Evidence of meeting #77 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.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Great.
Does it concern you, then, that opposition leaders, specifically the Bloc and the Conservative Party leaders, are formulating criticisms of the government's response but not willing to do so based on the facts, when they have access to them? I exclude the NDP, because I think their leader has agreed to undergo the necessary security clearance and has expressed a clear desire to review that annex.
12:50 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think I would reframe it and say that more parliamentarians should go through the vetting process and get higher security clearances. Narrowing it to just the members of NSICOP is not sufficient anymore. There should be ways of having more people go through security clearances and get access to higher level information.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
You've said very clearly that this doesn't necessarily silence you. Just as with David Johnston's report, he's given very clear conclusions and made observations, and even been able to say things that I think do promote public trust to some degree. If that's the overall objective here, can you speak a little bit more as to why this notion that knowing the truth is somehow a trap to silence me is not really a completely valid argument?
12:50 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
This is a debate we had in 2016 and 2017, when the bill to create NSICOP was before Parliament. The chair will remember some of those discussions. The same argument was made that opposition members couldn't be part of this committee, because they couldn't then be opposition members. We said, well, they make it work in the United States, and they make it work in the United Kingdom, in Germany and in France. There is a way to do that.
I think the only thing that you would be expected to keep silent about is the factoids of specific intelligence that you were made aware of, but you could make arguments, you could be critical, you could make proposals and you would not be silenced in your role as opposition. I think, furthermore, if you became aware, through intelligence sources, that a media story had been planted by a foreign intelligence service as a disinformation campaign, and you decided to be a bit more circumspect and not run with it, isn't that a good thing?
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Wernick, the situation we now find ourselves in has been going on for months now. We want to get to the bottom of it, but there are many obstacles to overcome.
I really understood what you meant when you said that we need to look to the future. Everyone's going to get to a chance to stall. You talked about an independent public inquiry and passing legislation. We want to be constructive, to reassure those listening to us and to send the message that action is required. Since you have extensive expertise in this area, I'd like you to take the next few seconds to give me some ideas.
12:55 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It's Tuesday afternoon. Tomorrow, Wednesday morning, each of you will attend your party's caucus meeting. You'll have direct access to your leaders in a discreet setting. I recommend that government members clearly ask the Prime Minister to rise in the House of Commons and commit to introducing a bill in September. Members of the other parties can recommend that their leader co‑operate with the government to debate, amend, improve and pass that legislation as quickly as possible.
12:55 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
To me, those are the key elements.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
You're saying that those are the key elements, but other things need to be done too.
12:55 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
If the decision is made to hold a public inquiry, as you would like, some lessons will be learned from that. Mr. Johnston can continue his work. He's a smart man, a lawyer and law professor, and his recommendations are certainly quite useful. However, issues such as the intelligence to evidence gap are not new. There was a discussion on this during development of draft legislation under the Harper government in 2015 and during development and drafting of legislation under the Trudeau government in 2017.
The only thing missing is the political will to make decisions. A bill needs to be drafted, and parliamentarians need to take the time to hear from witnesses and study, improve, amend and, ultimately, pass that bill.
May 30th, 2023 / 12:55 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Wernick, I'm really fascinated by what you said, that there should be more parliamentarians going through the process of getting that security clearance and accessing information.
In that process, do you perceive members of Parliament needing better training around national security and how to protect the nation's interests? I do think it's an interesting point, because it means a higher level of accountability for us as parliamentarians, those of us who know that information and how to carry it. Hopefully it would take us from a very strongly partisan reality into one that is a little more focused on the nation's good.
I'm just wondering if you could talk about the training that MPs may require to do that work.
12:55 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
There are 338 of you, and there is also the Senate, so there would be decisions about how wide that would need to be and at what level. It is a question of design on which you can come to some agreement among the parties as to how far to go.
Of course, there would have to be training. With the accountability comes a possibility of sanctions. I don't have those clearances anymore, but they came with an accountability in that, if I divulged secrets that I had read or seen, I could have gone to jail. I could have been fined. I could have lost my job. I could have lost my security clearance.
In the public service, if you lose your security clearance, it's tantamount to being fired, because you can't do the work anymore. That's a tricky area. What would be the sanctions on a rogue parliamentarian who decided to leak? That happens in the States and that happens in the U.K., so there is a lot to work through there, but limiting it as narrowly as we're doing now isn't working for us anymore.
1 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
My last question for you, quickly, is this: If you have a name or two that you'd like to recommend for leading a public inquiry, we'd love it. If not, what would be the criteria that you think would be key?
1 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
There is an art to driving inquiries to conclusion. There's an organizational skill in getting the work done for sure. I think that's one reason that people like judges: They're used to running courtrooms.
In this particular instance, I think that if you don't have some familiarity, life experience or background in the world of security and intelligence, you might not really know the right questions to ask and the right lines to pursue. That's a part.
My colleague might want to comment on that. The problem, if you go to people who are deeply inside the security and intelligence community, is this: Do they have the objectivity about those institutions they grew up and work in. It's not easy to find somebody who has enough knowledge but enough distance to do a good job, which is why I'm kind of inclined to go to Canberra to find the national security adviser to the Australian government. I'm only being semi-facetious there. It's not easy to find that skill set.
Each inquiry has its own subject area and its own purpose. Why I go to Australia and the U.K. is that they use the British Westminster system of government and the accountability of ministers and prime ministers is very familiar territory to anybody who works in the U.K. or Australia. If you go to Americans, the French or Germans, they have completely different software.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
The beep did not go off because it did not start. Ms. Blaney, you're one who's really good to me for the most part, minus about three examples, which I always say.
I am going to ask Mr. Mitrovica to comment on it because Mr. Wernick had suggested that.
Did you want to, Mr. Mitrovica?
1 p.m.
Writer, As an Individual
I found it astounding that the former clerk of the Privy Council would suggest that Canada forfeit its sovereignty and appoint an Australian or a British member to this much-needed public inquiry. It's just astounding to me that he would suggest that even facetiously or half-seriously. It's no wonder he's out of his job.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I will say this was actually an interesting conversation, at least for me as the chair of procedure and House affairs.
I am inclined to ask you this, Mr. Wernick: In suggesting that more people should have clearance—this is something procedure and House affairs has been quite seized with—is it your suggestion that procedure and House affairs committee members should be asking for that clearance?
1 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't have a clear sense of that. My understanding is that a lot of the substantive matters about legislation and reporting go through the committee on public safety. There's a Senate committee, similarly.
To the extent that you're dealing with the privileges of Parliament as an institution, this would seem to be an important group to bring inside the tent, at least to some degree.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
That's very interesting. It's really good food for thought.
With that, I want to thank you on behalf of PROC committee members, Mr. Wernick and Mr. Mitrovica, for your reappearance at procedure and House affairs. If something comes to mind, please do not hesitate to share it with the clerk. We will have it translated into both official languages.
We're looking at some kind of Aeroplan miles thing, so the more appearances you have.... Maybe you'll get a certificate or a gold star. We are noting that you have been good to us.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
With that, have yourselves a great day.
Committee members, we are meeting back again at 6:30. We have two more panels with two witnesses each. We will see you tonight.
Everyone keep well and safe. Thank you.