Evidence of meeting #5 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.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Mr. Fraser, I'm just reading this motion over again.
Mr. Julian, if you read the motion closely, I don't think the government can send a different batch of documents. We're really dealing with the same documents related to the motion.
Mr. Fraser.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thank you.
Yes, Peter, I don't think that's the case. In fact, part of the motion brings the Clerk of the Privy Council here to explain why the particular redactions were made. I don't anticipate that this motion creates wiggle room for the government to use a different reason for the redactions than was given before.
I only hesitate, as you pointed out, because.... The government is going to respond to this motion. Then the law clerk will come and say whether they've satisfied the motion or not. If the law clerk says no, the motion we've discussed today does not preclude us from immediately coming back to the debate we've been having over the past number of weeks.
November 19th, 2020 / 4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I'm not asking that. I'm saying that the reason is very clearly cabinet confidences, but you are unable to—and I understand this completely—assure us 100% that the pages that were excluded last time under cabinet confidences will be the only pages excluded this time.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I think the motion tries to cure this very issue.
I don't want to stick my neck out on something that a different person is going to respond to. The protection that we baked into this suggested motion was to have the law clerk come and testify about his review of the documents and to say whether the government satisfied the original motion or not. Presumably, if they say no, we're back where we are. If they say yes, it's satisfied, I would assume the privilege point would disappear.
I don't know how else to solve this problem, other than the language that I thought we were on the verge of agreeing to. If you're not comfortable with the language, then I guess we'll go back to the drawing board.
I feel like I've said what my understanding of it is. We should see if the committee has the will to support it.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Just so we're all clear, if what is done here doesn't meet with the law clerk's approval, then we go back to the original motion, amendment and subamendment. Is that correct? Is that the protection there for committee members who've had this concern in the first place? I want to make sure that for those who had concerns, the protection is there to go back to the original motion should the law clerk decide that's not the case.
We have Mrs. Jansen and Ms. Dzerowicz.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I'm just wondering if Mr. Fraser is willing to use the term “same batch” when he's explaining to us what documents this includes. Are you willing to actually use that terminology? It will be the same batch of documents that were sent the first time.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Assuming is never a good thing, especially when you're doing something this legal. I'm asking if you are willing to use the words “same batch”.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I'm not fussy about it. The language came from Pierre. I don't have problems with that. My reservation—
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Are you willing to use the words “same batch”, then? That's the question. You are willing to say that.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I've just indicated that I am and that I think it's all the same documents.
My only reservation is that it's not me who is going to be responding to this motion, so I can't predict what the exact response will be.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
You are clear that what this motion is talking about is the exact same batch of documents as the previous.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I expect that the motion is dealing with the same batch of documents. I don't want to just repeat my reservation. I think you know what it is.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
In response to what you said, Mr. Chair, if for some reason those who feel that...once the law clerk comes, we come back to this motion, amendment and subamendment.
I also want to point out that it's fairly quick. It's November 24, which is next Tuesday, and before November 25. It's actually being done very quickly and as expeditiously as possible. I think if we pass this today, we can then move to submit those documents immediately to the law clerk and have the law clerk come before us before the 25th, which is next Wednesday. We could then just proceed.
I know we all want to get to pre-budget consultations. I think Mr. Fraser has done an outstanding job in explaining what was agreed to with the motion.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I still agree with the arguments that Ms. Dzerowicz is making. There is a risk. Are we, or are we not, talking about the same batch of documents? The committee's calendar shows that our next meeting will be next Tuesday. That is when we will know.
Now I would like to ask Mr. Fraser a question.
As Mr. Poilievre said, you are a parliamentary secretary. When you speak, you do so on behalf of the government. I understand that you cannot tell us at the moment whether or not this is the same batch of documents. But how long would it take you to send a text to Mr. Rodriguez about this, or to go and see somebody from the government who could give us an unambiguous answer? If we are talking about five or 10 minutes, I feel that it's worth it. It could calm all the apprehensions that committee members are feeling. We could then continue our work.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Mr. Chair, just to simplify this, I think we're asking for the same batch of documents subject to the conditions we've laid out in the motion we've discussed.
One of the issues I have, Gabriel, is that there are different batches of documents within the batch, if you'll pardon me, and the custodian of each of those is a different ministry. Each of those ministries will have to respond to the motion for the documents that are within its custody. I'm not trying to be tricky. I don't want to start speaking for the person who is going to be responding and providing these documents in accordance with the motion.
I expect that the government will satisfy the motion. If it doesn't, I think the safety valve that is baked into this motion is that we immediately come back to the point of privilege.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I think I have a solution, and I'd be curious as to how Mr. Julian, Mr. Fraser, Mr. Ste-Marie and whoever else would comment on this. We could simply say “including all documents the government provided the law clerk in August”.
It would then read, “that the committee order that by November 24, 2020, the Government provide the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel with all documents as originally requested in the July 7, 2020 motion moved by the Member for New Westminster-Burnaby, including all documents the government provided the Law Clerk in August, without any redaction, omission or exclusion except as would be justified in sections and subsections 69(1) through 69(3)(b)(ii) of the Access to Information Act”.
That would just clarify that the entire bundle is coming back, this time with all of the redactions removed except for those justified under section 69.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Pierre, can you just tell me what words you're adding? You read a lot, and I think most of that is already in the motion. I am just not clear on which part of what you said was different from the existing motion.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
After the word “Burnaby”, you would put—and you can do this in brackets or you can put it within two commas—“including all documents the government provided the Law Clerk in August”.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
What I would suggest, so that you're not in an impossible position, Mr. Fraser, is that we maybe suspend for another 15 minutes if we're all clear on that. Is everyone okay with that?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Just before we do, Pierre, can you just repeat those words so I know exactly what I'm dealing with here?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Yes. It would be after “the member for New Westminster-Burnaby” and would read “including all the documents that the government provided the law clerk in August” and then you would continue with “without any redaction, omission, or exclusion”.
It would now read:
That the committee temporarily set aside the motion relating to the Point of Privilege put forward for the Member for Carlton on October 8, 2020, and the subsequent sub-amendments moved by the Member for Calgary Rocky Ridge and the Member for Kingston and the Islands, and that the Committee adopt all evidence heard in the First Session of the 43[rd] Parliament during the committee's study on “Government Spending, WE and the Canada Student Service Grant”; and that the committee order that by November 24, 2020, the Government provide the Parliamentary Law Clerk with all documents as originally requested in the July 7, 2020 motion moved by the Member for New Westminster-Burnaby, including all documents the Government provided the Law Clerk, without any redaction, omission, or exclusion except as would be justified in sections and subsections 69(1) through 69(3)(b)(ii) of the Access to Information Act....
And rest would continue completely unchanged.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal