Evidence of meeting #29 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Pornhub's terms of reference say “Cyprus”. They're based in—
1:05 p.m.
Commr Brenda Lucki
No, that's not an acceptable answer. We need to get better.
We have the Cybertip line as well, so we need to get better so that the survivors are not revictimized every time they have to come forward. It just saddens me when I hear that. It's just not acceptable.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Angus.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Thank you to all of the supporting officials who came as well for this afternoon's meeting. I am here in Alberta so I keep saying that [Technical difficulty—Editor] it's in the afternoon. Anyway, thank you for being here.
Colleagues, we will just suspend for a short period of time to allow the witnesses from the first two hours to log off, and we'll allow the law clerk to sign in.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
I have a point of order, Chair.
It's actually a point of clarification. I receive a lot of correspondence from organizations across the country that are concerned that we [Technical difficulty—Editor]. When I first put notice forward to start this study, I didn't expect the amount of information and evidence that we're getting. I know that my Liberal colleague has proposed to hear from sex workers or a sex work advocacy group, like Stella. They have openly said that they want to be here, but they were denied the opportunity.
Can you give us an update on how many remaining witnesses there are, and exactly why we are opposing Stella in coming forward to testify?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Dong.
The committee has not yet determined future witnesses, so the committee will certainly look at the witnesses and, at that point, we will make those determinations. That will be something I will be asking committee members to make some decisions on, in terms of how long the opportunity will remain open for witnesses or individuals who believe they have something to contribute to this study.
We, as a committee, need to give some clarification to people who are watching our study progress. At some point when we have a future business opportunity, I think we'll consider all of those witnesses.
I would remind every person who believes they have something to contribute to this hearing that, while committee members may not agree to hear from every witness who believes they have something to contribute, this committee has made a determination that we will accept all correspondence from people who believe they have something to contribute to this hearing, and it will be considered to be testimony. That was a decision of committee members some time ago.
Therefore, while not every person who believes they have something to contribute will be heard in the way that this committee meeting was held today, the committee has made a decision that we will accept all testimony via written form, and it will be treated in the same way as if those witnesses testified in person—the same provisions of confidentiality, if that is requested, or in terms of parliamentary privilege. Those things will be included. That was a decision of committee members some time ago.
I am certain we will have an opportunity to hear from additional witnesses. I am not sure that anybody [Technical difficulty—Editor] down, Mr. Dong.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
If committee members do make that determination at some future time, then that will be conveyed. However, as of yet, I haven't heard of any witness who has had their brief or their request rejected.
Thanks so much.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Han Dong Liberal Don Valley North, ON
That will help us to have a comprehensive study, and that's a very important aspect. I think it will be beneficial for the committee members to hear from them.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We'll go to Mr. Angus, and then we'll turn to Mrs. Shanahan.
Mr. Angus.
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
Just in terms of how things are done, we did have a meeting. Normally we don't discuss witnesses in public. We discuss witnesses at the planning meeting and then bring them forward. That was what was done. It was also understood that all witness testimony was being brought forward, even in written form.
We could have a planning meeting, and I am certainly open to that. I think it's probably a better way to deal with it than as points of order on the floor, as Mr. Dong seems to love his points of order.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Angus. I appreciate that. I think there is an opportunity on Friday to schedule one of those meetings.
Go ahead, Mrs. Shanahan.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Mr. Chair, I have a point of order about our proceedings from here on in.
We received the briefing about the law clerk's appearance just shortly before this meeting, and I've been trying to communicate with the clerk about it. Are we proceeding to hearing from the law clerk, and will the rounds be the normal rounds? That's what I'm asking for clarification on.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
We will start the rounds from the top. This is a new witness. I consider this to be a new witness on a different subject, so we will start the rounds from the top. The law clerk has prepared a brief opening statement. We'll hear from him and then we will proceed to those.
Colleagues, if there's still a desire to suspend for a few minutes, we can do that. Then we can proceed to hearing from the law clerk.
We'll suspend for the next four minutes. The meeting is suspended.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I think I see most people's faces returning, so we'll call this meeting back to order.
Colleagues, we are moving back to a discussion with regard to our study on questions of conflict of interest and lobbying in relation to pandemic spending, but specifically with regard to the order of reference of March 25, 2021, and the motion that was adopted by the House of Commons. There were some questions with regard to how to proceed. Monsieur Fortin had brought forward a motion. It was the desire of the committee members of all parties to hear from our law clerk, to provide some additional clarification and some support in terms of decisions that this committee is prepared to make.
Monsieur Dufresne, thanks so much for being with us today. We appreciate your willingness to come on such short notice. Thank you so much for providing your insight and wisdom with regard to this matter.
I believe you have a short opening statement. We'll turn to you for your statement and then we'll have some questions for you.
1:15 p.m.
Philippe Dufresne Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you. As Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, I am pleased to be here today to answer any questions that the committee may have.
My office provides comprehensive legal and legislative services to the Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy, the House and its committees, members of Parliament, and the House Administration. As legal counsel to the House, its committees and its members, we understand the interests of the legislative branch of government. We provide legal and legislative services to the House that one might say are similar to those provided by the Department of Justice to the government.
With me is Michel Bédard, Deputy Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Legal Services. I hope my answers will be helpful to the committee.
At the outset, I want to take a few moments to highlight the committee's powers to send for persons.
The House has certain powers that are essential to its work and part of its collective privileges. As the grand inquest of the nation, the House has the right to [Technical difficulty—Editor]. This right is part of the House's privileges, immunities and powers, which are rooted in the preamble in section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act. These rights in this role have been recognized by courts and include the constitutional power to send for persons, documents and records.
If a witness fails to comply with an order issued by a committee or by the House to appear before a committee to testify, the committee itself cannot impose sanctions on the witness. The committee can accept the situation and the reasons presented, decide to do nothing, or report to the House, which has the power to take appropriate action.
With that, I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Thank you, Mr. Dufresne. We appreciate your willingness to be here.
We'll begin the opening rounds of questions with Mr. Barrett.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Dufresne, thank you for joining us today.
What obligations come with an order of the House?
1:20 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
The orders of the House [Technical difficulty—Editor] powers, and part of its powers are to send for persons and records. The order is there and ought to be followed.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
What recourse is available to the House should an order duly issued by the House be disobeyed?
1:20 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
A House order falls under the House's privileges and the management of the House's procedural matters. In a situation where there is a concern over compliance with a House order, the process to raise those concerns, if it's a House order, would be raising it with the House itself. If there's a concern with a committee order, the matter would first be raised with the committee, but concerns would ultimately need to be raised with the House if additional steps were desired.
April 12th, 2021 / 1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
In this specific case, sir, of an order of the House being issued for persons to appear at committee and documents to be presented or delivered to committee, what process needs to be followed? Does it first need to be referred by the committee chair to the House, or as it is an order of the House, can the issue simply be raised by a member to the Speaker directly?