Evidence of meeting #108 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
On the motion, I know that it's really, really difficult. It must be difficult to have to come in every day and defend Justin Trudeau's corruption, but that's what these Liberal MPs have to do. I hope the voters in their ridings take note.
Look, this motion has been completely neutered. It's been gutted, and there's only one explanation for that, which is that it's to continue a cover-up that has gone on for five years. I vote against the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Cooper.
Ms. Damoff, your hand is up. I suspect it was for your previous intervention, or is it for a new one?
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
No, Mr. Chair.
Again, maybe I'll have to walk over to Mr. Cooper's office. I don't think anyone in this committee room right now wants to try to destabilize what our country is like, but these consistent claims of cover-up and corruption....
Mr. Chair, I think it was pretty clear, when I moved my amendment, that this is to provide documents quickly. Then we could revisit. That is not a cover-up and I wish my colleagues would retract their comments.
I think we're probably ready to go to a vote, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Ms. Damoff says there's a trigger at some point that would have her order the production of other documents. If there's an amendment to that effect, it would be supportable and would demonstrate transparency and all the nice things we're being told to believe.
However, it's important that the context is very clear for the record. This is a case where Justin Trudeau was found to have illegally used his position to interfere with the Attorney General's role. This isn't above board behaviour, then. We know he's used his office to shield the release of documents that are politically damaging. That is the definition of a cover-up. It was true in this case. It's true in the case of the Winnipeg labs, where they said it was a case of national security. However, it's not national security. We had judges and members of Parliament identify that, in fact, it was politically damaging, not damaging or injurious to the security of our country. This is a pattern we see in the government.
If they don't want to be labelled as “corrupt” or as having participated in cover-ups, there's a remedy. That remedy would be—
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
It would be transparency.
We'd welcome an amendment that has a trigger to have documents ordered from PCO. In the absence of that, it can only be described as what it is. It's the government being true to its form, which is protecting itself politically at all costs. That's done by a cover-up.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
On the main motion as amended, go ahead, Monsieur Villemure.
Bloc
René Villemure Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to move an amendment that would be added to the end of the motion as amended. The amendment would ask that, if the committee isn't satisfied with the documents received 10 days after the request, the Privy Council provide all the requested documents within an additional 10‑day period.
I think that this amendment will bridge the gap between the two parties. Ms. Damoff never said that she doesn't want to, and Mr. Barrett did bring up a point. We don't want a cover‑up. I propose that the key factor that he seeks be the end of the 10‑day period for receiving the documents. If the parties aren't satisfied, we could automatically ask for the documents from the Privy Council, which would have to submit them within an additional 10 days.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Villemure.
I see that Ms. Damoff has raised her hand.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Villemure.
I think we should probably go with 14 days, because Mr. Wernick said he could get it to us today. In that case, we're shortening the timeline. I don't know if PCO can even provide five-year-old or nine-year-old documents that quickly, so we may have to be flexible on our timeline. Other than that, I think it's a reasonable amendment.
I appreciate the professional way Mr. Villemure conducts himself in this committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Ms. Damoff.
I'm going to excuse myself, because it's a subamendment we're dealing with, not an amendment. I want to clarify that.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
We're amending the motion as amended.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Right. Okay. I realize that you're amending the motion as amended and that, according to the clerk, is a subamendment, just to be clear.
I think we all know what we're dealing with here. The only thing I need clarification on is—as we do like timelines—the 14 days after we receive the documents from Mr. Wernick, if we're going to deal with that.
Mr. Villemure, do you agree with the change to 14 days?
Conservative
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I'm trying to be helpful to the committee, Mr. Chair.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
You may be debating a distinction without a difference. I don't have private records. I retained some PCO records relative to my function as clerk. They are the records that were provided to the Commissioner of Lobbying or to the Ethics Commissioner.
These will be PCO records. I just need to make a trip to Staples and I will get them to the clerk of the committee, but they're basically the same thing. They are the PCO records that were provided to the Commissioner of Lobbying and to the Ethics Commissioner.
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I would suggest that the clerk would want to review some of these, because some of them involve confidences and they're marked with “solicitor-client” or “commercially sensitive” or “secret” or whatnot. She will have to wade through those issues on behalf of the committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Just to clarify, by “clerk”, I think you mean the law clerk, right, Mr. Wernick?
Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It's up to you.