Information & Ethics Committee on April 12th, 2021

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

The situation with the Kielburgers and the WE scandal is that we had been on this for eight months. We were finalizing this. There were some outstanding questions, and that's why we asked for these staffers to appear. I think we know what we need to know, but I think it would look very strange if we didn't put in our report that the last three witnesses did not appear.

To me, it's a straightforward issue. The committee was supposed to hear from these witnesses. This was called for by Parliament. Parliament named them. When they were supposed to appear, they did not appear. Hence, we should simply report back to the House that they did not appear.

Is that a rather straightforward function of what the committee's powers are?

[Philippe Dufresne]

As indicated, it's certainly something the committee can do. It can report the situation to the House. Then the matter becomes one for the House to consider what to do in the face of that report.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Would it be the Speaker who decides? If we were to simply say that we wanted the House to be aware that, following the vote it took, the witnesses did not appear, would that be something the Speaker then decides what to do with?

[Philippe Dufresne]

That becomes something that can be raised as a question of privilege. If it's raised as a question of privilege, then the Speaker would need to rule on that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Therefore, someone would have to rise in the House and say that their privileges as an MP were abused. Then the Speaker would rule. Can the Speaker then send it to committee?

[Philippe Dufresne]

When a question of privilege is raised, the Speaker will rule whether it is a valid question of privilege, whether it has been raised at the earliest opportunity and whether it raises a prima facie case. If the Speaker finds such a prima facie case of privilege, then a motion can be put forward. It's that motion, then, that would put to the House the remedy, whether that be sending it to PROC, which is the normal course, or other mechanisms.

In the Afghan detainee case, there was an invitation given to parties to find a solution. In other cases, there were findings of contempt. In another, the opposition [Technical difficulty—Editor] take to raise concerns with confidence.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you very much for that. It helps clarify this for me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mr. Carrie, we'll turn to you now for the next questions.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank Mr. Dufresne for being here.

I want to go back to the 2010 precedent. You have been clear that it was different. At that time it was a committee order, versus a House order, but I was here at that time and, as Mr. Angus said, it was a very serious situation. Anybody watching that video....

I'd like to refer to Ms. Lattanzio. When those witnesses, those staffers, were brought to committee, they weren't just asked to be there for one day to fill in information that the opposition didn't have. They were actually berated. It was almost to a point of character assassination.

When she talks about political reasons, Mr. Chair, I would say that the Liberals seem to have a standard now that is different from the standard they had when they were in opposition. I would like to quote Mr. Easter, who was there at the time. He said:

If we want to invite the minister to come before the committee, then we will do so, and we'll expect him to be here. When we invite other people to come before the committee, as is our right, we expect them to be here and not to be shut out from coming by an edict from the Prime Minister's Office.

To quote Ms. Lattanzio—and I actually agree—she referred to questions not being relevant. We are asking relevant questions and we need those answers to fully complete our report.

Mr. Dufresne, would you clarify? Am I clear in understanding your explanation to us to mean that the committee order in 2010 is different from a House order this year?

[Philippe Dufresne]

A committee order is different from a House order in the sense that, as I've indicated, a committee order can be modified by the committee itself. A House order cannot be modified by the committee. When there are concerns raised with a committee order and it is reported to the House, sometimes the outcome is that it becomes a House order.

In this instance, you are [Technical difficulty—Editor] House order, but I am flagging that there are similarities in the arguments being raised by the government in that case and by the government now, and also in some of the reactions in the committee, including my predecessor appearing in that committee and talking about issues similar to the ones that we're discussing now.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you for that clarification.

I have been asked by media about the term “contempt” and about “contemptuous behaviour” of the government. In this motion, it's not just our committee, as you're aware. It talks about national defence as well and the horrific sexual allegations that seem to have been ignored by the Prime Minister's Office. The Minister of National Defence—right before an election, conveniently—did not want to bring that forward.

Could you please help committee members understand the definitions, as you understand them, of “contempt” and “contempt of Parliament”?

[Philippe Dufresne]

Usually when the notion of contempt of Parliament is raised, it's in instances where committees or the House found that certain actions were preventing the House from doing its work, were preventing the members, were preventing information from being provided. Cases of contempt were found, for instance, in the instance of someone found to have deliberately misled a committee. These are the types of concerns that we see addressed in that rubric.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I'm assuming that you saw the testimony of Minister Rodriguez when he was in front of our committee. He was asked very clear questions. I found one question was, frankly, embarrassing for him. When Mr. Poilievre said, “What is your response?”, he went from one response to another response to saying that he didn't know the response. Obviously the government sent in substitutions for the actual witnesses, when—we could be very clear—we just want the gaps filled in. They sent a minister who had no idea what he was talking about and who actually gave opposing answers to the same question he was asked by the member of Parliament.

When somebody gives an answer that is the exact opposite of what they have stated previously, is that something that you find contemptuous by your understanding of the definition?

[Philippe Dufresne]

This is something for the committee to consider in terms of whether it is satisfied with the information that it has received. It's not for me to make that determination.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

I appreciate that. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Carrie, your time is up.

We'll go to Mr. Dong for five minutes.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I want to thank the law clerk for coming to the committee to help us out on this issue.

You talked about the former clerk, Rob Walsh, testifying in 2010 at this very committee, and on similar issues. He said that “there would be limitations on the questions that could be asked. There would be some questions that should properly be directed to the minister and not to the political staff person.”

Do you agree with Mr. Walsh's opinion, and could you expand on what questions would be off limits to ask the staff?

[Philippe Dufresne]

The point being made by Mr. Walsh is similar to the point being made in [Technical difficulty—Editor] the role of the individual is relevant, and the authority or lack thereof. Generally, there is an indication, in terms of the role of public servants, that they should not be asked to take political accountability for the decisions that are ultimately made by the government or by cabinet. With these types of things, in terms of defending the policy basis, it may not be appropriate to have a public servant do that. A public servant would be there for other purposes.

It's really having in mind what is the role and function. The accountability should guide the types of topics that are raised.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

In this case, “public servant” would include political staff.

[Philippe Dufresne]

Public servants are distinct from political staff in the sense that the public servant is removed completely from the political arena. The political staff is recognized as having or being entitled to have political affiliations with the ministers, so there's a distinction in that sense, in terms of the non-partisanship or neutrality. However, there is nonetheless certainly a difference between the political staff and the minister in terms of the authority and the accountability.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I'm glad we're talking about this. In my opinion, ministers' political staff are tasked by ministers with understanding the various implications of options presented to them for decision-making. Some staff serve as political advisers, advising on different impacts of political options presented to a minister. Some serve as communications staff, working to help the minister to effectively communicate the decisions they've taken.

However, in the end, these staff [Technical difficulty—Editor] are just staff. They're advisers and they provide advice, but they don't make the decisions. That's why, in the end, ministers are ultimately responsible for the decisions they make.

Do you believe that this model of ministerial responsibility is a good one and should be followed?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I can say that responsible government is based on that. It's the ministers and the government itself that [Technical difficulty—Editor] and to Parliament, and the staffers and the employees are serving and are supporting [Technical difficulty—Editor] and this government. I see that certainly as a very valid principle.

On the other side, there is also the authority of the House as the grand inquest of the nation, and its constitutional powers to determine what it needs in terms of information.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

I just want to add a bit more to the context, though, of what we are talking about here.

One of the witnesses is called Ben Chin, and his entire link to the study is one line of correspondence initiated by an executive assistant to Marc Kielburger. It reads as, “Hello Ben, Thank you for your kindness in helping shape our latest program with the gov 't. Warmly, Craig.”

He responded two days after, saying, “Great to hear from you Craig. Let 's get our young working!” The story goes that this was his only interaction with the WE Charity on this specific issue.

Is it fair, because of this one line of communication, to call in a witness for questioning for two hours, in your opinion?

[Philippe Dufresne]

What matters there is not my opinion, but the committee's [Technical difficulty—Editor] for the committee to decide in terms of any witness or question or issue that it feels it needs, or not, in the context of its constitutional authority.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

As my very quick last question, you mentioned the question of privilege. Is privilege a debatable motion in the sense that, if the committee feels that there has, in fact, been an abuse of privilege, it would be a debatable motion?