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.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Can you give us more specific figures in the next few days?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Dufresne. I greatly appreciate it.
Honestly, I must say that I'm very frustrated, as a member of the House of Commons and a member of this committee. After the start of the pandemic, we were given the task of reviewing all government spending and ensuring that the spending was done properly. When spending was questionable, we were responsible for following up. We tried to do so this summer. The Prime Minister's Office then suspended Parliament, instead of letting the Standing Committee on Finance ask questions. Now we're learning more about the number of redacted or censored documents. We're talking about over 600 pages.
Rather than ask Mr. Dufresne a question, I want to make a comment. The committee must get to the bottom of things, have access to unredacted documents and release to the public whatever needs to be publicly available. The House of Commons gave this responsibility to the Standing Committee on Finance at the start of the crisis.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you.
I don't know if Mr. Dufresne has anything he wants to add to that or not.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
All right.
We're back to Mr. Poilievre, and he will be followed by Mr. Fraser.
Pierre, the floor is yours.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To sum up the situation, we're talking about a scandal where the Prime Minister stepped in to award a half-billion dollar contract to a group that had paid his family half a million dollars. Our committee asked for all the documents related to this situation, but the government redacted hundreds of pages. After a long period of filibustering, the government said that it wanted to provide all the documents, except the documents protected by cabinet confidence. Now we're learning that, contrary to their commitment, the Liberals again redacted documents on the basis that the documents weren't relevant.
Mr. Dufresne, you confirmed three things today. First, the government didn't honour the committee's motion to release all the documents without redactions. Second, some documents are still redacted on the basis that they aren't relevant. Third, you have no way of knowing whether the documents redacted on the basis of cabinet confidence were actually redacted for this reason.
Would you like to add anything to my comments?
4:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Mr. Fraser asked me earlier whether, based on my understanding of the November motion, the appropriate steps were taken with regard to the irrelevant documents. I raised the possibility of an interpretation to the effect that these documents weren't required by the original motion, but—
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
We don't know whether the documents are relevant because we don't know what's in them. Since the government prevented everyone from accessing them, we can't determine whether their content is relevant. You can't magically know whether these documents are relevant.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
With regard to the Kielburgers, who refuse to appear even though they have been summoned by the committees, I'll read the passage from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice that you referred to today:
... the House of Commons possesses the right to confine individuals as a punishment for contempt, although it has not exercised this authority since 1913. In the years immediately following Confederation, the House ordered the Sergeant-at-Arms to take individuals into custody on four occasions and ordered the imprisonment of others. Again in 1913, the Sergeant-at-Arms was ordered to imprison an individual.
I agree that we don't want to imprison anyone. However, I just want to confirm in French what you already said in English. At worst, if a witness refuses to appear after receiving an order from Parliament, we have the power to turn to the Sergeant-at-Arms and even the police to compel the witness to appear.
4:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I simply referred to the background on the use of this parliamentary power. The last time that the House used this power was in 1913. The other precedents are older. This certainly isn't a current thing. The House has several powers, including the power to find someone in contempt of Parliament. There are options available. This option hasn't been used for a very long time. This may raise some issues.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
As noted in the committee report that you sent us, the House of Commons used some of these powers in 2007 to compel Karlheinz Schreiber to appear before one of its committees.
So when people refuse to appear, we have powers, as parliamentarians, to compel them to do so. We could use this tool.
4:10 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Yes. I referred to this precedent in the case of Mr. Schreiber. The House ordered him to appear before the committee in question while he was incarcerated.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thanks to both of you.
We'll now turn to Mr. Fraser, and we'll have time for another couple of quick questions after Mr. Fraser.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dufresne, I just had a note come through that Mr. Poilievre tweeted out not long ago that, during this meeting, you revealed that the government did not reveal all the documents the finance committee ordered released in the summer, and that the government is blacking out information it claims is not relevant. From your testimony, I don't think that's a fair description.
I think what you actually said is that the non-partisan public service has redacted information that was not relevant because this committee didn't ask for it in the first place. Is that a better characterization of your testimony?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. The member is asking the clerk to comment on the relevance of content that he has not seen. He hasn't seen the documents.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
It's unfair to ask someone to comment on something they've not seen.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I think that's happened here before. That's not a point of order.
Mr. Fraser, the floor is yours.