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.
6:35 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
There are a variety of pipelines of paper and notes to the Prime Minister. It's the Prime Minister's Office that organizes that and decides what to send on and when.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
What does the process of producing the daily reading package look like?
6:40 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think you'd have to ask Mr. Jean that.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Okay. I'll ask Mr. Jean that. You don't know.
You had alluded to, in your response to the committee, a political briefing note. Does the PMO typically include a political briefing note on top national security briefings?
6:40 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
You would have to ask Ms. Telford that. I don't know.
6:40 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
You don't know. Okay.
When you were the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister was briefed on matters of national security, would it be customary for the names of those present at the briefing to be recorded?
6:40 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Again, you should ask Mr. Jean. When I was clerk—and I don't know how it works now—I ensured there was direct unfettered access from the national security adviser to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's team. If anybody kept minutes or logs or attendance or whatever, it would have been the national security adviser.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Wernick, I appreciate your coming back here. Again, thank you for your long service to our country and, especially, the very important service to our country in the last role you played as Clerk of the Privy Council.
I'm not going to ask you specific questions that would put you in jeopardy of perhaps revealing content of a nature that might be national security. I'd like to talk to you a little more more about process, if I could.
You became clerk, if I recall, a couple of months into the new government's mandate in 2015. Around that time, the government of the day set up a number of processes to respond to concerns of foreign interference in elections as we saw in France, as you mentioned, the United States and Great Britain—or the United Kingdom, I guess I should say.
Could you describe to us what some of the processes were that you would have overseen or very recently inherited in the role as Clerk of the Privy Council?
April 18th, 2023 / 6:40 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I'll try my best to reconstruct a chronology using Google. I may get some of the order wrong or whatever.
Yes, I was deputy clerk in 2015. I was appointed deputy clerk by Prime Minister Harper and stayed for the transition and the early days of Mr. Trudeau's mandate. He appointed me clerk in January of 2016, and I took on that role for the next three years.
There were quite a few things in play at the time.
A very early priority of the government, you may recall, was to create the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians to give a group of parliamentarians with appropriate security clearances a window into national security and intelligence issues. Bill C-22 was an early initiative by the government.
Also, then, there were a number of initiatives under way, so by the time we got to 2017, which I know is the period of interest here, there were quite a few things in play. Bill C-59, which was the comprehensive overhaul of national security legislation, would have been in play in late 2016 and early 2017. We were very concerned about disinformation issues. It's a matter of public record that Putin's Russia tried to disrupt the French election in May of 2017 and that they tried to disrupt the German election in September of 2017.
At the time, cybersecurity was a huge issue. Members who have been here long enough will remember Chinese cyber-attacks on the National Research Council that were called out by the Harper government—by Minister Baird—in early 2014. A personal focus for me very much was on cybersecurity: secure communications for the Prime Minister and secure communications for the cabinet, and investments in cybersecurity, which came to fruition in the 2018 budget.
I could go on, but that gives you some sense of what was going on at that time.
6:40 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
That does give me a very good sense.
I'm not going to gainsay any previous government's actions because I'm certain they made the best decisions they could at the time, but it seems clear to me that the new government at the time, in 2015-16, felt that it was necessary to add these new tools and these new robust options to help prepare the security of the government.
Given your role as deputy clerk in the previous government.... Again, I'm not gainsaying. I just want to get an understanding as to why it wasn't as big of an issue at that time. Did they feel that the tools they had at that time were adequate to protect Canadians from this emerging threat?
6:45 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
The context is always different. I was deputy clerk and helped the Harper government pass Bill C-51 late in its mandate. A little bit later, I helped the Trudeau government amend it through Bill C-59.
At the time, in 2015-16, there was still a great deal of focus on anti-terrorism. This is the time when Daesh had overrun most of northern Iraq. There were all kinds of issues in the Middle East at the time.
As Mr. Jean and others can explain to you, there are a range of threats that the Government of Canada worries about, from terrorism to domestic terrorism to cybersecurity to foreign interference and so on. That's why we have a national security adviser. That's why we have a cabinet committee on security and intelligence, and that's why the government wanted NSICOP created.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I'd like to know why the emphasis was placed on foreign, rather than domestic, security threats. Is it because of a failure to anticipate that there could be domestic threats?
Please give a brief answer, because I only have a minute of speaking time left.
6:45 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It's important to be alert to both types of threats. All the MPs here today were probably present during the attack on Parliament Hill in the fall of 2014. There have also been attacks in Toronto and elsewhere. There are all kinds of threats to the safety of Canadians. These include terrorism, foreign interference and violence within the country.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you for being here with us today, Mr. Wernick.
I'd like to ask a few questions about your interview with Ms. Esther Bégin, broadcast on Canada's parliamentary channel, CPAC, about a month ago. I'd like to go back to some of the questions that were asked and the answers you gave.
Among other things, you mentioned that ideally, it ought not to be a judge chairing a future public inquiry, but rather someone with a good knowledge of intelligence analysis.
Is that correct, and if so, why?
6:45 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's a good question.
Finding someone who is sufficiently independent and also knowledgeable about the subject at issue is always a challenge. It's not easy to find someone like that. In Canada, we tend to ask judges to chair inquiries. In my experience, that sometimes works very well, and at other times, not at all.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
One reason that is frequently given for not holding an independent public inquiry is the risk of revealing information that could pose a threat to national security.
If the person chairing the commission has a good understanding of the information received, would this ensure that they are able to properly analyze the information and sort out what can and cannot be disclosed?
6:45 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes, but finding someone everybody can agree upon in a highly partisan political context is always a challenge. How many Canadians could be involved in the selection process and be accepted as reliable individuals? I believe that it would be more innovative to seek someone from outside. It could perhaps be an Australian or someone from Great Britain, and not part of the Canadian political scene.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
So am I to understand that what's preventing an independent public inquiry has nothing to do with the leaking of information, but rather finding the right person? Is that what you're saying?
6:45 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It's up to you, as legislators, to determine whether a public inquiry is necessary. There are always limits on how useful such an inquiry can be, the crux of the matter being that some information ought not to be disclosed because it would undermine our ability to collect such information in future. The other problematic area is determining who the witnesses will be.
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Okay, I understand that all of that could involve the chair convening people.
I'm going to continue in the same vein. You mentioned the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, the NSICP. It is often suggested as a better way of analyzing what may have happened in instances of interference than an independent public inquiry.
Do you feel that it would be better for the two approaches to be complementary?
6:50 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
In principle, they could be. The other thing that could be done at the same time is legislating. A public inquiry will inevitably lead to a recommendation that applicable Canadian statutes be strengthened and enhanced. This could be done in parallel with an inquiry. Whether it's a parliamentary committee, a third party or an inquiry, it will recommend legislation.
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
With respect to legislation, we've been asking in Parliament for the creation of a registry of foreign agents since November 2020. That could have been done. Even if we had such a registry, it would not prevent us from holding an independent public inquiry on the remaining issues.
Is that right?
