Finance Committee on Oct. 28th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will reconvene the meeting.

There have been some side discussions. I think we might be able to break the impasse. I was talking to Mr. Poilievre as well.

Pierre, you had suggested that we go in camera. We couldn't start in camera because we were in suspension. We need a motion to go in camera. From what I can see, based on the offer made last night—I'm trying to figure out what the offer from Mr. Fraser was—if we can establish that and establish the ground, we might be able to come to some kind of an agreement. I think the best way to do that would be in camera, if people are willing to go that route.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I would object to going in camera unless we have something solid to discuss.

This has been going on for three weeks. The opposition members have offered a whole bunch of different solutions. We simply haven't seen, from the government's side, any movement at all. In fact, yesterday the government was right back to its original position. It was all about killing the privilege motion and not having access to documents that are really important.

Unless there is something that my opposition colleagues believe is worth discussing, I don't see why we would go in camera. I don't think the government has even been discussing in a way that makes sense. We need to have access to documents. We have a couple of ways of going about that. One is through the law clerk, and the other is by having an impartial speaker rule on the privilege motion. We've seen both stymied.

I will defer to my opposition colleagues, and if they feel that it would be useful, I certainly won't block it. My initial reaction is that I've found it very discouraging that the government is intent on continuing this filibuster rather than getting to the heart of the matter, despite many opposition proposals that are very reasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Does anybody want to come in?

I don't think the parties are that far apart when we look at the nub of the issue, but it's up to you folks. Do you want to go in camera?

Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

In a sense, it is up to the government.

It is my view, and I think the view of the opposition MPs, that we need a solution whereby an independent player can review the redactions and exclusions and tell the committee if they were appropriate. If the redactions and exclusions were appropriate, then we're fine. If they weren't, then we're not.

I did speak to the law clerk's office a few moments ago, and they confirmed a number of things to me. One is that they have the ability to review sensitive material and maintain its confidentiality. They have the highest level of clearance, as high as that of ministers of the Crown. If they were directed to keep the information that they view secret and only comment in general terms to committee members, they would honour that direction. Having obtained the highest levels of security clearances, they will, we can trust, honour that word.

We in the opposition are prepared to adopt a motion that would allow the law clerk and his office to review the information about the WE scandal that has been either redacted or excluded and to then report back to us on whether said exclusions were justified. If the government is prepared to allow that, then we can put the matter to bed and get on to the urgently needed work of the finance committee.

I think it is appalling that so much time is being wasted when we should be working on the economy. That's the job of the finance committee.

If that kind of an offer would end the government—and the Liberal—filibuster, then I would be prepared to do it. If, on the other hand, the government is not prepared to allow the law clerk to view both the excluded and the redacted information, then I don't see any reason to go in camera.

It comes down to that. The government members can signal to us right now which of those is their position.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll turn to Sean, because I asked him if he could put something in writing that basically spells out what the proposal was last night.

I should report to the committee that I did talk to the law clerk as well. Certainly, he'd be willing to come before the committee. Basically, what he said to me was that the original motion did not request a cabinet confidence. Therefore, the documents on the cabinet end were consistent with the committee's order. For him to go to the original motion on the other documents, other than cabinet, he would need to see the underlying originals so that they could attest as to whether they were done properly. We talked about the areas where the public service does redact based on the Access to Information Act and the Public Service Employment Act. Regardless of that, he said he would need to see the underlying documents, and then he could attest as to whether they did meet the committee's request.

I'll turn to you, Sean.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, you indicated to me just shortly before the meeting started that there was a suggestion that perhaps we should go in camera. I'll move that we do go in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It's been moved. We'll go to a vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I could—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just hold on, Pierre. There is a bit of a problem, because you asked me earlier if we could start in camera.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Right. May I address that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just hold on. If you want to address it in public, I didn't realize....

Mr. Clerk, are we in camera or in public right now?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Alexandre Roger]

We are currently in public, and televised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I don't think there's anything wrong with having a brief conversation in camera. I just don't want us to get into an in camera situation that turns into a private filibuster. I wanted to put some time limits on it.

Let's go in camera and hear what the government has to say. If they've come back with an offer to address the concerns we have, we'd be willing to consider them, but I'd like to have a strict 20-minute time limit on the in camera session, after which we would return to a public meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Can we do it in 20 minutes, Mr. Fraser?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I expect so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are you moving that we go in camera for 20 minutes?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

I propose that we move in camera for 20 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Do we need a vote, or are we agreed?

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

We're agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Clerk, we will have to get you to lock us in camera.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead.

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

Mr. Ste-Marie wasn't consulted.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Anyone who says nothing consents. In other words, I agree.