Evidence of meeting #2 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Before accepting such a proposal, checks would have to be made with the Department of Justice. I have been involved in such a process before, and I know that there are confidentiality agreements in place. It's worse than a marriage contract. I don't think we're going to get a lot of information about that process. Even though we're a parliamentary committee, it's an extremely airtight process. Departmental employees are bound by secrecy. There is nothing more secretive than the judicial appointment process. It will be very difficult.
I don't know if we should go ahead and say no. You can check with the Department of Justice to see how far we can go in this kind of study. It would be shocking if the committee were simply to be told no.
Those who could talk sign agreements with a very high degree of confidentiality. This could embarrass people who would come to testify here. In fact, they would not speak because if they did, they would lose their jobs.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I really appreciate that amendment. My colleagues should have written their own motion, though, because they've rewritten my motion entirely. I don't think that's very helpful.
I'm more than willing to add some of the language from my colleague from the Bloc, if I could make my own friendly amendment. In light of what Mr. Gourde said, we have to be very careful. We are focused here. We do not have the authority in this committee to look at the overall issue of judicial appointments, but we can look into whether or not there are partisan decisions being made. That is why I think Mathieu Bouchard should be brought forward. He is the key person named in this.
I would add to it in terms of how the current selection process compares with previous systems regarding allegations of political interference. We're not looking at the overall process, but we do know that in the previous government there were allegations of partisanship. The Liberals made a big issue of it. We thought it was cleaned up. Apparently it's not, so we have to stay focused.
I would add, if they're willing, that in light of recent media reports on partisan consultations over judicial appointments, we would invite key actors named in those reports, but not limited to PMO senior adviser Mathieu Bouchard, and look at the current selection process and how it compares with the previous system regarding allegations of partisan interference in the selection. I would drop “for appointing judges” there, just so that we're comparing apples to apples here.
Is that clear?
4:20 p.m.
A voice
It's clear.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rachael Thomas
At this point, then, we have two amendments on the floor. If there is agreement at the table in terms of how to proceed, and if what Mr. Angus has proposed is agreed to as the amendment that we should move forward with voting on, then we will. However, if we need to vote first on the one proposed by Mr. Fergus, then we will vote on that first.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Angus for his proposition.
If it's possible, I would withdraw my motion in favour of his amended motion, provided there is no specific name. It could read, “while the Committee is free to choose the witnesses it would like to invite”.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I'm not a hard guy. I get along with everybody. I was an altar boy. I was a heckler then, too. I don't know how many we would have, but I think Mr. Bouchard is a good person to start with. I don't know how long this study will go, and maybe Mr. Bouchard will answer our questions, so I prefer to keep his name in.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Michael Levitt Liberal York Centre, ON
We've already talked about going to the subcommittee after this to deal with the timing of motions and the witness list and submitting witnesses. I really do think it's premature to be naming witnesses as part of motions before there's been an opportunity to do that. It could be a long witness list. It may include various people, but to be naming people in a motion seems to be premature.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
No, I wasn't really, Mr. Angus.
I've also been a heckler, too.
I think we're very close to a probably unanimous agreement, but we're getting bogged down in the mention of a specific person.
Please, Mr. Angus, please, I would ask you to reconsider your decision, because the person you want to appear before the committee will definitely be included on the witness list.
We're very close to an agreement, so I'm appealing to his Catholic conscience, one altar boy to another.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
As a Catholic, that poses a major problem for me.
He said “please” and then he said “please” a second time. We always say things in threes. I didn't hear the third “please”.
4:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Okay. Just this once—put it in your books—we will just go with “witnesses”.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal