Justice Committee on Feb. 21st, 2019

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

If she's allowed to speak.

[Michael Wernick]

It's not a question of being allowed to speak or waiving any confidences. She can come here next week and answer your questions with her sense of where to draw the line on the answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you, Mr. Rankin.

Mr. Fraser.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier—I believe it was in your opening statement, or it may have been in an answer to one of the questions—you talked about the positive and I believe you used the word “ethical” dealings that you've had with the current government, Prime Minister and officials. How did you come to that conclusion and could you tell us how it may relate to why we're here today?

[Michael Wernick]

Close observation—and I've spent a lot of time with them every day for three years—and a lot of interactions. I run the Prime Minister's department. I deal with the Prime Minister's political staff virtually every day, and I have done for three years. I know a lot of them. I spend a lot of time with them. I've travelled with them. I've met with them. They've become the environment.

I'm not making a partisan comment, because I worked with the Harper PMO, the Martin PMO and the Chrétien PMO. I think Canadians should feel comforted that the people that come in and make enormous sacrifices to be political staffers and enter political offices are always trying to do the right thing, the right way. There are exceptions. We all know the exceptions. But they get caught. They get caught in Canada.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Just switching gears a little bit, earlier in your testimony you indicated that the work of the Ethics Commissioner and his ongoing investigation should be respected and, obviously, allowed to get its work done. Some have come to the conclusion that only a public inquiry in this matter would actually get to the facts of what happened. I'm wondering what your comment about a public inquiry would be.

[Michael Wernick]

That's ultimately for other people to decide. My advice would be, I don't see how it's an upgrade. You have an officer of Parliament with superior court powers. You have a methodology. You have a track record. You have the training. There's not the slightest possibility of partiality or bias. It's the instrument you chose to create, as an officer of Parliament, to deal with ethics issues. In its simplest version, why do you need another instrument?

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

In your view, will it get to the essential questions that are being asked in this matter?

[Michael Wernick]

I've watched public inquiries. We all have over the last while. They have the utility. They absolutely have the utility. But they, well, Gomery.... There are many, right? PCO actually provides the funding and the administrative support for inquiries. They have a particular character. They get lawyered up. They're adversarial. They're not always the right way to get to the bottom of something.

This is a relatively simple matter in its essence. If you strip away all of the hyperbole and the rhetoric, it's about whether a minister felt inappropriate pressure, and that can be traced to the specific conversations and meetings, and I think the Ethics Commissioner could get to the bottom of this fairly quickly.

[Colin Fraser, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Wernick.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. McKinnon, there are three minutes left. Do you want them?

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Yes. I have just a quick question.

My opposition colleagues across the way have expressed considerable concern that once the DPP decision was made on September 4, any further address to the AG in that matter was in and of itself inappropriate. I'd like your comments on that. In the context, as I understand it, the DPP act itself provides for that kind of follow-up and that kind of override.

My second question pertains to lobbying efforts by SNC-Lavalin, which you indicated earlier were perfectly lawful and not untoward at all. I'm wondering if you could further address that as well.

[Michael Wernick]

Maybe the second point. I think that it's not a small thing, but all the contexts between the company and various people were disclosed. It means that the basic structures of the Lobbying Act, which were brought in in response to other issues years ago, seem to be working. You can reach your own conclusions about that, and laws can always be improved, but the basic structures of the Lobbying Act in terms of transparency seem to be working.

I'm going to get somebody in the company in trouble, but what Canadians need to know is that despite a massive government relations effort—meetings with MPs, staffers, leaders of the opposition, repeat advertising, pressure put through two premiers of Quebec—they didn't get what they wanted. If it's a movie, it's a flop.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Mr. Wernick, we still have one minute left for Mr. McKinnon's first question on whether it was inappropriate to have any discussions following that first date of September 4 or when the PMO became aware.

[Michael Wernick]

That's a question that I think probably requires legal advice from the clerk, the law clerks, or from experts. My interpretation of it, and the basis on which I have conducted all of the conversations, is that it wouldn't be. The same basic principles and rules would apply even after that point, because the minister always had and even still has the option of invoking those powers. It's the same Shawcross frame whether you're early in the process, late in the process or even today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you so much.

Colleagues, that exhausts the round of questions.

I want to thank you, Mr. Wernick, for your service to Canadians and thank you for all you did. I think your testimony helped us a great deal.

The meeting is adjourned.