Evidence of meeting #24 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was documents.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:05 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Let me move to a question about French. I wonder why some documents were not received in French until December 14. Could you clarify that?
3:05 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
They were just documents that had been accidentally forgotten. They should have been included. It was more of an administrative problem.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Dufresne and Madame Gauthier, for your presence here today and your work on behalf of elected officials. We hope that you and your families continue to stay safe during this pandemic.
Mr. Dufresne, I want to come back to your initial points around the editing or censoring of the documents going beyond the committee order. You referenced the Access to Information Act. Of course, the Access to Information Act is highly criticized. In many respects, it's a “hiding” access to information act, because of the grounds for exclusion.
I'm very interested in knowing to what degree the government went beyond the committee's order of July 7. It's now obvious that it did, and fortunately your examination has indicated that. I would like to know how many pages were redacted or blacked out under the grounds—which are wide, in access to information—of personal information or third party information. How many of the pages were blacked out because of that?
3:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I'll see if I can provide that information, Mr. Julian. In terms of percentages of redactions that we had, the ground of privacy amounted to 4%. The ground of third party information amounted to 1%.
3:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
It was 5,000 pages.
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
At 5,000, we're talking about 50 pages on third party and about 200 pages on personal information.
3:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Ms. Gauthier can correct me, but this is where the redactions appear on a given document.
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Okay. Thank you.
What percentage of the 5,000 pages contained information on the vulnerability of the government's computer or communications systems or solicitor-client privilege?
3:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Solicitor-client privilege was minimal, so 0.0%. There was one instance. Vulnerabilities would be 2%.
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
That's about 100 pages.
What was the percentage for protecting the accounts of consultations or deliberations in which directors, officers or employees of a government institution, a minister of the Crown, or the staff of a minister participated?
3:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
It was minimal, so 0.0%.
3:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Right. It was cited on about three documents.
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
We're talking about a few hundred pages, just the same.
I know you can't comment—you have to comment on the law as it is—but our Access to Information Act is highly criticized because of the vast exemptions you can drive a truck through. It's a matter of frustration for many parliamentarians. Thank you for that.
I'll move now to the issue of respecting a committee summons and the Kielburger brothers. Recent very serious allegations have come out—despite the abrupt prorogation in August and the months of chaos we had in this committee due to Liberal filibusters—of abuse of charitable contributions and abuse of charitable funds. Of course, it's important that committees get to the bottom of that.
You indicated that a committee that issues a summons that is ignored can report the matter to the House. The House can then deliberate and make a finding of contempt of Parliament. You cited the case of 1913. For those who are tuning in, particularly from the parliamentary press gallery, perhaps it would be germane if you could reference that last case where there was a finding of contempt of Parliament and what the results were.
3:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
The description of the 1913 case is set out on page 132 of Procedure and Practice, as follows:
In 1913, R.C. Miller, a witness before the Public Accounts Committee, refused to answer questions. This was reported to the House, whereupon it adopted a motion summoning Mr. Miller to appear before the Bar and answer questions. Mr. Miller made two appearances before the Bar and on both occasions was permitted to have counsel. He was directed to withdraw after he refused to provide the information requested by the Committee. The House then adopted a motion stating that Mr. Miller was in contempt of the House and that he should be imprisoned. Mr. Miller was again brought before the Bar and the resolution was read to him.
No private citizen has been called to the Bar since 1913.
It's certainly not something we see.
3:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you.
I certainly hope, as I believe we all do, that the Kielburger brothers will respond to a committee summons. Ultimately, it is quite unprecedented for witnesses to say that they refuse to respond to a committee summons. If that is the case, as you cited in terms of 1913, there can be somewhat serious consequences.
3:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
It is something that can be reported to the House. The House has its powers to address those matters.
3:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll pick up those other 20 seconds in your next round, Peter.
We'll turn now to Mr. Poilievre for a five-minute round. He will be followed by Ms. Dzerowicz.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Thank you.
If the House of Commons passes a motion insisting that the Kielburger brothers honour the committee's request to testify, and the Kielburger brothers refuse, there is precedent for the House to order law enforcement to imprison and compel testimony before the House or one of its committees. Do I understand that correctly?
3:15 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
There is the precedent that I highlighted. It is an old precedent. It is more than 100 years old, so that is factored into the strength of that.
3:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
If it's old, it means it survived the test of time. Certainly, we have the unmitigated right to call for persons to answer questions. If that right is not upheld, then we as parliamentarians have a duty to use law enforcement to uphold it. That is what we will do if the Kielburgers refuse to answer the questions we're asking.
You have said that the government excluded from the documents it gave you information that it considered lacking in relevance. Where in our November motion did we allow the government to exclude documents it considered irrelevant?