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.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Clerk, do you have any way to confirm the government's claim that blacked-out content in the documents you received is really not relevant?
3:35 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I do not. If I have not seen a document or pages of a document, I cannot comment on it.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
In other words, it could be very relevant, but you wouldn't know because you haven't seen it.
3:35 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
It's true that whenever a disclosure is made, you never know what has not been provided. If you're provided with 1,000 pages, everything else has not been provided, so you never know.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Exactly. We specifically asked for that documentation to be given to you unredacted, so that you, a trusted lawyer of the House of Commons and Parliament, could determine what was and was not relevant and tell us whether the government was redacting the information because it was truly irrelevant or whether it was just covering up what it didn't want Canadians to see. Now we've learned that it covered it up, even from you, and asked you to trust that everything contained under this black ink was irrelevant and that you didn't need to see it.
That is exactly the opposite of what we asked the government to do and what the members on this committee agreed to do. Shame on all the Liberal members of this committee who specifically committed to this. Mr. Fraser specifically committed to me that the disclosure from the government would include, unredacted, the information it had previously claimed was irrelevant. That is not what happened, so the government members did not keep their word. Shame on them for deceiving Canadians and fellow parliamentarians.
Let me move on now to the subject of bringing in witnesses who refuse to co-operate.
To me your report says that the House of Commons possesses the right to confine individuals as a punishment for contempt. You go on to say that the House ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to take individuals into custody on four occasions and ordered the imprisonment of others, so could the House of Commons have law enforcement authorities take the Kielburgers into custody and compel them to testify, if it so wished and if they refused? Is that an accurate reading of the report you gave me?
3:35 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I think the report lists some of the precedents from Procedure and Practice. The latest one is from 1913, as I indicated. The other ones are even older than that, so although there are precedents, they are old precedents. It is something that has not been done in more than 100 years.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Let me say I hope it never has to be done again. I hope the Kielburgers look at the powers Parliament has, these ancient authorities that we inherited from our British ancestors, and agree to appear and answer the questions of parliamentarians honestly. I just wanted to confirm that, indeed, this power does exist, and if the Kielburgers refuse, then we can exercise these powers, and I have no doubt that Parliament would do exactly that.
We have learned today, as per your confirmation, that the committee's unmitigated powers to request and receive information have not been fully honoured; that the government is now blacking out information that it promised to release, on the grounds that it interprets that information as irrelevant; that you have no way of confirming whether the information is irrelevant, because they won't let even you see it; and that effectively there are hundreds of pages that continue to be covered up. We don't know what's behind them. We don't know if the cover-up is justified under the law. Now we, as parliamentarians, have to decide what to do.
To conclude, Mr. Dufresne, can you confirm that as parliamentarians we have the right to call any and all documents without restriction and without limitation?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Dufresne, there were a number of statements made there by Mr. Poilievre. Do you want to respond to them, or are you leaving it at what you said? Mr. Poilievre basically said the government had not released certain things, etc.
3:40 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I stated my observations at the outset, that there were grounds invoked that were not in the July motion.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay.
Mr. Fraser is next, followed by either Mr. Poilievre or Mr. Kelly.
Mr. Fraser, in any event, please start.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Before I get into my questions, Mr. Dufresne, we had the Clerk of the Privy Council testify, and a batch of documents was produced that included remittal letters from the deputy ministers of various departments.
Did you have a chance to look at that information before your appearance today?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
One of the reasons I ask is that the clerk made very clear that the process employed in redacting the information was free of political interference, and that it had been carried out by the non-partisan public service.
I'm curious. According to the motion that called for you to be invited, the purpose of your appearance here today was for you to testify as to the compliance with the July 7 motion. You say it's your view that the government was not required to produce materials that were subject to cabinet confidence. Can you confirm that you are of the view that the government was entitled to make those redactions, and do you have any reason to believe those redactions were done in an inappropriate way?
3:40 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I am of the view that the government was entitled to make those redactions as were allowed by the committee's order. I have not seen behind them, so I have no reason to have an opinion one way or another on them.
I have no cause to be concerned about what's behind this. All I have seen are redactions made on that basis.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I have a similar question. On the documents that were marked not relevant, just very quickly, is it your view that the government was not required under the July 7 motion to produce material that was not requested in the July 7 motion and that was, therefore, not relevant?
3:40 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
My view is that if something is beyond the scope of a motion, it's not relevant to a motion and it's not required by the motion, but that's a determination for the committee to make.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
So as long as the Clerk of the Privy Council was being honest about the process that was employed, would that ensure there were no redactions made for political reasons? Assuming the Clerk of the Privy Council was honest about the process that was employed, do you have any reason to believe that those redactions were inappropriate?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
On the other areas you've mentioned, where there were some redactions that were made in areas such as solicitor and client privilege, Mr. Fragiskatos asked if you believed that ground was essential and you agreed. One of the things I'll point to in the July 7 motion is that the motion suggests....
I will acknowledge that the motion says it should have been your office that made the redactions, as opposed to the government, but it does say “any redactions necessary”.
One of the things I am curious about is this. Given the fact that you believe solicitor and client privilege—as you agreed with Mr. Fragiskatos—is essential, would redacting that information, in fact, be necessary?
3:45 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
At the end of the day, it's not up to me. It's up to the committee to decide what grounds to accept. If it asks me whether there are good public policy considerations behind that, I think there are.
Does that mean the committee cannot have access to this at all, or does it mean it would be in camera, with safeguards and so on and so forth? That's up to the committee to decide.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Sure, I understand.
The reason I ask is that it says “any redactions necessary”, but then it says including “personal information” and “privacy”, which suggests to me that there could, in theory, be redactions made that were necessary for other reasons. If the government interpreted that to mean the legislative standard that, as in your argument previously, has some public interest in being served.... Can you confirm your earlier testimony that, in fact, the redactions that were made were entirely consistent with that legislative standard?
3:45 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I can confirm that the redactions that were made were consistent with the definitions under the Access to Information Act.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I want to follow up on a line of questioning by Mr. Julian about the percentage of documents that were redacted. His questions asked if they were wholly or partially redacted. When you gave those percentages, that was the number of pages that included a redaction and not pages redacted in full. Is that correct?