Neither have I.
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.
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.
12:45 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It'll be sent to the agency responsible for looking into that and to parliamentary committees, and it'll be made available to the opposition party leaders. I think, then, that we have all the evidence needed for this exercise, which is to learn how it happened. I always look to the future. The challenge over the next few months and years will be to determine how to prevent that kind of situation from occurring.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
You recommended, during a previous appearance before this committee, that the commissioner with the mandate to hold a public inquiry not be a Canadian. Given the increasingly urgent calls by parliamentarians and all Canadians for an inquiry, who should get to choose the commissioner?
12:45 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It'll be relevant if you get your inquiry.
If the dog catches the car, what does the dog then do?
Choosing the person who'll lead an inquiry is extremely important. In the past, there have been inquiries that weren't very useful—I'm saying this as respectfully as possible—and others that had huge repercussions. That means picking the right commissioner and support staff is extremely important. We always look to judges as if they were the magic solution, because of their training or their independence, but we have all seen judges being attacked. I believe, then, that it's about choosing someone with the right training and who knows about security and intelligence.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Pardon me, Mr. Wernick, but I think you're straying somewhat from the question. I'm not asking you who should be the judge. Rather, I want to know who should pick the judge. Should it be the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office or all the members of Parliament? I'm asking you because there's been a problem with credibility and confidence given that the government made a unilateral decision.
12:45 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That's a good example of why our politicians need to work together to restore the confidence of Canadians in our democratic processes and institutions. If I had to make a recommendation, I'd say that the prime minister should always be someone who puts the recommendation before cabinet, but only after having consulted the leaders of the opposition parties. However, I don't know whether it's possible to reach a consensus on who that person should be, because I don't know if any Canadian would be able to rise above the political fray.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes. There's a long list of former Australian and British prime ministers and former ministers who've worked under very similar circumstances. We could appoint someone who's truly independent.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thanks to both of the witnesses for being here today.
Welcome back to PROC. It's great to have your testimony.
Mr. Wernick, perhaps I'll start with you. I have a series of questions. Some of them are short answers, so hopefully you can keep your answers brief.
As former clerk of the Privy Council, I assume you're fairly knowledgeable about security clearance and dealing with sensitive top secret information. I wanted to ask you what security clearance you would need to review the highly confidential annex to David Johnston's report.
12:45 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't know the answer to that. From reading the text, it sounds like a lot of it is top secret. In the hierarchy of clearances, it's top secret or above. That's a question to ask the government.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I think there's a level higher than top secret, which is enhanced top secret. Is that correct?
12:50 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes, that's for some of the most sensitive electronic interception.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Do members of NSICOP and NSIRA have that level of enhanced top security clearance, as far as you know?
12:50 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I'm not a reliable source on that. I believe they do.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It depends on the level of clearance. Lower level ones last longer than the higher level ones. That's again a question to ask the government. My recollection is that they generally last about five years. If there's some major change in your life—you get married, move, change jobs or whatever—you may have to renew it, but I think they're roughly for five years.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
If there's a material change to one's circumstances, would one have to undergo that security screening again?
12:50 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes, it's just like the disclosures to the Commissioner of Lobbying and the Ethics Commissioner.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Would you think that former members of cabinet from a different administration have the level of security clearance required to review the top secret annex for Johnston's report?
12:50 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't know that. They would have gone through a process of vetting, which is a different matter. The four-way checks on personal history, financial history, legal troubles and so on, those happen to everybody who is a potential nominee to cabinet. Anybody who would have been considered for a cabinet appointment would have gone through a background check at the time, but, again, those have to be renewed every so often if something has changed.
12:50 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Or you moved into opposition or whatever. There are all kinds of reasons why you would, and again it's not an algorithm with a simple rule. There's judgment required.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I understand. I've got it.
In Mr. Johnston's report, he concludes by saying, “no examples have been identified of Ministers, the Prime Minister or their offices knowingly or negligently failing to act on intelligence, advice or recommendations.”
Mr. Wernick, in your opinion, should party leaders, especially ones who have publicly expressed critical views of the findings of Johnston's report, not review the confidential annex containing the intelligence when given the opportunity to do so?
12:50 p.m.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think I heard Mr. Wilczynski say this. I think having more knowledge is always better than having less knowledge. If you have the opportunity—and not everybody does—to have access to that kind of information, you should go through the clearance process and you should be willing to take that information. I don't agree that it silences you or makes it impossible for you to do your job in opposition. We could talk about that if you like.
