to return to the credentials for a potential chair. Wouldn't someone from outside with a good knowledge of data analysis be in the best position to determine whether the government, given the information it had at the time, was making appropriate decisions and doing the right things?
Would it be a good idea to have this work redone by someone who could look at it from the outside, with due regard to analyzing the information received at the time?
6:50 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
You, as parliamentarians, are in a position to determine how useful it would be to review the past. What I recommend is moving forward and enacting legislation to protect future elections.
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Insofar as we would like to learn from our mistakes, wouldn't holding an independent public inquiry demonstrate that we do not want to repeat what may have already been done, and wouldn't it make us better prepared for the future?
6:50 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes, but an inquiry won't lead to a recommendation on the wording or content of an act. It will inevitably lead to a recommendation for Canada's Parliament to enact stronger legislation along the lines of the British or Australian model. It's up to parliamentarians to do that.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you very much, Chair.
As always, all of my questions are through the chair.
I want to thank the witness for being here today. I really appreciate some of the testimony.
I think it's challenging. This is a challenging discussion. I think, at the end of the day, the focus I have is that Canadians are increasingly having a sense of distrust in our systems. That worries me. Trying to figure out how to navigate this very tenuous situation is challenging.
I want to, first of all, thank the witness for his service to Canada.
One of the questions I have is just what your thoughts on this are. I think process and moving forward in the future is the best way to move forward.
I know that the President of the United States has the ability to declassify information if needed, such as, for example, when the government has classified information that could be shared that would clear the air and allow people to feel a little bit more assured about what's happening. That's without, of course, discussing sources or releasing information about methods of collection. I understand that there would have to be some careful thought about that.
I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts about whether this is something we should be exploring in Canada. You talked a lot about looking at legislation and moving forward. I think about some of these situations. If there is information that could be released that would not risk harming anybody and that would definitely not impede our relationships with other countries around the information we gather with national security, then is there a pathway so that information can be shared at a time that would bring tensions down?
I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts about that process in the U.S. and what we could have here in Canada.
6:55 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's a very good question.
I think that is one of the motivations for having a committee of parliamentarians that can be briefed on classified information. It creates a dilemma, as we found, because what do those parliamentarians then do with that information? I think it's useful to have the leaders of the opposition parties briefed in and accept security briefings when it's recommended to them.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do know that there are provisions in Canadian law for declassifying and releasing information. The guardian of that is actually the Clerk of the Privy Council, which is the secretary of cabinet papers.
I signed off on releasing papers for the trial of Vice-Admiral Norman. I signed off on releasing papers for other reasons. With regard to the Rouleau commission that looked into the events in Ottawa last year, I believe my successor as clerk released classified documents to Justice Rouleau. There are mechanisms in Canada for that. It's always possible to amend those in the future.
I'd be careful where you go because one of the conventions is that you do not release the documents of a previous government. I was the guardian of the documents of previous governments when I was clerk, and there were requests for documents from the Harper government to be divulged for that trial. I had to go and communicate with Mr. Harper and get his consent to do that.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you. That's extremely helpful.
With regard to the questions my previous friend was asking you in reference to public inquiries and having, perhaps, someone outside of our country be the lead of that, I think that's an innovative and interesting idea.
We've heard a lot of testimony that foreign interference is changing. There are multiple countries—you alluded to that earlier in your testimony—so I think it's unfair to focus on just one country in particular. We know that it is quickly changing and that we have to be very robust in our response and have to work closely with countries that we have partnerships with.
As we look at this ever-changing face, is it something that we should be discussing—processes where we partner with other countries that we have close relationships with to oversee some of these things if it becomes a problem within our own country?
6:55 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
We do have partnerships. We have the Five Eyes security partnership with particular countries on the sharing of information and threats. We do share information with other countries. This is more Mr. Jean's wheelhouse. You can ask him about that specifically.
I believe there was a G7 initiative specifically on foreign interference after the Russian attacks on the French and German elections.
There is a collaboration among allied countries and democracies to try to protect democratic processes.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
It might be an idea for our countries to come together to talk about how we might address these issues internally because, of course, the concern that I think Canadians have is that there is a feeling of mistrust. You talked about how NSICOP is there. That is an avenue for discussion, but that information isn't public.
I'm just trying to figure out how we release information that gives people enough assurance to know that there is a response without creating this sense of alienation. I think it's interesting that you talked earlier about having systems where, of course, all opposition leaders learn more so that perhaps they can provide indirect leadership in their own caucuses.
Do you have any thoughts about how these systems can work together and if these processes that the Liberals keep talking about are actually transparent enough for Canadians to have assurance in the system?
6:55 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
You will have to decide what the right balance is between protecting secure information and our ability to defend ourselves, and having transparency to reassure Canadians. That's a set point where laws have moved around over the years, and you can take another look at them and adjust where that set point is.
I'll take the opportunity to say that one of the things that would probably reassure Canadians about the health of their democracy is to see the political parties working together to bring in foreign interference legislation. There's no reason in a minority Parliament that legislation couldn't be tabled, studied, debated, amended and passed before Christmas.
7 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Thank you.
We will go to Mr. Calkins, followed by Madam Romanado.
Mr. Calkins.
7 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you to our witness.
Thank you, Mr. Wernick, for proving that once you retire from this business, you never fully retire. I'm glad to have an opportunity to ask you questions.
You were the Clerk of the Privy Council in January of 2019. Is that correct?
7 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes.
7 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
In your email that you submitted to the committee, you said, “for a production of documents what might be more illuminating is to ask for the extracts from the document logging system” and so on. In this paragraph, you say:
The Clerk's office has always kept a log of all documents sent to the PM by PCO—which fall into two types—notes for decision and notes for information that don't seek a decision. PCO constantly chases to get a “return” from the Prime Minister's Office. Most notes are acknowledged or returned by PMO but certainly not 100 percent of them.
I have in my hand a document issued by the Privy Council Office dated the 17th of January, 2019, the time frame for which you were the Clerk of the Privy Council. It states:
Espionage and Foreign Interference Activities
China is still the most active and sophisticated perpetrator of espionage2 and foreign interference3 activities in Canada.
2Espionage is the state-sponsored collection of sensitive political, economic, or security information by clandestine means.
3Foreign interference activities refer to actions by state actors, proxies or co-optees that are covert, deceptive, or coercive and go beyond normal or acceptable diplomatic activity and are meant to mislead or actively undermine the host state.
This is a document that is by and large redacted, but I've read just the parts that I as a parliamentarian am able to see. In your earlier answers to questions by Mr. Cooper, you led this committee to believe that you in no way remember having any discussions at all about Chinese foreign interference. However, I have a document right here from your office, for which you were the clerk at the time, that says, “China is still the most active and sophisticated perpetrator of espionage and foreign interference activities in Canada”, which the document then went and defined.
Can you circle that square for me, Mr. Wernick? How would you not know about Chinese foreign interference, given that you were the Clerk of the Privy Council at the time?
7 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I may have read it. It was four years ago. I have no recollection now, in April 2023, of having seen that note. Maybe I did; maybe I didn't. I just don't remember.
7 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Okay.
In several responses to my colleague, you said that we should be asking the national security adviser specific questions, but your role, as Clerk of the Privy Council, would be to carry out or to execute any instructions or prosecute any instructions that were given to you by the Prime Minister in cabinet decisions. Is that not true?
7 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It would depend. A lot of them could be communicated directly to whoever was briefing the Prime Minister at the time. I ensured—
7 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Does the national security adviser execute any decisions, or...?
7 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
As I said, when I was there—I don't know how it works now—there was a direct conduit from the national security adviser to the Prime Minister.
7 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I would interpret that, and correct me if I'm wrong, as a source of information, but the national security adviser would not necessarily execute decisions of the government. Is the national security adviser in charge of a department and in charge of several other employees who actually prosecute decisions made by the government, or is it simply the culmination of information gathering to provide information and intelligence to the Prime Minister?