Finance Committee on Oct. 28th, 2020

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

—the Speaker's ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I believe what Mr. Fragiskatos is doing is quoting the statement related to the point of privilege.

Is that correct?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

That is correct, Mr. Chair, on the basic observation that we can't know where we're going until we know where we've been.

A previous colleague of ours has put on the record thoughts that I think this committee should be open to. It, again, is meant to put the matter into a wider context.

Mr. Julian continues to intervene here. Again, I raised a question of privilege before. I didn't push it, but the more I am interrupted—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fragiskatos, you're off topic now.

It's Mr. Julian's parliamentary right to raise a point of order and raise relevance. It's also your right to use a quote, as long as it's relevant, and I believe it is, because you're quoting past testimony related to the point of privilege.

The floor is yours.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Nicholson continued by adding:

The government wishes to provide members with the information that is necessary for them to perform their duty of holding the government to account. Ministers and public servants will always strive to provide parliamentarians with information in a full and transparent manner, but we must balance this obligation with our fundamental duty to protect information for reasons of national security, national defence and foreign relations. This has been our approach in relation to the issue of the transfer of Afghan prisoners.

Mr. Chair, as you will recall, the December order called for uncensored documents. It listed eight different categories of documents to be produced. The order did not specify exactly when such documents should be produced, who should produce them or whom they should be produced for. The order made no reference to the confidential information being protected or that the Security of Information Act or other laws would be respected.

In light of this I would like to take the opportunity to note the following facts for your information and for the information of the House:

In dealing with matters that must legitimately be kept secret for reasons of state, there is a dilemma in establishing a system of control. At some point secrecy must end and publicity begin, and at this juncture there must inevitably be a gap in knowledge and power 'to send for persons, papers and records' between the controllers and the controlled. If Parliament shares the secret knowledge, then the press and public must accept Parliament's viewpoint on trust; if Parliament is not privy to the secrets, then Parliament must accept some other person's conclusions on trust. There is little evidence in Canada that either Parliament or the public would accept Parliament as part of the inner circle of control, privy to the secrets of state. Crown privilege is part of the common law that recognizes that Parliament has a duty to protect these and other public interests.

While the member opposite may wish to invoke the idea of parliamentary supremacy to support this point it must be remembered that the Crown is as much a constituent part of Parliament as is the House of Commons and the Senate. These parts can act to define the powers of each through statute but the House alone cannot make law nor extend the scope of its privileges. The government wishes to provide members with the information that is necessary for them to perform their duty of holding the government to account. The government, of course, has great respect for the work of the House of Commons and its committees. Ministers and public servants will always strive to provide parliamentarians with information in a full, transparent manner. However, we must balance this obligation with our fundamental duty to protect information for national security, national defence and foreign relations. This has been a consistent approach by successive governments.

He ends his remarks by saying the following:

In 1887 Alpheus Todd, the former Librarian of Parliament, explained the principle as follows in his treatise on parliamentary government: Considerations of public policy, and a due regard to the interests of the State, occasionally demand, however, that information sought for by members of the legislature should be withheld, at the discretion and upon the general responsibility of ministers. This principle is systematically recognised in all parliamentary transactions: were it otherwise, it would be impossible to carry on the government with safety and honour.

Those are the relevant points that I wanted to read into the record. It is important for us to consider, particularly for our Conservative friends across the way, because members of their own party have voiced positions that now contradict the current perspective and position of Conservative members on this committee and the current Conservative leadership, might I add.

This will make Mr. Julian happy, I think, if I could have read into the record the quotation from Mr. Poilievre that comes from 2014 in which he voiced a position that mirrors very much what we have heard tonight from his previous colleagues. I won't do that because I've done it in previous meetings and in keeping with what you've called for here, Mr. Chair, to stay on topic because I always do. I see Mr. Julian nodding his head in agreement and I appreciate that.

The fact remains that we have a contradiction in position. The Conservative Party, when they were in government, held a particular point of view that now does not at all align with the take they have taken in opposition, the position they have put forward at these meetings, in Parliament and in the public. In my mind, this raises a fundamental question, and that relates to democracy itself.

The opposition has a fundamental role to play in any democracy, in any meaningful democracy. Citizens must trust their government, but they must also trust their opposition to raise matters of importance and to be consistent in their perspective on the issues.

When the opposition, in this case, is not maintaining consistency, then it raises a particular problem, one where, I would say, the faith of citizens is called directly into question. That itself—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Hold on, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Kelly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you.

While this is an interesting topic, I'm not sure that Mr. Fragiskatos' critique or assessment of the efficacy of the current opposition is relevant to the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, I would say that is debatable.

Mr. Fragiskatos, I do think members make points about the other person's position, but stick as closely as you can to relevance.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was making the point that it is about consistency. It is about showing citizens that at this committee we are doing the work of the people.

When we have the opposition articulating a perspective that they know full well, or ought to know, does not align with where they were just a few years ago when in government, maybe that proves the point. When in government, there are particular responsibilities that cannot be ignored, responsibilities that don't fall from the sky but are completely in line with parliamentary tradition and procedures. However, when in opposition, the tendency of this Conservative Party has been to craft a particular narrative that suits partisan gain and not public gain.

This is at a time when we see the rise of mistrust in long-established democracies, not so much here in Canada, and in fact, I'm quite happy with where we are in terms of democracy in Canada, generally speaking. We can always do better, but we're in a good position. However, in other long-established democracies, where faith in democracy has been shaken to its very core, and I won't give examples, but I think you know what I'm speaking about, I think it's incumbent upon all of us, including the official opposition, to take positions that are in line with the common good, in line with the public good, and are not contradictory.

When citizens see members of the opposition who, just a few years ago when they were in government, were articulating a particular position on the matters that we're discussing here today now suddenly changing their tune entirely, going in a different direction, it raises particular questions around the consequences of that, the implications of that for Canadian democracy.

Again I point to the rise of populism in particular democracies where it has taken shape. One of the reasons for this is the loss of trust. Citizens have to be able to trust elected representatives. When we see elected representatives, for political reasons, running around and changing arguments, changing positions to suit political interests in the name of playing a political game, it does not bode well for democracy.

Very regularly I hear from the citizens I represent in London North Centre, who are not seized with this. They're seized with the fact that they might be losing a business. They might have concerns about their kids' future, whether they're going to college, whether they're going to university. I am focused on the issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fragiskatos, I am going to have to ask you to tie this back to either the quotes that you were giving from previous Parliaments or whatever. We're going a little beyond the subamendment, I believe.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I will, Mr. Chair. Again, it's just about putting the entire matter into context. If I strayed there a bit, I apologize.

The issue, though, remains that when we have before us pretty straightforward matters and government members—Liberal members, rather—showing themselves to be willing to engage with the opposition, willing to reach a compromise, still we see particularly the Conservative Party holding firm on these points, points that they would not have ever entertained just a few years ago.

It presents a problem, and not just for this committee. I would ask Conservative colleagues to think beyond the here and now, to think about what message they are sending to the citizens they represent and to Canadians, generally speaking. You can't play these sorts of games and get away with it. People will pay attention. They might not be following us on CPAC right now from beginning to end, but they certainly are watching, Mr. Chair. They want their politicians to be clear and focused and straight with them.

I thought it was quite relevant to put into the record quotes that are important for us to think about, quotes from Mr. MacKay and quotes from Mr. Nicholson. There was Mr. Lukiwski, whom I mentioned as well. This was just a few years ago, Mr. Chair. It's not as if I'm reaching back into the annals of parliamentary history and quoting Robert Stanfield or Joe Clark.

By the way, I wonder, if it was still Mr. Stanfield's or Mr. Clark's Conservative Party, what the Conservatives would be after today. Would they still be acting in this way? It's unfortunate that what was a proud Progressive Conservative tradition has morphed into something entirely different, something quite seized with scoring political points to the detriment of Canadian democracy.

I'm a Liberal—and a proud Liberal—but I think there is something to the idea that Robert Stanfield was the best prime minister that Canada never had. I think there is something to the idea that Joe Clark was a tremendous foreign minister for Canada.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Look what's happened to the Conservative Party now. The record of difference—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I have a point of order.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

—between where the Conservatives were just a few years ago and where they are now illustrates everything that I'm talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Order, Peter.

Sorry, I was yelling order at you, and I was on mute.

Mr. Falk has a point of order.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Chairman, the content that we're hearing now is not relevant at all, and he has strayed a great deal away from the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I would agree with you, Mr. Falk.

Mr. Fragiskatos, could you pull back to make your remarks relevant to the subamendment or to your earlier remarks on precedent?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

All of that, Mr. Chair, I think, is relevant to the wider issue.

I''ll conclude my remarks, though. I think my colleagues know very well where I stand, and I urge them....

Perhaps I'm being unfair because I do know that Mr. Kelly is a new MP. I did see a few others before. I think it's Ms. Jansen. She's participating in the meeting. I do see Mr. Cumming. Oh, it's great to see Mr. Cumming back, actually. He was, as we all know, a member of the committee in the previous session and contributed tremendously in that. However, they will not have worked with Mr. MacKay. They will not have worked with Mr. Nicholson. I point to those two individuals in particular because as ministers in the Harper government, they were obviously quite familiar with the issues and the responsibilities that—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The comments that we're hearing now are completely irrelevant to the subamendment. I would ask that if the member is out of material that actually pertains to the subamendment, maybe we should move to a vote and move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, I would have to agree with Mr. Falk.

Mr. Fragiskatos, stick to the subamendment or relate your comments to your previous remarks.

Thank you.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I have other colleagues who I know want to get on the record, Mr. Chair, and perhaps Mr. Falk was offended that I didn't mention him. I know he was a colleague of Mr. MacKay and Mr. Nicholson.

It wasn't disrespect, Mr. Falk. I understand and appreciate that you've been a parliamentarian for some time. If it was taken as disrespect by you, the fact that I didn't mention you and focused on your other colleagues, it was not a sign of disrespect.

I appreciate the time, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much.

Let's continue to find a way forward, a reasonable way forward, which Liberal members are actively seeking here and have been seeking for some time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Next on my list is Mr. Fraser, followed by Ms. Dzerowicz, followed by Mr. Fonseca.

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Pardon me, but I'm starting off with a sip of water. I hope you don't mind. Thank you.

We're debating the subamendment to the amendment to the main motion that touches on privilege.

The way we got here began initially with my colleague, Ms. Dzerowicz, putting a motion on the table to conduct pre-budget consultations. Mr. Chair, you've made clear to this committee that if we're going to do that, we need to do them fairly quickly, because the Standing Orders allow us to do them, but only allow us to table a report prior to the end of this year—a few days before the House rises for Christmas.

Mr. Poilievre jumped in with a privilege motion which relates to the document production surrounding the WE Charity controversy. There were a couple of problems with the initial privilege motion that relate to the subamendment. The problems had to do with the sort of oddities that surrounded the government's initial delivery of documents to members of the committee, and specifically how they were uploaded. The government, as we got near prorogation, delivered the information to critics on USBs, and at a similar point in time, the documents were being uploaded, but not all of them were uploaded. In any event, they have not officially made it before this committee.

The initial privilege motion, you'll recall, failed to bring documents from the previous Parliament into the privilege motion, which I believe you ruled was out of order as a result, but a majority of the members of the committee overturned that particular decision that you took.

In an effort to remedy the evidentiary issue, an amendment to the motion was put forward that sought to bring some, but not all, of the documents that the government produced into the record. That's still a problem, because the documents that were not included in the proposed amendment were the very documents that explained why the redactions existed. Those documents include the remittal letters, which I've spoken about at length before this committee, which largely outlined a couple of reasons for the redactions that have taken place.

Generally speaking, and I think this is very important.... I've seen a number of members of the opposition draw attention to the Speaker's ruling indicating that the committee can review the documents and decide what to do with them. The committee is jumping into an assumption, or at least certain members appear to be jumping into an assumption, that privilege has been breached without having actually reviewed the records. I think the very least we should do, if we're going to take this back to the Speaker, is the bare minimum that he suggested we do by actually reviewing the documents.

Of course, we have gone through great lengths to try to get some of these documents onto the record if they are not already there. One of the problems that remains has to do with the fact that the explanation behind the redactions are not in place.

In order to help remedy this defect, the subamendment tried to do a couple of different things. In fact, this is I think the third subamendment that we've tried to have to help remedy this problem. The first one would have required a comparison of the two complete sets of documents that were produced. The second subamendment had to do with adding page annotations so we could quickly understand the differences between what's on the record and what the government actually produced—both of which were defeated. The third and final subamendment is the one we are debating now.

The subamendment before us seeks to do a couple of things. Largely, its purpose is to prepare two complete sets of documents so we can understand which redactions the government was responsible for and which redactions the law clerk was responsible for. Then we would have the opportunity to review those documents on the evidentiary record that is before this committee in this session of Parliament. That would allow us to understand, with a greater degree of confidence in fact, what the government has produced and whether it has met the obligations that were outlined in the initial motion.

There are other problems with the motion specifically around the issue of cabinet confidence, both whether we requested the documents and whether the request that has been made has been satisfied. First, on the issue of incomplete disclosure, the opposition's privilege motion and associated amendment are seeking to bury the explanations that the government has provided for why the redactions exist. I think at a bare minimum we should allow the remittal letters into the record so we can understand the very clear explanation that has been given but the opposition refuses to allow on the evidentiary record before this committee.

An offer has recently come in from the Clerk of the Privy Council, who has specifically asked to testify, or at least he has made known his intention or willingness to be available at this committee's behest to give evidence on the record as to why certain redactions were made. I think we would benefit from this. If any of the members of the opposition, although we're debating the subamendment now, are willing to have the Clerk of the Privy Council come and testify as he has indicated, I would be more than happy to be interrupted, because I think that would allow us to make some headway here. However, seeing no interjections, I will continue. Perhaps that will be a debate on a further subamendment, because if we're going to make a decision as to whether we should take up the Clerk on that invitation, those who are opposed should make it known on the record.

The issue, though, around incomplete disclosure really has to do with the principle that's foundational to parliamentary democracy, and that's due process. It infiltrates every element of our democracy, whether it's our criminal justice system in Canada or whether it's our ordinary parliamentary discourse. Indeed the foundations of responsible government depend on the opportunity to ask a question and give an answer. Here we have opposition members who are insisting that they ask a question, provide the answer themselves and shut out everyone else from having an opportunity to give an explanation. That doesn't sound like fair process to me. It sounds highly inappropriate.

Perhaps I'll explain the cabinet issue and return in detail to the shortcomings on the incomplete disclosure that I've been on so far. The cabinet documents issue is really a core sticking point. It's really important that cabinet confidences be protected, but before we even get there in this analysis, I think it's worth revisiting the initial motion.

The whole basis of the allegation that privilege has been violated is that the government failed to meet the conditions outlined in the committee's motion that was adopted in July, which members of the governing party supported at the time, I recall. There's an important reason why we supported the motion even though, frankly, we would rather get on with the business of pre-budget consultations, because I know I'm getting requests in my own community and across Canada to appear.

In any event, the motion that was adopted by the finance committee in the previous session of this Parliament reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the Committee order that any contracts concluded with We Charity and Me to We, all briefing notes, memos and emails, including the contribution agreement between the government and the organization, from senior officials prepared for or sent to any Minister regarding the design and creation of the Canada Student Service Grant—