Yes.
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.
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.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
When Mr. Julian says we're up to 600 pages, that might include one page with the personal cellphone number of an individual public servant.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
In fact, the true volume would not be 600 pages at all. It would be a much smaller number.
3:45 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
If you're looking at the volume of redactions, yes.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I want to ask one final question. It follows up on Mr. Poilievre's line of questioning about the second motion on document production. Before you got too far down this path, you answered that the disclosure requested in the second motion was predicated on the parameters of the July 7 motion. There's a principle of law about how you interpret lists. When you describe a general category that includes subcategories, those subcategories are only required if they fall within the broader category.
In the second motion—and I think this is what you were getting at but I'm curious as to your opinion—were you saying that because the second motion requested only documents that were requested in the first motion, in fact, the subcategories requested were requested only insofar as they were requested in the July 7 motion?
3:45 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
That's my understanding, but at the end of the day, it's up to the committee to make its determination on that point.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I was asking only for your interpretation, so thank you very much. I appreciate that.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you both.
Now we are on to Mr. Poilievre.
You will be followed by Ms. Koutrakis, I believe.
Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Dufresne, can you point me to where, in any of the motions the committee adopted, the government was permitted to black out information that it considered to be irrelevant?
3:45 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I do not believe that's stated in either of the motions.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Right, so Mr. Fraser's whole line of questioning comes crashing down like a house of cards. He was claiming that somehow the “irrelevant” exclusion was contained in the original motion. It was not, as you've just confirmed, and it was not included in the second motion. Therefore, the government was in no way empowered to black out things it considered to be irrelevant.
There could be all kinds of evidence of corruption related to this scandal that the government considers irrelevant to the public. I mean, let's remember that this is a scandal about the Prime Minister personally intervening to award half a billion dollars to a group that gave his family half a million dollars. It's the kind of corruption that puts politicians behind bars in other countries, but it's the kind of corruption that is apparently accepted in this government, and now we expect the same government that engages in these practices to have the authority to black out information that it doesn't consider relevant to the public. That is not what this committee requested.
Mr. Fraser personally committed to me and to this committee that the only information that would be excluded in the disclosure to you would be on the grounds of cabinet confidence. That is a commitment that he and the government have violated. That will have to be taken into consideration the next time we agree to a compromise with him and with the members of the government. I'm very disappointed to learn that they did not honour the commitment we agreed to when we passed the second motion in November.
Mr. Clerk, in going back to our original discussion about witness appearances, I'm going to again read from the report you gave me:
In order to facilitate the witness's attendance, the Committee presented a report to the House requesting that the Speaker issue a warrant for his appearance. The House subsequently concurred in the report.
In other words, a committee can pass a motion seeking a warrant to physically compel witnesses to appear. If the House then concurs in the issuance of that warrant, the Speaker would then seek law enforcement to carry it out. Is that your understanding, Mr. Dufresne?
3:50 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
The committee would first adopt a motion to issue a summons, and then serve that summons on the witness and see if the witness complies. If it did not, then the committee could report the matter to the House and the House could instruct the Sergeant-at-Arms to take necessary steps.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Those steps could include bringing the individual to the committee or to the bar of the House.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
This is something that would be coordinated, according to the House's direction, with the Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms and potential authorities. As I said, we have not seen that. The latest precedent was bringing Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber to testify while he was incarcerated. A warrant was issued so that he could be brought from that institution to the committee. It's a different situation.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
The Sergeant-at-Arms would use law enforcement in order to compel an appearance in those circumstances.
3:50 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
That would be if it were ordered by the House, which, as I say, it has not been in a long time.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Right, but the authority is there that we are the grand inquest of the nation, and therefore we have the power to convene any persons for testimony, whether they are willing or not.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
As the grand inquest of the nation, do we—as Parliament—have the power to compel anyone on Canadian soil to appear and testify?
3:50 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
You have the power to order them, and the House then has disciplinary powers if there is a breach. It could include a finding of contempt of Parliament. It could be calling the individual to the bar of the House.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thanks to both of you.
We will go next to Ms. Koutrakis. To give a heads-up, we are back to the Bloc for two and a half minutes and then the NDP for two and a half minutes, the Conservatives for five and the Liberals for five.
Ms. Koutrakis.