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.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I see that the government is very sensitive about this and would like to cover up this conversation.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
We are here to have the law clerk testify before us about the compliance or non-compliance with the July 7 motion. I'm not quite sure what the relevance is of bringing up the WE organization and whether or not the heads of the WE organization will be coming before the ethics committee.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I will allow the discussion, because the discussion is with the law clerk here. I think pretty near any question that relates to the legality of what committees can do would be relevant in this discussion with the law clerk.
Mr. Julian has a point of order.
March 4th, 2021 / 2:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You're absolutely right. The subject today is compliance with committees. Your ruling is absolutely appropriate.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It's back to you, Mr. Poilievre. I've lost track of the time. I think you have two and a half minutes left.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
If the ethics committee makes a summons for the Kielburgers to appear and they refuse, what law enforcement powers can Parliament order in order to compel testimony?
2:50 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
In the situation where a summons is issued by a committee and the witness continues to refuse to appear, the committee does not have enforcement powers itself, but it would need to, if it chose, report the matter to the House. The House would then consider it under its authority.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
If the House were to decide that the Kielburgers had to testify, what enforcement powers and enforcement bodies could it use?
2:50 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
The House could consider the matter in terms of issues of contempt of Parliament. It could consider the matter in terms of summoning an individual to the bar of the House to explain the refusal to appear.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
If they refuse to come to the bar of the House, what happens then? What powers would the House then have to compel them to appear, if the House so wished?
2:50 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Well, this is discussed in Procedure and Practice in terms of the censure, reprimand and summoning of individuals to the House. The House could consider whether it's a contempt of its privileges and make a finding to that effect.
Historically, there has been the authority to summons and issue a warrant to bring an individual into custody and bring an individual to the bar of the House. That has not been done in Canada since 1913. The circumstances are discussed in Procedure and Practice. It's not something that we see.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
To conclude, we have confirmation that the government did not provide the committee with the documents it requested in its July 7 motion; that the law clerk has no way of knowing if the government has been honest and forthright in its use of the cabinet confidentiality exemption—and the hundreds of pages of information that are excluded on that basis may or may not be subject to cabinet confidentiality; and that the House has legal enforcement abilities to compel testimony from the Kielburgers.
If that is a summary of what we've just heard, I want to thank the law clerk for appearing here today and for his work.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We will give the law clerk the opportunity to respond to that statement.
Mr. Dufresne.
2:55 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I've given the answers to the questions in that grounds were invoked that were not included in the motion with respect to cabinet confidence. I have not seen those. The motion in November did not provide that I would see behind those cabinet confidences.
In terms of the House's powers, those are set out in Procedure and Practice and include those elements that I have listed.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, both.
Next is Mr. Fragiskatos, followed by Ms. Gill.
Peter, you have six minutes.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Dufresne, for being here.
I want to ask you a question relating to the law and to the principles that underpin our legal system. Are you of the view that solicitor-client privilege is fundamental to a legal system in a democratic society?
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
I point this out because you said in your remarks—I wrote it down here, so I'll just read it for the record—that “some of the government's redactions” are based on grounds not contemplated by the July 7 motion. That's the part that Mr. Poilievre heard. I acknowledge that he heard this part. However, it seems he did not hear the rest, where you said that they “are, rather, rooted in the Access to Information Act”.
You mentioned solicitor-client privilege. You affirmed the importance of solicitor-client privilege to our legal system in Canada. There are other examples that you give, including personal information.
I put it to my colleagues on the committee that it's very important that the personal information of public servants and other third parties be protected, unless Mr. Poilievre wants the cellphone numbers or email addresses of certain public servants so he can call or email them. I'm sure he's up to it. I'm sure he would do that, but I don't think that's really important. I think that information is protected—I know it is—under the Access to Information Act, which is a critical thing.
Would you, Mr. Dufresne, have made the same redactions if it had been up to you?
2:55 p.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Yes, if the committee allowed those grounds. That's how I put it in my report.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Let me put it another way. Were the redactions consistent with the Privacy Act and other relevant acts?