Evidence of meeting #9 for Declaration of Emergency in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was laws.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:55 p.m.
Bloc
The Joint Chair Bloc Rhéal Fortin
I'm not here to evaluate you, Mr. Daigle, with respect.
I understand your discomfort, but understand that I am here to investigate this situation.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Thank you.
Monsieur Fortin, I'd like to pass the floor to you for my round.
7 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
Before you do, Chair, can I raise a point of order?
7 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
It's highly unusual for a witness to indicate—and respectfully, sir—that they will not answer a question to a parliamentary committee, to refuse to answer a question. I think it is incumbent upon witnesses to understand the power of committees and that they have obligations to answer questions. They can answer them in a different way, but refusing to answer a question is not an option. I would ask that the committee compel the witness to answer the question that Mr. Fortin provided to him.
7 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, I think the deputy minister has indicated where he can.... He has been very forthright, and where he cannot be forthright, he has indicated. Just for everyone's edification, when we talk about solicitor-client privilege and what it covers, it can even cover the fact that an opinion exists or a number of opinions exist. That's what Mr. Daigle was explaining at the very end of his question, so there's a basis upon which certain things cannot be responded to.
I've been at this job for seven years, and I've heard many witnesses not answer certain questions. Sometimes It's because it's out of their realm of understanding or their scope or their expertise, etc., so I'll respectfully disagree with Mr. Motz.
7 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
With all due respect to my colleague Mr. Virani, that is not a legal interpretation of what has just transpired. We had a senior government official—in fact, apart from the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General, the highest senior official from the Department of Justice—refuse to answer a question posed by a committee member, without citing cabinet confidentiality, without citing solicitor and client privilege.
I wholeheartedly disagree with Mr. Virani's interpretation that the mere fact that a legal opinion was prepared and delivered to the government constitutes privilege. It's ludicrous. We are not asking at this stage for the content or the theme. We're not asking whether or not it was delivered in person or by email. We're not asking about the date.
The question posed by Monsieur Fortin was very general: Did you sign a legal opinion before the Emergencies Act was invoked? To which the witness stated very emphatically that he refused to answer the question. I am asking, Mr. Chair, that you direct the witness to respond appropriately, as opposed to a simple refusal.
7 p.m.
Liberal
7 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
One is that, with respect, the fact that perhaps a member of a committee doesn't appreciate an answer or like an answer doesn't mean that the question wasn't answered. That's my first point.
The second point is that this committee doesn't have the power to compel a witness to answer a question. Only Parliament does. Only the House of Commons does.
The third point is that I find this a bit curious insofar as last week we passed a motion that talked about production of documents, including legal advice that would have been provided. That answer will be forthcoming. I think there was a time window put on that production motion, so perhaps some of the answers my friends are seeking will be provided when those productions are made.
June 7th, 2022 / 7 p.m.
Peter Harder Senator, Ontario, PSG
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to intervene briefly. Having been a witness as a deputy minister for 16 years before Senate and House of Commons committees, I appreciate that there are times when questions are asked of a deputy that the deputy is not able to respond to in the fullness of knowledge that the questioner would wish. However, I do believe the question was responded to and that is after all what we're here for.
Therefore, I don't see this as a question of privilege, but a distraction from our hearing.
7 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Are there any other interventions?
Mr. Daigle, if we were to go in camera, would you be willing to be more forthright in answering these lines of questions?
7 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I did refer to solicitor-client privilege when invited by Monsieur Fortin to decline to answer his question. That's the reason I'm not answering his question. Whether we're in camera or not, I don't think that's going to change, but I take note of the motion that was passed a few days ago. The government will consider how we can respond by the end of the month, which I think is the time frame for the response.
7 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Are you familiar with Standing Order 108 that constructs committees and says that there are no bounds to our ability as a committee, duly constituted by the House, to send for people, documents and evidence?
7:05 p.m.
Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Department of Justice
I am, yes.
7:05 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
Are you also familiar with—and you may or may not be, but I'll state for the reference of this committee—that in 1891 a witness before a committee of the Senate of Canada objected to answering questions? The witness gave reasons that he was not in any way obliged to give the committee information relating to these affairs.
The committee had ordered the witness to answer, but he refused. The committee reported his refusal to the Senate, and requested action of the Senate thereon. The report of the committee was adopted by the Senate, and the witness was ordered to attend the bar of the Senate. The witness was ordered by the Senate to answer the questions of the committee. After he agreed to do so, he was discharged from the bar.
There is jurisprudence within our system that these committees are supreme in their ability to investigate these issues. I guess I would like—
7:05 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
I have the floor. I would like to put to you that this committee has been duly constituted under those provisions. The convention of cabinet confidence is just that. It's never been conceded by the House of Commons in any kind of jurisprudence. It's just a convention.
Mr. Naqvi.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Yasir Naqvi Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON
I was trying to ascertain whether you were asking these questions as a member of this committee or as the chair.
7:05 p.m.
NDP
The Joint Chair NDP Matthew Green
It's as the chair who's considering the decision of what's before us right now.
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Arif Virani Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Further to this point, Mr. Chair, that's exactly the point I made. The jurisprudence you referenced showed that it went from a committee to the Senate, which then compelled the witness. That's exactly the operation that would need to be followed here, should this committee wish to pursue it. It has to go from the committee to the House of Commons, to then compel the witness. That jurisprudence is established.
The second point is that cabinet confidence was not raised by Mr. Daigle. Solicitor-client privilege was raised, so please, let's not conflate the ideas.